iserith
Magic Wordsmith
Plenty of players will ask the DM if they can make an ability check or, in some cases, just make the check unprompted. "Can I make an Insight check to see if he's lying?" a player might ask. Or "I roll Perception - Natty 20, what do I get?" While that's not strictly speaking supported by the game's rules, it's a common enough way to play in my experience and certainly a feature of previous editions of the game. So it's easy to see where this approach comes from - either it's learned from other games and assumed to be part of D&D 5e or just part of a given group's culture, perhaps used as a shorthand.
Truly though, it doesn't seem like a good strategy to me if the group is playing by the rules. The rules state that the game is played like this: The DM describes the environment. The players describe what they want to do. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions, sometimes calling for a roll when there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. This is paraphrased from PHB page 6 and 174, plus DMG page 237. Taken together, these rules tell us who gets to say what and when and the criteria by which the DM should call for a roll.
The d20 is fickle. It has a very big swing that can mean, depending on the DC the DM has established, even highly capable characters fail. This is, in part, what makes Inspiration, guidance, and resources like the diviner's portent so valuable - you get to mitigate or in some cases eliminate the swing of the d20, to hopefully prevent it from killing you and everyone you've ever loved. Because it will, given half a chance.
In the context of the rules I paraphrased above and given the reality of the d20's swing, there's nothing in there that suggests to me that players should be asking to roll or declaring that they are rolling. In fact, it's fairly easy to see the best path to success is to avoid rolling if you can. That path to success is to take reasonably specific action to remove uncertainty as to the outcome and/or the meaningful consequence for failure. Those are the criteria by which the DM decides there is a roll of some kind. If you have a particular goal in mind, how might you establish an approach that is certain to succeed through removing uncertainty as to the outcome? What can you do to take away any meaningful consequence for failure? Without one or both of those things, the DM doesn't ask you to roll a d20 and you are not subject to its mercurial nature and all the painful outcomes that may follow.
Because I often play online, I have the good fortune of joining a lot of different groups to see how they do things. One thing remains the same though - I describe what I want to do in a reasonably specific manner which takes into account the environment the DM has described and I never, ever ask to make an ability check. What I've noticed, anecdotally, is that my characters tend to be way more successful than players at the table who do ask to make checks. I've paid attention. I've given some measure of thought about how to remove uncertainty and/or the meaningful consequence of failure, and I am reasonably specific about how to do that. And, unless the DM is one who uses the "Rolling With It" method (DMG, page 236), I am often granted automatic success. Does that mean I never have to roll? No - sometimes despite my best efforts, there are elements in play over which my character has no control and so I'm going to have to roll. That's alright. This is when I hopefully can spend some resources to mitigate the swinginess of that d20 and increase my odds of success.
In a practical sense, this strategy for success means that I am paying more attention when I play which benefits the group as a whole. It also means that I'm seen as a "good roleplayer" because I'm picking up on and engaging with details in the game setting and interacting chiefly without referencing game mechanics. Now, I don't necessarily think that makes me a "good roleplayer" in the sense that most people mean it, but I'll take it if everyone else thinks it makes the game experience better. It also means that I'm getting more out of the resources my character has and, in a game that has a strong resource management component, this makes me more efficient and increases the party's ability to boldly confront deadly perils. An interesting side effect is that this efficiency also permits me to sometimes be even bolder than usual and take extreme risks when it will have the biggest dramatic impact since I have plenty of resources in reserve to get myself out of trouble. It allows me to do that One Cool Thing in the session that will be memorable.
So, that's my position on this issue. I'm interested in hearing why you want to roll a d20? Or, if you don't, do you have other reasons why you don't?
Truly though, it doesn't seem like a good strategy to me if the group is playing by the rules. The rules state that the game is played like this: The DM describes the environment. The players describe what they want to do. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions, sometimes calling for a roll when there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. This is paraphrased from PHB page 6 and 174, plus DMG page 237. Taken together, these rules tell us who gets to say what and when and the criteria by which the DM should call for a roll.
The d20 is fickle. It has a very big swing that can mean, depending on the DC the DM has established, even highly capable characters fail. This is, in part, what makes Inspiration, guidance, and resources like the diviner's portent so valuable - you get to mitigate or in some cases eliminate the swing of the d20, to hopefully prevent it from killing you and everyone you've ever loved. Because it will, given half a chance.
In the context of the rules I paraphrased above and given the reality of the d20's swing, there's nothing in there that suggests to me that players should be asking to roll or declaring that they are rolling. In fact, it's fairly easy to see the best path to success is to avoid rolling if you can. That path to success is to take reasonably specific action to remove uncertainty as to the outcome and/or the meaningful consequence for failure. Those are the criteria by which the DM decides there is a roll of some kind. If you have a particular goal in mind, how might you establish an approach that is certain to succeed through removing uncertainty as to the outcome? What can you do to take away any meaningful consequence for failure? Without one or both of those things, the DM doesn't ask you to roll a d20 and you are not subject to its mercurial nature and all the painful outcomes that may follow.
Because I often play online, I have the good fortune of joining a lot of different groups to see how they do things. One thing remains the same though - I describe what I want to do in a reasonably specific manner which takes into account the environment the DM has described and I never, ever ask to make an ability check. What I've noticed, anecdotally, is that my characters tend to be way more successful than players at the table who do ask to make checks. I've paid attention. I've given some measure of thought about how to remove uncertainty and/or the meaningful consequence of failure, and I am reasonably specific about how to do that. And, unless the DM is one who uses the "Rolling With It" method (DMG, page 236), I am often granted automatic success. Does that mean I never have to roll? No - sometimes despite my best efforts, there are elements in play over which my character has no control and so I'm going to have to roll. That's alright. This is when I hopefully can spend some resources to mitigate the swinginess of that d20 and increase my odds of success.
In a practical sense, this strategy for success means that I am paying more attention when I play which benefits the group as a whole. It also means that I'm seen as a "good roleplayer" because I'm picking up on and engaging with details in the game setting and interacting chiefly without referencing game mechanics. Now, I don't necessarily think that makes me a "good roleplayer" in the sense that most people mean it, but I'll take it if everyone else thinks it makes the game experience better. It also means that I'm getting more out of the resources my character has and, in a game that has a strong resource management component, this makes me more efficient and increases the party's ability to boldly confront deadly perils. An interesting side effect is that this efficiency also permits me to sometimes be even bolder than usual and take extreme risks when it will have the biggest dramatic impact since I have plenty of resources in reserve to get myself out of trouble. It allows me to do that One Cool Thing in the session that will be memorable.
So, that's my position on this issue. I'm interested in hearing why you want to roll a d20? Or, if you don't, do you have other reasons why you don't?
Last edited:
