D&D 5E Players: Why Do You Want to Roll a d20?

[iserith]

Then I'm not sure why you brought up your personal goal in Vegas. Can you explain why it was relevant?

I can only speak and have only spoken for my goals and they are, in some ways, largely the same at the blackjack table and the D&D table - to be successful. In the case of D&D, that includes (but is not limited to) my characters achieving what I put them in the position to achieve. Avoiding the swinginess of a d20 wherever possible is my strategy for achieving that, just like certain betting strategies might be how I avoid losing more money than I win at blackjack.

 

[Bawylie]

I used to feel this as a player very much. The dice were objective, and therefore safe. The DM was subjective, and therefore untrustworthy. Didn’t really matter if the DM was generous with their adjudication, the fact that the could slam me with a gotcha or otherwise rule adversarial My was enough to fuel my anxiety and send me running for the perceived fairness of the random number generators.

What changed?

 

[coolAlias]

I used to feel this as a player very much. The dice were objective, and therefore safe. The DM was subjective, and therefore untrustworthy. Didn’t really matter if the DM was generous with their adjudication, the fact that the could slam me with a gotcha or otherwise rule adversarial My was enough to fuel my anxiety and send me running for the perceived fairness of the random number generators.

Then there is kind of the opposite issue, where a player rolls a natural 20 on their ability check and thinks that means not only automatic success, but critical success of some sort.

PC: Rolls Wisdom (Animal Handling) check.
PC: "Natural 20 baby! That dinosaur is now my permanent follower and obeys all my commands."
DM: -.-
DM: That's not really how this works... but sure. Chompy is now your loyal follower because why the hell not.

The problem with a shared fantasy is it's all in our minds, and our minds are not necessarily imagining the same things. What one person thinks should be obviously possible or auto-success, someone else might not, because they are imagining different constraints on the situation.

In my experience, this is the most common root cause of disagreements at the table between a player and DM.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

DM: That's not really how this works... but sure. Chompy is now your loyal follower because why the hell not.

Player characters in a campaign that I ran also had a dinosaur named Chompy that followed them around. It mostly like to wait until the wizard fell asleep and then chew on his robes.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I used to feel this as a player very much. The dice were objective, and therefore safe. The DM was subjective, and therefore untrustworthy. Didn’t really matter if the DM was generous with their adjudication, the fact that the could slam me with a gotcha or otherwise rule adversarially was enough to fuel my anxiety and send me clambering for the perceived fairness of the random number generators.

This is one of the reasons I try to demonstrate fairness, consistency, and generosity early on. (I say try for a reason)

On the earliest checks in the game I'll lay out stakes before a die is rolled. For example.

"Roll a DC 13 Wisdom Survival check. If you succeed you'll be able to discern the direction the gnolls are going immediately. If you fail it will take you one hour of moving in circles to figure out their trail." So that a player hopefully knows that when I ask for a check I've thought it through.

I'll also try to rule one thing in the first session an autosuccess (even if in my heart the approach doesn't quite deserve it): "Because of your background as an outlander, you succeed at tracking the gnolls without having to make a check" to demonstrate that this is possible to players.

 

[Charlaquin]

What changed?

I started DMing

Seriously though, getting to see the game from the other side of the screen was a revelation. At first I tried to be the DM I wished I’d had as a player, and I quickly realized that it made the game extremely boring. Everything was abstract, which made it very difficult to form any kind of narrative out of. I also found myself all too often having to fudge DCs because failure would mean killing what little momentum a scene had. So not only did the narrative not matter, neither did the mechanics. I felt like I wasn’t really running a game at all, I was just giving players the flimsiest of excuses to roll dice.

Then I started reading advice from the likes of you and Iserith (this was around the time of the 5e playtest). The Angry GM was also a big influence. I found that following this advice required a bit of a paradigm shift for me, but once I shifted gears it was a night and day change. The vast majority of my common DMing problems were caused by the way I was adjudicating actions. Now, as a player, I just describe actions and let the DM call for checks. As a result, my characters are generally very successful.

 

[Guest 6801328]

My theory is that the thought process is something like this:

"It's not obvious what to do next, so maybe if I do well on a skill check the DM will give me some information that will point me in the right way."

 

[Bawylie]

My theory is that the thought process is something like this:

"It's not obvious what to do next, so maybe if I do well on a skill check the DM will give me some information that will point me in the right way."

Yeah. I had a DM that used to ask us to roll “inspiration checks” for our characters to think of things.

 

[5ekyu]

Because I want to actively participate in the game. It's just a way of communicating to the DM what I'm thinking. Because most DMs I play with don't punish people for bad rolls. For example, if I make a stealth check and roll poorly the guards may see me. But they would have seen me anyway if I hadn't tried.

If I make an insight check and roll poorly, the status quo doesn't change (in my games or with most DMs, it may at your table). The DM doesn't tell me what I think, just that I can't pick up on any hint of deception or get a read on the NPC's attitude.

Just relating how it works in 5E games I've played with multiple DMs whether or not that matches up to your philosophy of how it should be run.

Tend to agree with this.

Whether or not I roll the d20, it's my expectation that the "chsnces" stay the same whether it's with me calling for a check or the GM and that if at the moment of action its "automatic" then my asking for a check eont change that. I dont buy into the cause-effect reversal of somevthst if the player calls for a check then there has to be failure possible.

Now, obviously, if there are things that help the task, then its bring used and brought up likely before the check. Sometimes it may be just obvious "ladder, climb" and included in narrative.

Now, I try and instill in my players that as a DM I am not hostile or yo be feared, but them using dice and adding their scores in resolving their stated actions is part of showing them their character stats mattering. It tends to amplify slightly the chsllenge overcome feeling more when they roll and succeed more than when it's just narration "you make it to".

So, especially in their strengths I try to let them show off.

I have seen gms in the past who stopped presenting ABC once the character(s) could just go thru it - best it in their strength. That seemed to discourage it.

But, then again, my lawyers also see that I use failure as progress with setback in ways that are often adding memorable fun and story hooks - so they dont tend to fear failing a roll.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah. I had a DM that used to ask us to roll “inspiration checks” for our characters to think of things.

ಠ_ಠ