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

[iserith]

Given the choice between these two approaches:
"Player always states goal and approach; DM resolves"

It really couldn't be easier. It's a conversation. If you're capable of having a conversation without too much difficulty, then you can do it. It also avoids a lot of common problems that arise in gameplay.

 

[Maxperson]

The other problem I have with the style as I understand it is that it's nonsensical. Memory doesn't work that way.

If I think about red dragons, I don't remember just that they have resistance to fire. I also recall the breath weapon, they fly, they get far more powerful as they age and the older ones can shrug off spells that normally should have affected them. Lairs for older dragons almost become extensions of the dragons themselves. I may not remember the fear aura or legendary actions (however I want to state that in game terms) depending on how recently I read the entry which is going to be pretty random.

Maybe you remember all of those things, but a lot of other people remember less. You just rolled higher than they did and remember more. Why? Because memory DOES work that way. You don't always remember everything, and sometimes you remember very little.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The former leaves off all the other life experiences wherein you may have heard about or came into contact with magical locks. That's the issue.

And so you're expecting the DM to know all of the character's life experiences (wherein he may have heard about or came into contact with magical locks) when determining the outcome?

Which he would have to do, anyway, in order to set the DC, if what you want is a player-initiated skill check.

But, of course, we don't expect him to do that. Using skill checks from previous editions, we would expect him (or her) to just kind of make up a DC which seems...something. "Ok, DC 15."

And if we're willing to grant the DM that power, I'm also willing to grant the DM authority to just say "yes" or "no". But I would also like the opportunity to nudge that toward yes (or maybe at least getting a roll, if the default answer would have been no) by giving him/her a specific example of applicable life experiences. That contributes to developing my character as a person, rather than just a list of stats.

 

[iserith]

Oh, and regarding skill checks for knowledge/memory, given that there's no real consequence to failing to remember something (in the sense that your don't make your situation worse by not remembering) I am fine with the DM just making the call:

"I quickly think about all the magical locks I studied in wizard school to see if I'm familiar with this one."
"Sorry, no."

Works for me. It doesn't really add anything to my game to let me roll a die to overrule what the DM thinks is appropriate. (And if I thought otherwise, I wouldn't be playing with that DM.)

Right. Generally speaking, I'm going to either give you the info or ask for a roll, provided it meets the requirements for asking for a check of some kind. Really the only time I'm going to say "No" is going to be related to information that is kept secret, lost, or otherwise unknown to the world and that's usually going to be very specific stuff related to the plot or the like.

There are very few benefits in my view to hiding information in a game where players have a harder time acting without it.

I'd also be ok with the DM making a secret roll and on a failure giving me wrong information that will cause problems.

I don't care for this approach myself. I feel like it erodes trust in the DM and it also doesn't actually help the player or encourage the sort of actions to get at recalling lore since the player can never be sure whether the information the DM is giving out is correct. You're basically left in the same position as you were before you took the action and so you may as well not even do it. I prefer the dice resolve uncertainty rather than create it.

 

[Maxperson]

Obviously I can't, at least not and enjoy the benefits of the auto success paradigm you've advocated for.

If the detail I think will be most interesting isn't the detail that's most likely to give me an auto success that's an issue. Then there's also the issue of just going through interesting details again and again looking for the same piece of info.

ME: I try to recall troll info from the library
DM: You don't
ME: I try to recall troll info from the bar
DM: You don't
ME: I try to recall troll info from church sermons
DM: You don't
ME: I try to recall troll info from theatre
DM: You don't
...

I just wanna roll each of those approaches into a single approach. Why would you force me to go through each one?

He wouldn't. Once you've stated the goal and the approach, you either succeed at learning about trolls, fail to recall anything about trolls, or get a roll to see which happens. Once that's done, you're done. Either your PC remembered or he didn't.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I don't think so. He's specified that he needs an approach and a goal. Grappling the orc is only the goal. Where's the approach?

See, this is where you're arguing in bad faith, by pretending to confuse formally defined actions (of which Grapple is one) with poorly defined tasks that require judgment calls.

All he is saying...and I think you know this...is that the player should say what they do. "Goal and approach" is a useful way of avoiding ambiguity. When you invoke a formally defined action, like Grapple, there is very little ambiguity. It is both goal and approach.

Of course, there are situations where more information might be needed. Maybe the orc is behind bars, so it's not obvious how you grapple him. Or he's too far away. Or you are carrying something heavy with both arms. In all of those cases you would need to add some "approach".

I don't like using the "block" feature, but I think I shall choose to not engage with you further on this topic unless you actually want to have a conversation, instead of engaging in semantic gotchas.

 

[Maxperson]

I've never once spoken about a scenario where there's more than 1 orc beside my PC

The quote of yours I responded to was a response to Iserith's scenario with 8 orcs, not a lone orc.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I don't care for this approach myself. I feel like it erodes trust in the DM and it also doesn't actually help the player or encourage the sort of actions to get at recalling lore since the player can never be sure whether the information the DM is giving out is correct. You're basically left in the same position as you were before you took the action and so you may as well not even do it. I prefer the dice resolve uncertainty rather than create it.

Admittedly I don't love secret rolls, either. But I'm not staunchly opposed to them.

 

[FrogReaver]

And so you're expecting the DM to know all of the character's life experiences (wherein he may have heard about or came into contact with magical locks) when determining the outcome?

Which he would have to do, anyway, in order to set the DC, if what you want is a player-initiated skill check.

But, of course, we don't expect him to do that. Using skill checks from previous editions, we would expect him (or her) to just kind of make up a DC which seems...something. "Ok, DC 15."

Yes the DM will have to quickly evaluate and estimate the impact of my life experiences on the DC. That's a fairly common thing he has to do for NPC's as well. He should actually be doing that before setting the DC, at the do you auto succeed or fail step. You see I don't want to remove that step. It's just that basing everything on the 1 specific event I decide to cite in my approach doesn't work.

And if we're willing to grant the DM that power, I'm also willing to grant the DM authority to just say "yes" or "no". But I would also like the opportunity to nudge that toward yes (or maybe at least getting a roll, if the default answer would have been no) by giving him/her a specific example of applicable life experiences. That contributes to developing my character as a person, rather than just a list of stats.

How many times do I have to say I'm fine with autosuccess or auto failure. I'm not fine with the stated specific approach goal prerequisite to get to that point (at least not for lore)

 

[Maxperson]

Admittedly I don't love secret rolls, either. But I'm not staunchly opposed to them.

For myself, I don't like them as I already have more than enough to deal with. I don't want to add more rolls to my work load. That and most players I've gamed with like to roll their own skill checks.