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

[Maxperson]

My point is, I don't remember specifically what kind of breath weapon a dragon has. I think "what do I know about red dragons".

And in doing so, you draw upon the lore of the Monster Manual. Even if you are not consciously thinking about it, that is what you are doing. All the player is doing is letting the DM know where the knowledge came from.

But nobody has answered my question. If I ask "Do trolls have ranged attacks" (or whatever the proper phrasing would be) do I also know about their regen? Is it the same DC or automatic like the answer to my specific question?

Maybe. It all depends. And there is no "proper phrasing."

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, it’s ignoring now, not blocking. The ignored user can still see your posts, you just can’t see theirs. Which is a little annoying, but at least we no longer have the problem where if someone blocks you it screws up redirects in any thread they’ve posted in.

Personally, I think this is the best way. I think people should be able to avoid my posts if that's what they want to do, but I don't block anyone, because everyone has something interesting to say at least sometimes, and I don't want to miss out on something good.

 

[Campbell]

I think part of the issue might be how we see what is happening in the fiction when something like an Arcana check is called for and what the roll actually resolves. As far as I am concerned it is resolving what can I recall in this highly specific moment in time. It is not resolving what your character knows in the broad sense of what they have been exposed to in years of study. Given more time they would probably be able to piece together more and can try to do so over the course of a fight if need be.

I look at it like this. I am a software engineer. I have worked with a number of different technology stacks over the years. I broadly know a lot about a number of different technologies, programming techniques, databases, and the like. In the moment of coding a solution this is not all immediately available to me. I must exert mental effort to recall how to do things even if I have done so 100 times before.

I view skilled play of the fiction to be a crucial skill that new players should learn over time if they want to be good at the game. This includes things like investigating the right areas, choosing where to look for hidden enemies, use of divination spells, and use of knowledge skills. It also includes finding and exploiting leverage to convince NPCs to do the things you want them to. I try to guide new players through this process.

I know this might be contentious in some parts, but I want to foster an environment where skilled play of the fiction and mechanics of the game are rewarded. Moldvay B/X is one of my favorite versions of the game and I tend to hew pretty close to its advice on how to referee Dungeons and Dragons. I set up an environment meant to challenge the players and it is up to them to navigate it using their skills as players and the abilities of their characters.

 

[FrogReaver]

I will repeat. There is nothing wrong with learning by doing. "Look! The wound is closing"(doing). Followed by, "I draw upon the lore my grandfather taught me about his adventuring days and figure out how to prevent that from happening"(more doing). Followed by, DM: "You succeed!", "You fail!", or "Roll a d20 and let's see if you know.

And before we get more "magic words" crap, that's not even close to the only way a newbie could phrase it to find out. All without knowing a thing about the game.

so when he fails by calling on the lore his grandfather taught him, should he then try to lore his grandmother taught him? what about the lore he found out at the bar, should he try that next? etc etc etc...

 

[Swarmkeeper]

so when he fails by calling on the lore his grandfather taught him, should he then try to lore his grandmother taught him? what about the lore he found out at the bar, should he try that next? etc etc etc...

The somewhat analogous situation in the “just invoke the mechanic” camp might be: I roll History... dang 8... let me try again... c’mon 15... good? No? ... ok I roll History again... 12... er... etc etc

One might say the straw men look much the same no matter which play style you prefer. Neither of these things are happening at the tables anyone here plays at. But I bet people are having fun at all those tables and the adjudication process is not nearly as awkward as these examples might try to suggest. At least that is some common ground.

 

[Guest 6801328]

So can you answer the question. I ask about trolls and ranged attacks. Do I also know about regen at the same DC?

While I realize that not everyone plays the same, if asking for specific info grants you only that specific info and nothing more (or at a higher DC) then I think it's a game of 20 questions. If not, then why bother asking for specifics?

I think here you're mixing two (or maybe even three) play styles that don't mix well. If you want to "know if you know about their regen" then I think you're asking a metagaming question. It sounds like you DO know about their regen, and you want to know if it's ok to let your character know it. And that's totally up to you how you want to play it.

But if you're encountering a new creature...a Gru, let's say...and you know nothing about it, and you state, "I'm going to wrack my brains for anything my Patron might have told me during our late night telepathic bull sessions", and the DM says, "Ha. But I like that...give me a nature check" and you roll well, how much of the Gru's special abilities is simply up to your DM. There's no deterministic rule for how well, or how often, you need to roll.

 

[FrogReaver]

The somewhat analogous situation in the “just invoke the mechanic” camp might be: I roll History... dang 8... let me try again... c’mon 15... good? No? ... ok I roll History again... 12... er... etc etc

One might say the straw men look much the same no matter which play style you prefer. Neither of these things are happening at the tables anyone here plays at. But I bet people are having fun at all those tables and the adjudication process is not nearly as awkward as these examples might try to suggest. At least that is some common ground.

Not really analogous - attempting the same goal with a different approach is a sensible thing to try.

Attempting the same thing over and over again expecting a different result is not sensible.

 

[Charlaquin]

So can you answer the question. I ask about trolls and ranged attacks. Do I also know about regen at the same DC?

While I realize that not everyone plays the same, if asking for specific info grants you only that specific info and nothing more (or at a higher DC) then I think it's a game of 20 questions. If not, then why bother asking for specifics?

I think the “not everyone plays the same” part is playing a huge part in the lack of direct answers that you’re experiencing. Like, the more specific we’re getting into how to handle a player wanting to know about certain monsters or whatever, the more the small differences in our DMing styles are muddling the issue. We seem to be treating the way Iserith handles... I’ll call them “recall actions” ...as representative of the “middle path” DMing style, but a lot of people who aren’t Iserith are weighing in on how they would do it, and I’m sitting here like... This line of questioning no longer bears any resemblance to what actually happens in my games.

 

[Maxperson]

so when he fails by calling on the lore his grandfather taught him, should he then try to lore his grandmother taught him? what about the lore he found out at the bar, should he try that next? etc etc etc...

You are missing that calling on the lore his grandfather taught him is not a conscious thing. That's just to inform the DM. Once fails to remember or he never knew(failed roll or outright no), he is done. There is no grandmother lore to call on.

 

[Charlaquin]

Not really analogous - attempting the same goal with a different approach is a sensible thing to try.

Attempting the same thing over and over again expecting a different result is not sensible.

Worth noting, the “middle path” style has no restriction around repeated actions. In fact, that’s a big part of the “meaningful consequence for failure” requirement for a roll - if there’s nothing stopping you from trying repeatedly until you succeed, you succeed.