Willful Disadvantage

[Jester David]

As the DM, I ask for the type of check, the player doesn't say "I make a Deception roll", they describe what they're doing and I decide what flavour of Charisma check is required.

If the player asks to have disadvantage on that roll... sure, why not? Have disadvantage. And if it's an a very inconvenient place in the story, I'll even award Inspiration.

 

[5ekyu]

So I'm curious. Would any DM's here allow a player to choose or request to have disadvantage on a roll they normally wouldn't have disadvantage on?

Reason I'm asking is because I'm about to play a Kobold character that is a horrible liar. He gets visibly nervous and starts licking his eye (as reptiles do). I feel like anytime he would attempt deception rolls, he would be at disadvantage. But he doesn't have any mechanical reason for constant disadvantage. And this isn't a matter where I'm asking for any kind of compensating mechanical benefit (like advantage on insight checks). I'm not looking for anything like that.

And this got me thinking, in general how would you handle this at your table? Would you allow a player to request disadvantage?

Sounds like a manifestation of a flaw.

 

[SkidAce]

So I'm curious. Would any DM's here allow a player to choose or request to have disadvantage on a roll they normally wouldn't have disadvantage on?

Reason I'm asking is because I'm about to play a Kobold character that is a horrible liar. He gets visibly nervous and starts licking his eye (as reptiles do). I feel like anytime he would attempt deception rolls, he would be at disadvantage. But he doesn't have any mechanical reason for constant disadvantage. And this isn't a matter where I'm asking for any kind of compensating mechanical benefit (like advantage on insight checks). I'm not looking for anything like that.

And this got me thinking, in general how would you handle this at your table? Would you allow a player to request disadvantage?

Sure!

 

[Reynard]

As the DM, I ask for the type of check, the player doesn't say "I make a Deception roll", they describe what they're doing and I decide what flavour of Charisma check is required.

In my games, "I make a Deception check," is a perfectly valid player statement, to which I respond, "How?" I much prefer giving the player the opportunity to use the things they decided were important during character generation in actual play. Besides, I have enough to do as a DM that I don't need to try and stymie the players playing their characters.

 

[Blue]

I actively encourage players being explicit in their communication with the DM. That doesn't mean there's a roll, doesn't mean it will have disadvantage. It's a statment of the player's intent for what they are trying to do. It would be really odd for me not to grant it (assuming it wasn't an auto-fail or there wasn't particular other things in play), but even if I don't grant it, I want to hear clearly what they are trying.

Let me give a real life example from my last session as a player. We were dealing with someone who didn't like us (in general) whom we didn't have a beef with, and were in a verbal sparring stage. I offered him all of the coin I had on me for safe passage for the group. The DM asked for a deception roll. I was not trying to deceive the NPC. My character was fully intended to pay without trickery to get past him. (My halfling is not particularly greed-oriented, nor carrying a lot of money.) I then communicated with the DM explicitly that my statement wasn't a deception, it was truthful. In this case the DM assumed (incorrectly) that I wasn't planning on paying so asked for the wrong wrong, but after a bit of clear discussions he asked for a persuasion roll and we moved on.

D&D is a group activity around a shared story - communication is key. Even if you tell them "I'll figure out if it's disadvantage or not, tell me explicitly what you do", don't choke off or discourage communication within the group. Don't stop some of it simply because a player used a game term and there's some line-in-the-sand where someone feels that game terms are only a DM prerogative in speaking. Again, the DM doesn't need to agree it's the mechanic is going to be used, but please listen respectfully.

 

[KahlessNestor]

I am just unsure how an NPC would even know the eyeball licking is a tell to impose disadvantage. Maybe with an Insight check, or if it was an NPC that you frequently interact with so he knows you well, but nothing that would automatically impose disadvantage.

 

[iserith]

In my games, "I make a Deception check," is a perfectly valid player statement, to which I respond, "How?"

I think that is the proper response, along with "I need to hear what you're doing and hope to achieve in order to decide if you even need to make a check and, if you do, what the DC will be and what it looks like if you fail."

If the player was new to my table and didn't understand why players should not ask for ability checks, I might take the time to explain why that is.

 

[GMMichael]

Sure. I'll always let you choose to penalize yourself.

True, I decide if a check is needed in the 1st place. But if you want negatives? Ok.

The reverse does not apply. Only I decide if bonuses apply.

This is my initial reaction, but I think it's missing something.

I think that a player choosing to penalize his roll is actually a player choosing to give himself a bonus, but changing his goal.

So you have the kobold who tells lies poorly. If a player penalizes his own roll (or takes the lower of two rolls), he's not trying to fail at deceiving someone, he's trying to succeed at being unpersuasive (and giving himself an effective bonus on the roll). Or worse, he's saying that he grants his opponent an automatic success, which goes against "only I decide if bonuses apply."

The solution is that, when a player wants disadvantage or to lose a contest, the player has to change the goal and try to succeed at the new goal.

The kobold's player, instead of trying to fail at lying well, tries to succeed at lying poorly. Then the GM 1) decides if a roll is needed, and 2) sets an appropriate difficulty, and the player doesn't even worry about trying to self-impose disadvantage.

 

[Mort]

To the OP:

I'll agree with the consensus in the thread. If a player wants to be a bad liar, and asks that disadvantage be imposed, I'll oblige.

Note, if the player is great in applying this disadvantage, especially to the mutual fun of the table, it's likely be liberal with giving inspiration.

Advantage and Disadvantage are something a DM can arbitrate at need. If a player roleplays a deception check in a way that would suggest to me that the deception would be easier to discern, I would absolutely impose disadvantage. Alternatively, if the deception was roleplayed convincingly, I would impose advantage.

If a player requested disadvantage, i would have no issues with that. Likely, the way you describe roleplaying the deception, I would give you disadvantage anyways.

Do you control for players not great at roleplaying? Or a player that happens to be a terrible liar, but is playing an amazingly glib character?

 

[ccs]

This is my initial reaction, but I think it's missing something.

I think that a player choosing to penalize his roll is actually a player choosing to give himself a bonus, but changing his goal.

So you have the kobold who tells lies poorly. If a player penalizes his own roll (or takes the lower of two rolls), he's not trying to fail at deceiving someone, he's trying to succeed at being unpersuasive (and giving himself an effective bonus on the roll). Or worse, he's saying that he grants his opponent an automatic success, which goes against "only I decide if bonuses apply."

The solution is that, when a player wants disadvantage or to lose a contest, the player has to change the goal and try to succeed at the new goal.

The kobold's player, instead of trying to fail at lying well, tries to succeed at lying poorly. Then the GM 1) decides if a roll is needed, and 2) sets an appropriate difficulty, and the player doesn't even worry about trying to self-impose disadvantage.

You're waaay overthinking it.