D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[robus]

Some have done so, mostly obliquely, by calling it, "creative dice rolling" or something along those lines.

Also, the dice roll is only a tool that might be used in the adjudication. The question (or a statement of action and intent) is what requires adjudication. It would require such with or without a dice roll.

Oohh - that might have been me, actually. Touché!

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I think the problem with just allowing players to roll for knowledge is that there's nothing stopping the whole group from just tossing their dice on the table and hoping someone rolls high. And the odds say yes someone will and thus trivialize the encounter.

I don't have any problem with all of the players checking to see if they know the thing. Also, I don't have any problem with my encounters being trivialized. At least partly because the style of game that I most often run is more interested in what the characters do and why or how they do it, rather if they do it. I expect at least one of them to succeed most of the time.

This might have been something the DM had put in to allow one of the players to show off their character. They might have been formulating an approach that dipped into their background and skills in order to justify why they might know this bit of lore and next to them, but a player just rushes in, rolls a nat-20 and says "Hey DM - I obviously know all about this because nat-20. So spill!"

I also don't really ever do this. I don't put much thought at all into who might solve the problem before them, or how they might do it, I just assume that it'll get solved one way or another, or... you know... sometimes it won't.

 

[iserith]

When my players want to recall something I have them give reasons why their characters might have reason to know. It potentially enriches the character's backstory and adds something to the session. If they can't think of any reason then there's no reason for them to roll.

This is an often overlooked aspect of this approach in my opinion. What happens in play is that you end up getting little bits of fleshed out character history with each attempt to recall lore which add up over time into a much more realized character. That's especially important in a game like mine where I encourage players to leave their character backstories brief on the front end so there's room to grow during play.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

So, in my symbol of Zuggtmoy example, assuming that the response to, "Is that symbol something [my character] might recognize?" (ignoring the dice roll for the time being) was something along the lines of, "what part of [your character's] background might have given him previous exposure to that symbol?" How closely does the player's response (given that the player may or may not have any idea what the symbol might be representative of) need to match the context of the symbol? Also, how much sense does it need to make?

Would, "[my character] spent four years studying symbols and their meanings." do it? What if the character was a barbarian? How about, "[my character] took two semesters of symbology in community college" Would it matter that the possible presence of community colleges, while not typically part of the genre, had not been explicitly ruled out? How about, "As a sailor, [my character] spends a lot of time in tattoo parlors?" What if that same sentence started with, "As an accountant"?

If the character had previously been described as being knowledgeable about religious symbols, but due to lack of context said instead, "[my character] has spent some time tracing the activities of the local slavers." Would you still give them the information on Zuggtmoy? Would you deny them any information at all? Would you tell them that the symbol had a religious significance, but that they couldn't bring it to mind?

What if the player used the same (seemingly reasonable) rationalization every time, "[my character] spent twelve years apprenticed to a wizard that made him recite lines from obscure tomes on demand."

These are (to me) practical, rather than rhetorical questions, as I may want to try something like this. So, while some of the questions seem somewhat nonsensical, take that as an indication of the type of play I expect from my group.

 

[robus]

So, in my symbol of Zuggtmoy example, assuming that the response to, "Is that symbol something [my character] might recognize?" (ignoring the dice roll for the time being) was something along the lines of, "what part of [your character's] background might have given him previous exposure to that symbol?" How closely does the player's response (given that the player may or may not have any idea what the symbol might be representative of) need to match the context of the symbol? Also, how much sense does it need to make?

Would, "[my character] spent four years studying symbols and their meanings." do it? What if the character was a barbarian? How about, "[my character] took two semesters of symbology in community college" Would it matter that the possible presence of community colleges, while not typically part of the genre, had not been explicitly ruled out? How about, "As a sailor, [my character] spends a lot of time in tattoo parlors?" What if that same sentence started with, "As an accountant"?

If the character had previously been described as being knowledgeable about religious symbols, but due to lack of context said instead, "[my character] has spent some time tracing the activities of the local slavers." Would you still give them the information on Zuggtmoy? Would you deny them any information at all? Would you tell them that the symbol had a religious significance, but that they couldn't bring it to mind?

What if the player used the same (seemingly reasonable) rationalization every time, "[my character] spent twelve years apprenticed to a wizard that made him recite lines from obscure tomes on demand."

These are (to me) practical, rather than rhetorical questions, as I may want to try something like this. So, while some of the questions seem somewhat nonsensical, take that as an indication of the type of play I expect from my group.

Some reasonable (or entertaining) explanation is all that's desired - something other than just a lucky roll. Remember we're trying to resolve uncertainty, not introduce it . So the more convincing the argument the better the chance is that there is no roll, your character knows the meaning and the information is given. If you're skilled in arcana then a simple reference to your years of training is all that would be required.

Just something other than "I rolled 16 what do I know about this symbol?"

 

[Satyrn]

This [from post 236, a while back I realize] just has to be called out.By this logic, if the search roll is a test of whether there's something there to find then the str-18 fighter swinging her greataxe is a test of whether there's something there to hit. In other words: by this logic she can make opponents appear out of thin air simply by swinging her axe for the hell of it, just like a searcher can make a secret door appear on the map where one wasn't before just by searching a wall for the hell of it.

Seriously?

Yes, there seriously are games like that. Here's one of them

It's great fun to play.

 

[Satyrn]

Some questions have built in actions, though. If a player is asking me if the door is locked, the PC must touch the door handle/knob to find out.

Or they could cast thaumaturgy.

 

[redrick]

I think the problem with just allowing players to roll for knowledge is that there's nothing stopping the whole group from just tossing their dice on the table and hoping someone rolls high. And the odds say yes someone will and thus trivialize the encounter.

This might have been something the DM had put in to allow one of the players to show off their character. They might have been formulating an approach that dipped into their background and skills in order to justify why they might know this bit of lore and next to them, but a player just rushes in, rolls a nat-20 and says "Hey DM - I obviously know all about this because nat-20. So spill!"

When my players want to recall something I have them give reasons why their characters might have reason to know. It potentially enriches the character's backstory and adds something to the session. If they can't think of any reason then there's no reason for them to roll.

Agreed. If there is information that players need, it shouldn't be gated behind a knowledge check. Litter clues per Bawylie, or just give it to them through an NPC or a journal or whatever. If there is information to be gained by a knowledge check, that should be a way to showcase particular background or proficiency of that character. A roll is not always required.

When you roll around a table on a knowledge check, particularly at low levels, odds are somebody at the table will roll better than the person who actually has proficiency in that skill.

 

[5ekyu]

You know, it's much easier to reduce someone's methods down to something absurd than it is to understand them. I know, I've done that before myself. I'm trying to be better than that though.

If you're up for actually understanding what I'm talking about, I'm up for the challenge. Because if this is what you think I'm talking about, you've completely missed the mark.

Maybe you feel, this was entirely "off the mark" but if you look thru this thread, you will see an altar where "touching it with living flesh" is a key detail that puts "did you touch it with your hand" as a key [PLAYER SAID] element in the treatement plus the references to contact poison and jiggling the lock for repercussions from "is it locked."

Maybe you don't feel this kind of pitfall applies to you or your games, but we have those examples and more in this thread which either directly say or strongly imply the wording of the player, the phrasing of the player for such details is of KEY IMPORTANCE to consequences - seeming to view them as "enabling" the bad stuff to happen.

i see this as a "catch the player" rather than "character success/fail" approach. You may not, thats fine. But your specific defense of this not being what you think is a bit off since it was not a response of mine which quoted you per se and i dont seem to recall you pushing back to distance yourself from the "player's description makes clear if they" "touched the altar", "otuched the lock" etc etc type of claims.

 

[5ekyu]

Agreed. If there is information that players need, it shouldn't be gated behind a knowledge check. Litter clues per Bawylie, or just give it to them through an NPC or a journal or whatever. If there is information to be gained by a knowledge check, that should be a way to showcase particular background or proficiency of that character. A roll is not always required.

When you roll around a table on a knowledge check, particularly at low levels, odds are somebody at the table will roll better than the person who actually has proficiency in that skill.

EXACTLY!!!

As i described earlier, info NECESSARY for the story, that has to be there, is part of defaults info available with often multiple paths to get to it. Secondary info which may help planning (bronze) is often circumstantially locked - requiring actions and choices, not checks - like "go talk to that guy" or "go check the local scrolls" etc. SILVER (skill success) and GOLD (exceptional difficult skill success or combo of skill success and circumstance) are key yo gaining additional gains and benefits that make the objectives either easier or substantially more beneficial.

That is not to say "skills" or "aptitude" might not be needed to succeed, just as combat may be, but as far as knowledge *NEEDED* to proceed... not locked behind random checks but maybe easier to get thru checks.

one could almost describe the approach as "how far does it go if they always roll 1s?"