D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[5ekyu]

"1. The DM describes the environment."



"2. The players describe what they want to do..."



"...sometimes, resolving a task is easy... some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventure to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action."

So the character's proficiency may play a role after the player describes what he or she wants to do. After that's determined and the appropriate mechanics applied (if any), then "3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions."



I wouldn't describe the environment any differently in most cases.

Though the question was not directed to you ss it was not your chosen example, thanks for your input even if you only replied to the main question with a quote plus maybe and not anything definitive.

Of course, not being your chosen example, i would not expect more.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[iserith]

D&D doesn't really have an "Idea" roll like some games. The, "Umm, I'm stuck, what do I do?" A player might say, "Hmm, does my knowledge of arcana or religion give me any ideas about how best to behave around a glowing altar in an evil temple?" In which case I might let them roll the check and them give them some advice. I dunno.

Interestingly, getting "a gut feeling about what course of action to follow" might be resolved by a Wisdom check per the rules.

Though I've never had a player consult his or her character's gut as to what to do.

 

[iserith]

Though the question was not directed to you ss it was not your chosen example, thanks for your input even if you only replied to the main question with a quote plus maybe and not anything definitive.

Of course, not being your chosen example, i would not expect more.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

I disagree, I think my answers were full and complete and show a basis in the rules of the game. It wasn't my example, but Ovinomancer and I appear to handle the basic conversation of the game largely the same way, with some differences as he indicated upthread. What about my answer was unclear or incomplete if I may ask?

 

[5ekyu]

So I think this is getting into the broader question of — do you encourage your players to solve all problems through player choices, or do your players solve problems by rolling off their character skill proficiencies. Which everybody has their own take on.

For myself, an evil glowing altar in an evil temple is not meant to be a puzzle to be solved by the players. My goal would be to make sure that everybody at the table understood, as a player, that touching the altar is going to carry a lot of risks. I would then put the burden on the players to play their characters as they see fit. So, a character with no knowledge of Arcana and a low intelligence might say, "huh, I wonder what this big glowing thing is, I guess I'll touch it and find out!" Or they might say, "Umm, I don't know what that is, but I'm scared! Ugg no like glowing altars!" A wizard with high arcana might say, "Yep, definitely a cursed altar. Best stay clear." Or they might say, "Hmm, altar in evil temple. Arcane, infernal engravings. Brown, rusty flakes, most likely dried blood. I'm going to conduct a series of tests, first of all by tapping on it with my fingers."

That's how that encounter would be run. As a challenge to the imp of the perverse. And who knows, maybe the altar is actually a captured, converted good altar, just waiting for the touch of an innocent soul to free it from its cursed enchantment?

D&D doesn't really have an "Idea" roll like some games. The, "Umm, I'm stuck, what do I do?" A player might say, "Hmm, does my knowledge of arcana or religion give me any ideas about how best to behave around a glowing altar in an evil temple?" In which case I might let them roll the check and them give them some advice. I dunno.

My experience, as a player and a DM, is that many players like to play stupid.

And certainly nothing prevents intentional risk taking when they feel its in their character to do.

As for broader questions... I am just asking for thise case which was brought up and used in such thorough detail what role if any the character's skill was tp play by the describer in his overall process.

If i go by what was said, no role at all.

But since i am supposed to read with charity, i ask for clarification.



Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[Maxperson]

This, in particular, makes no sense to me. I cannot even fathom how a game can take place if the players are not allowed to ask questions.

It's actually really easy. Instead of asking, "Is there a candle in the room.", the players are encouraged to say something like, "I look around the room for a candle.". And instead of "Can I jump off the ledge safely?", the player says, "I look off the edge of the ledge and estimate the danger of leaping down.". Very few questions ever need to be asked of the DM.

 

[Charlaquin]

Also, frankly, is it such a bad thing if this approach leads players to be careful and intentional when describing their actions? I would consider that a point in favor of the approach. Provided, of course, that there is an understanding between the players and the DM that the intent is not to trick the players into bad situations, but to give the players’ choices meaning, and that the DM will accordingly give the players enough information to make informed decisions.

If I just say “there’s a spooky altar”, a player says “I search it for secret compartments” and I spring a curse on them because they didn’t say they weren’t touching it, or probe them with questions about how they search it to try to get them to say they touch it, then yeah, I’m being a “gotcha DM.” But that’s not what I do. I clearly describe all the dead bugs on the altar, the faint aura of negative energy, the smell of rot, to project that maybe this thing isn’t safe to touch. I don’t hide that information behind a perception check, because that information is essential for the players to make an informed decision about how to go about investingating it. If I give them that information and they decide to go up and feel the runes on it, the curse triggering isn’t some unavoidable trick of a malicious DM, it’s the world reacting to the players’ informed choices in an internally consistent way.

As for where character skill enters the equation, it’s when the players make a decision that has an uncertain outcome. Maybe they describe prodding at the altar with a 10-Foot pole, or giving it a thorough visual examination without drawing any nearer, or they decide to try to translate the runes on it. These are things that might prompt a roll, because they have reasonable chances of succeeding and failing to find the hidden compartment. Of course, there would need to be some kind of time pressure as well, otherwise there’s no cost or consequence for failure. For me, this often comes in the form of random encounters, but there are lots of ways to create costs and consequences. If there isn’t a cost or consequence, the search succeeds without a roll.

 

[5ekyu]

I disagree, I think my answers were full and complete and show a basis in the rules of the game. It wasn't my example, but Ovinomancer and I appear to handle the basic conversation of the game largely the same way, with some differences as he indicated upthread. What about my answer was unclear or incomplete if I may ask?

It seemed to me the queztion of how characters skill would apply to that case and the character touches vs character does not touch was left with the rules cite and maybe this maybe that.

So let me be clearer... Was it your intent that at that point barting the player bringing some other sorts of tests into it, the issue of player chooses to have character touch at that point is not going to involve character skill at all (given you did decide iirc the descriptions would not vary.)



Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[5ekyu]

Also, frankly, is it such a bad thing if this approach leads players to be careful and intentional when describing their actions? I would consider that a point in favor of the approach. Provided, of course, that there is an understanding between the players and the DM that the intent is not to trick the players into bad situations, but to give the players’ choices meaning, and that the DM will accordingly give the players enough information to make informed decisions.

If I just say “there’s a spooky altar”, a player says “I search it for secret compartments” and I spring a curse on them because they didn’t say they weren’t touching it, or probe them with questions about how they search it to try to get them to say they touch it, then yeah, I’m being a “gotcha DM.” But that’s not what I do. I clearly describe all the dead bugs on the altar, the faint aura of negative energy, the smell of rot, to project that maybe this thing isn’t safe to touch. I don’t hide that information behind a perception check, because that information is essential for the players to make an informed decision about how to go about investingating it. If I give them that information and they decide to go up and feel the runes on it, the curse triggering isn’t some unavoidable trick of a malicious DM, it’s the world reacting to the players’ informed choices in an internally consistent way.

As for where character skill enters the equation, it’s when the players make a decision that has an uncertain outcome. Maybe they describe prodding at the altar with a 10-Foot pole, or giving it a thorough visual examination without drawing any nearer, or they decide to try to translate the runes on it. These are things that might prompt a roll, because they have reasonable chances of succeeding and failing to find the hidden compartment. Of course, there would need to be some kind of time pressure as well, otherwise there’s no cost or consequence for failure. For me, this often comes in the form of random encounters, but there are lots of ways to create costs and consequences. If there isn’t a cost or consequence, the search succeeds without a roll.

To be clear, is it your position that this playstyle does lead to players being more careful in their choices of describing their characters actions? I ask because that seemed almost immediately disputed?



Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[5ekyu]

It's actually really easy. Instead of asking, "Is there a candle in the room.", the players are encouraged to say something like, "I look around the room for a candle.". And instead of "Can I jump off the ledge safely?", the player says, "I look off the edge of the ledge and estimate the danger of leaping down.". Very few questions ever need to be asked of the DM.

Like "anti-jeopardy"

Please express your questions in the form of an action.



Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[iserith]

It seemed to me the queztion of how characters skill would apply to that case and the character touches vs character does not touch was left with the rules cite and maybe this maybe that.

So let me be clearer... Was it your intent that at that point barting the player bringing some other sorts of tests into it, the issue of player chooses to have character touch at that point is not going to involve character skill at all (given you did decide iirc the descriptions would not vary.)



Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here, but if I understand you correctly, I would say the description is the description regardless of who enters the chamber with the altar in it and what they do from there is up to them. I can't ask for an ability check unless a player describes what they want to do and I find what they want to do to have an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure. If I'm telegraphing that the altar is bad news and a player describes his character touching it, then whatever happens when you touch the altar happens. "The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions."