D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[Lanefan]

Time to be unpopular, I think...

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.”

And here's the rub: there's nothing wrong with "gotcha", particularly if your players want to rush through things and-or their characters don't exercise at least a modicum of caution. If the players want to handwave the search they're putting their PCs' fates in my hands...rarely if ever a good idea.

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.

Which is excellent.

However, are there going to be clues every time? No. Sometimes an altar just...well, looks like a dusty old altar. No dead bugs, no smell of rot, and the whole place probably has a faint icky aura to it left over from when it was in use long ago. Detect Magic will pull that there's more to the altar, Detect Evil might if the extra evil around the altar can be seen through the pervasive evil in the room, but beyond that the only options are:

1. explore the altar by trial and error (the more cautious you are the less likely you'll run aground on anything nasty)
2. ignore the altar and move on

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.

Now this is something that bugs me.

If there's a hidden compartment in the altar and the PCs search for it that by no means should be a guarantee that they find it, no matter how long they take, even if their chances are reasonable on paper. (and whatever happened to the idea of "you get one roll, representing the best attempt you can make under these circumstances; another roll may not be attempted until something materially changes")

And there is always a very obvious cost or consequence of failure: they don't get such info or treasure or whatever is in the hidden compartment.

Lan-"and the next chapel down the hall might have an identical-looking altar that is in fact harmless"-efan

 

[5ekyu]

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."

Gotcha.. Thanks. That is clearer.



Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[Bacon Bits]

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.

Really? I've seen players say, "I don't know what my character would do." Then they roll a die -- not as a check, but as a coin flip to aid decision-making -- and then do something.

Here, the die roll is rolling for what their character's gut instinct tells them.

 

[redrick]

Really? I've seen players say, "I don't know what my character would do." Then they roll a die -- not as a check, but as a coin flip to aid decision-making -- and then do something.

Here, the die roll is rolling for what their character's gut instinct tells them.

We do this all the time. I think of it as a "stupid check," where I, the player, think something is a bad idea, but roll to see if my character wants to bring things down as much as I do.

 

[iserith]

Really? I've seen players say, "I don't know what my character would do." Then they roll a die -- not as a check, but as a coin flip to aid decision-making -- and then do something.

Here, the die roll is rolling for what their character's gut instinct tells them.

Maybe, but I haven't seen it.

 

[Sunseeker]

We do this all the time. I think of it as a "stupid check," where I, the player, think something is a bad idea, but roll to see if my character wants to bring things down as much as I do.

Yep, sometimes it's hard to make a decision or you're just unsure how your character should react, often when there are two extremes possible. A simple d20 roll for how my character thinks, feels or reacts to something is often a useful tool to move the game forward.

A fun one a while back: a magic coin dropped on the ground in front of the party (I don't recall where it came from) but we could detect magic from it, but were unable to identify its function at the time. Two party members started bickering (in character) over what to do about it, how to pick it up, blah blah blah, and my character got annoyed so I made a "stupid check" (on which I rolled pretty stupid) to just pick it up. Well turns out it was a cursed coin, I lost 9 levels. (yeah it hurt but got resolved later). My character subsequently got pissed (and I made another "stupid check" rolled pretty stupid) and I threw the coin at one of the bickering party members, I hit them, and they lost 9 levels. I thought it was hilarious. Stupid, but hilarious.

Then another player simply picked up the coin with mage hand and put it in a sack for safe keeping. We ended up going on a quest to destroy the coin by dropping it into a Sphere of Annihilation, which broke the curse and we got our levels back.

Sometimes these sorts of checks lead to much more positive outcomes, or at least less stupid ones. But importantly: they lead to outcomes. Something happening and the game moving in new directions is better than the game bogging down.

 

[Charlaquin]

Time to be unpopular, I think...

Actually I very much appreciate it. This to me is a much more interesting line of discussion than trying to justify dm-calls-for-rolls approach over player-initiated rolls.

And here's the rub: there's nothing wrong with "gotcha", particularly if your players want to rush through things and-or their characters don't exercise at least a modicum of caution. If the players want to handwave the search they're putting their PCs' fates in my hands...rarely if ever a good idea.

That’s fair. Honestly I think the dreaded “gotcha DM” gets a worse rep than he deserves. It’s just another style of play, and as long as everyone knows what they’re getting into, it can be very fun.

Which is excellent.

However, are there going to be clues every time? No. Sometimes an altar just...well, looks like a dusty old altar. No dead bugs, no smell of rot, and the whole place probably has a faint icky aura to it left over from when it was in use long ago. Detect Magic will pull that there's more to the altar, Detect Evil might if the extra evil around the altar can be seen through the pervasive evil in the room, but beyond that the only options are:

1. explore the altar by trial and error (the more cautious you are the less likely you'll run aground on anything nasty)
2. ignore the altar and move on

Sure! This comes down to a question of priorities, and for me personally, empowering the players to make informed decisions is a higher priority than creating a realistic world. Realistically, weapons and armor should become damaged and eventually break with use of not constantly maintained. Does that mean the game would be improved by including rules for weapon and armor degradation and repair? Maybe. Depends on what you want out of the game. Personally, it’s not what I would want to spend my game time focusing on, even if it would be more realistic. Likewise, it would certainly be more realistic if hidden dangers weren’t always clearly telegraphed, but that added realism would come at the cost of the kind of game experience I want to create. I like my D&D games to have that From Software challenging-but-fair vibe, where you succeed and fail based on your choices, and when you do fail, or fall into a trap or whatever, you can look back and see what cue you missed or what choice you made that lead to it. I find it makes success feel more rewarding and failure seem fair. For me personally, that feeling is much more important than realism.

Now this is something that bugs me.

If there's a hidden compartment in the altar and the PCs search for it that by no means should be a guarantee that they find it, no matter how long they take, even if their chances are reasonable on paper.

Keep in mind, that auto-success is only possible if I’ve already determined that the approach has a reasonable chance of achieving the goal (and a reasonable chance of failure). So we’re talking about something that it is entirely possible could lead the players to find this hidden compartment. If there’s no pressure, they can just keep at it until they find it. Sure, theoretically they might get bored and give up before that happens, but that’s not a very interesting outcome. I would rather assume they are eventually successful, and montage through the process.

(and whatever happened to the idea of "you get one roll, representing the best attempt you can make under these circumstances; another roll may not be attempted until something materially changes")

It’s right there in the 3rd (.X) Edition rules. But it’s not in the 5th Edition rules. I prefer 5e style, personally. I always found that very unsatisfying in 3.X; too disconnected from the fiction. How come that natural 1 was my best effort on this DC 15 lock, but on the next one my best effort was a 19? What’s actually stopping my character, in-universe, from trying again anyway and why don’t I get to roll a die for that attempt? Just too... if you’ll pardon the term... meta for my taste.

And there is always a very obvious cost or consequence of failure: they don't get such info or treasure or whatever is in the hidden compartment.

That’s not the kind of cost or consequence I’m talking about. It doesn’t prevent the players from trying again.

 

[Sunseeker]

That’s fair. Honestly I think the dreaded “gotcha DM” gets a worse rep than he deserves. It’s just another style of play, and as long as everyone knows what they’re getting into, it can be very fun.

I disagree, and I've been trying to figure out how to phrase my disagreement but perhaps the bolded part is most important. You don't know what you're getting into with a "Gotcha DM". That's the problem. Worse than that, you never know what you're getting into, because the Gotcha DM is a labyrinth of grammar rules, a landmine of nitpicks, and a world of "no takebacksies" wherein every little action, every little statement of the players is shredded under a microscope with the goal being to trip players up, to punish them for not reading the DMs mind.

I've played with the Gotcha DM before, it's terrible. It's a game without agency because every player action is under extreme scrutiny. It's the example up thread of the player saying "I make a through effort to search the cabinet for anything that might be a secret hiding place." but because the player didn't specifically say "I take the bar the clothes hang from out of the cabinet and search inside it for a hidden storage are." they never find it.

On top of that, missing small things will often result in disproportionate punishments to the player, extreme setbacks to quests or terrible consequences to unrelated party.

It's not a "different way to play" and it is never "very fun". I mean, unless you enjoy people playing grammar-nazi with you. I've never met anyone who has, but I suppose there's somebody who enjoys being interrupted, corrected and admonished for grammar mistakes.

 

[Charlaquin]

I disagree, and I've been trying to figure out how to phrase my disagreement but perhaps the bolded part is most important. You don't know what you're getting into with a "Gotcha DM". That's the problem. Worse than that, you never know what you're getting into, because the Gotcha DM is a labyrinth of grammar rules, a landmine of nitpicks, and a world of "no takebacksies" wherein every little action, every little statement of the players is shredded under a microscope with the goal being to trip players up, to punish them for not reading the DMs mind.

I've played with the Gotcha DM before, it's terrible. It's a game without agency because every player action is under extreme scrutiny. It's the example up thread of the player saying "I make a through effort to search the cabinet for anything that might be a secret hiding place." but because the player didn't specifically say "I take the bar the clothes hang from out of the cabinet and search inside it for a hidden storage are." they never find it.

On top of that, missing small things will often result in disproportionate punishments to the player, extreme setbacks to quests or terrible consequences to unrelated party.

It's not a "different way to play" and it is never "very fun". I mean, unless you enjoy people playing grammar-nazi with you. I've never met anyone who has, but I suppose there's somebody who enjoys being interrupted, corrected and admonished for grammar mistakes.

I think you and I are using “gotcha DM” to mean different things. I would just call what you describe here a bad DM. My point was more that, there is a certain style of play where the player’s and the DM mutually agree upon a no-holds-barred, adversarial relationship, where the DM intentionally creates challenges that are technically surmountable but by no means fair. You see this kind of play style reflected in old-fashioned tournament modules like Tomb of Horrors (the original version), and in some of the weird D&D isms that are clearly the product of the arms race between DMs and the increasingly genre-savvy players they were struggling to catch off-guard, like Mimics and other trap monsters. The game has gradually shifted away from that style of play, but it’s still a legitimate way to play if everyone involved wants that kind of experience.

 

[Maxperson]

Or they could cast thaumaturgy.

Sure, in which case they didn't ask me if the door was unlocked. They told me that they cast thaumaturgy.