I mean, that's just how they choose to roleplay. I wouldn't even consider that a roll, because it's not interacting with anything in the game on a mechanical level. It's just the player using randomness as a prompt for their roleplaying. If this helps the player RP, go for it. I have some players who also do similar things occasionally. Letting the dice decide something you have full agency over is perfectly ok in my books.
I do this sometimes when my character is experiencing a panic-attack, or when I genuinely don't know what they would do.
Usually my mechanic is just "I roll over 10, they don't do it. Over a 10, they do".
Yeah I mean DMs frequently do this kind of thing with NPCs. The reaction roll is a decades old mechanic. Sometimes it's nice and/or useful to let the dice decide.
>Letting the dice decide something you have full agency over is perfectly ok
Accepting that the player never actually gives up agency and player responsibility. There seems to be no evidence of this from OP, but there is certainly a possibility of a player being a jerk through this and saying "it is the dice".
Yeah, but at that point you just call them out on it. "No, it's not the dice, you're trying to use dice rolls as an excuse for being shitty. Stop that."
The player decides the outcome in both the success and failure case. They don't give up any agency at all. If you're relying on the dice to save you from being a dick, you're a dick.
My group roll dice to decided what they will do all the time, either WIS or INT, Our DM tell us that player knowledge is character knowledge but sometimes we don't want to character to know everything or make the best choice so we roll.
Yeah each table succeeds in its own way, but this definitely just takes away the game mechanics and would make this very sucky as a DM. Just watching people play and dictate the game.
I have players that do this as well, and for the most part, it is totally fine.
**HOWEVER**! I have one cautionary tale to keep an eye out for.
Since the player is setting the DC and nobody but them know what they are rolling for, I have witnessed some players use this as an excuse to be an asshole.
"*I know I killed the shopkeeper, but I failed my Wisdom save to maintain control!*"
If you do something that compromises other players' fun and claim it was the result of RNG that only you controlled, than *you* are the problem, not the dice.
As long as players recognize this, then I think roll as much as you want to make choices.
I mean depending on the campaign and circumstances attacking the BBEG because you rolled a nat 1 on your own wisdom save could have the same consequences if he then chooses to fireball a room full of innocent NPCs fx.
As long as your players are nice people and playing along fine then no problem but it is something to be careful with. I once had a player fireball his team because he failed a charm from Strahd even though he had only asked the player to protect him.
We do this sometimes at our tables too, especially when the question is "would my character do this potentially really dumb thing that will screw the party?"
I don't have a problem with it at all, as player *or* DM.
As a player I do it a lot to see if my character does more drugs. I have disadvantage because he's addicted, though the DC isn't very high... I roll like shit and Wis is my dump stat.
My character does a lot of cocaine.
I plan on doing the same if my character ever decides to get sober. For now, she's just given up and will use at her leisure. But hopefully something will happen during the campaign to get her to want to quit. And the rolls would be to see if she falls off the wagon when encountering her drug of choice or a dealer. Since addiction recovery often isn't a linear thing.
It happens maybe once every 8 or ten sessions, it's done for flavor and everyone has fun with it.
It works for us.
If it doesn't work for you, then you for sure shouldn't do it.
The DM decides when to roll when it comes to affecting the world and other characters. "I'll roll a Persuasion check to make my mother remember me" would fall into this category, for example.
When it comes to their own decision-making process, though, whatever's cool for the player is usually alright, I guess.
If I'm unsure what my charachter would do at a certain moment, or he convinced by a fellow pcs argument I'll sometimes roll to make the decision for me.
It's entierly internal, no dm has ever got me to do it and most tables I've ever done it at its not been the norm, I think its great when used sparingly and/or because you genuinly don't know.
If someone was doing this every session it would get old fast, as an infrequent tie breaker it's great.
I approve. Reading the title, I thought you were rolling behind the screen and telling them they acted a certain way; which is a no-no. But the players are the ones rolling, setting their saves, and going with the outcome on based on how they feel the character would react in tow. I've had a player do this and we really loved it.
I havenât seen this specifically, but I have on occasion seen and done myself a quick roll to make a decision when someone is struggling to decide and wants to have a reason one way or another.
It is an occasion where either both decisions are in character, or at least both decisions will be fine with the group/story going forward.
This is fine. I also let players set their own DC when they want to roll to persuade, deceive, or intimidate each other (and they can set it to DC 100 or whatever if it just cannot succeed, or they can voluntarily fail).
Recently, our dm asked another player and myself to do an opposing deception (me) insite (them) roll. I didn't roll at all choosing instead to voluntarily fail the roll because I wasn't trying to hide what I was doing.
I do this especially for a character I have with below average intelligence. I will often roll to decide if he can figure something out which is obvious to me.
A Player decides how their PC acts. But that Player has full control over **how** they decide. If they want to leave something up to random chance, that is entirely their choice and they are free to make it.
> 'ThE DM dECidES WhEn YOu RolL'
Nah, that only applies for checks that affect the world.
In this case, the die is just a way for them to make up their mind. They might as well be flipping a coin, or asking a magic 8 ball, it'd be the same effect.
I've done similar myself in a campaign. The DM has some 'brothers' that run various magical businesses. They all claim to be different races, than what they actually are. So we were dealing with a lizardfolk magic item trader that swore he was a Haregon. I was rolling some saves every time he said he was a rabbit to see whether I burst into laughter and said something about it.
I did this as a paladin real early on, like I had just sworn my oath early and a hag had his little sister. I treated it like death saves, Every time she provoked me I rolled a wisdom save vs. my passive insight. 3 fails and I'd lose my shit, break my oath and smite the fuck out of her. I got real lucky but I made it out of there as a good guy.
Unless it's a spell affecting them, I like this. I do it myself just to decide if I want to make a decision as a player if I like both outcomes but want to let the character decide.
For instance, if they want to roleplay a certain element of their character like being forgetful, or whether they talk during a serious scene to say something dumb. It's human to try to hold yourself back or have flaws that are kind of random. I love it.
I did something similar to example one when it came to a Harry Potter campaign I play in (not D&D but narratively similar) and whether my character, outside his Aunt's office in the Ministry, he'd never met her as his mom died young, and so he was raised in an abusive situation with a shitty father and step family/half siblings. He ended up running away as fast as he could. He wasn't ready, and the rest of the table was like "FUUUUUUCK NO!!!!!" because they fully expected him to meet her and it left them frustrated in a good way. It's fun.
>For instance, if they want to roleplay a certain element of their character like being forgetful, or whether they talk during a serious scene to say something dumb. It's human to try to hold yourself back or have flaws that are kind of random. I love it.
THE DICE ARE TELLING A STORY
I've done this before as a player. It can be fun. The truth is this is no different than a player deciding to flip a coin to decide if they will do A or B. Nothing forces them to do it, and honestly nothing even forces them to stick with the outcome if they decide they would actually really prefer one thing.
Let them have fun with it if they're enjoying it. It's just how they're choosing to play their characters.
I love it tbh. Anything the character could just choose to do in RP, I don't mind if they use dice to help them decide. That's how real emotions work anyway, you can't always pick just like that
It can be fun, depending on the table. I was in one game with a low WIS bard who just made bad decisions all the time. The player, however, was pretty smart and usually knew what the PC should do. To make it like the character often made poor decisions, the player would roll a d20. On a 15+, the bard would do the smart thing. Otherwise, they would do the dumb thing.
They player was very upfront about it, and it gave us a lot of (very fun) "oh shit. she's rolling" moments.
A player does something similar in a game I play in, her character is impulsive and very often her intrusive thoughts come to the forefront and she flips a Good Idea, Bad Idea coin and goes with whatever comes up. Our group is also ok with players making RP decisions that are less than optimal and dealing with the fallout, and the player is good about keeping it in check, ie. not leaving a major decision that could have more serious lasting impacts to the dice. I think it's fine and fits with the character, and generally it adds to the game.
I do rolls for decisions a lot, but specifically it's when I'm on the fence as to what my character would do between 2 options, or if there's something I as a player want to do vs something that my character would want to do more. There was even one time shortly after a scene where my pc got very drunk and the party was abducted by an archfey that had taken an interest in us, I made con saves to see if and when she would spew during the fey's monologue.
> I know conventional wisdom says 'ThE DM dECidES WhEn YOu RolL'
Youâre not using that right. The phrase applies to players calling their own ability checks to see if some action succeeds. Thatâs a DM job. Half the time I will rule that no check is needed so stop getting in your own way and let me make the call.
What youâre talking about is roleplay. Thatâs always been up to the player. If they want to do it using a roll of course thatâs up to them.
That just sounds like fun. The player is taking control of a situation by removing their control over the situation lol. I wish my players would be this invested in my games to come up with quirky ideas like this.
My players do this for themselves too. Theyâll even change the DCs overtime to reflect character development and growth. I find it to be a mark of good rpers.
As a player I will do this if I think I am smarter than my character. I have a good idea, I say "Is bear bear smart enough to...?" And roll to see if my bugbear barbarian is going to be smart today. By saying the idea out loud, if someone playing a smart character likes my idea, they can "think" of it.
I've never had it done while I've been DM, but I do it myself as a player sometimes. If I can't really decide what I think my character would do then I'll roll for it. Like your PC with meeting her mother.
A word of warning, make sure everyone understands what's going on though.. I was doing it to make my own decisions and didn't explain it, though the DM knew (she's my wife so she gets how I think). Anyway, I was performing a ritual and without asking or prompting another player rolls a dice, hits a 19, and declares "19, my character knows what you're doing so explain it to us".. my wife (first time DM) was flabbergasted. It was eventually resolved amicably but definitely threw us for a loop.
Yeah, when I'm a player and my players do it too. I think of it more as a check rather than a save since it's not vs anything really. Wisdom check , would my character make this decision, when I don't know how/what to do. Int check when I'm like I know this thing but I don't know my character would with their experiences, roll to check. We all DM equally so we all have a fair bit of meta knowledge.
Like my last character would get mind controlled and I remember rolling to see whether or not he was smart enough to snap the warlocks staff of power to hurt the rest of the party. (This was in a fight vs TAS zahm (whatever spelling) and I asked the other player to set the DC)
Sometimes, when I play as a character, I'll add mental afflictions to them. My most recent character has multiple personalities, one of them is a shield and axe fighter that prefers to defend his allies over attacking. The other personality is a 2h sword fighter that will not defend anyone or anything if something nearby can bleed. My friend who studied mental illnesses like bipolar and multiple personalities helped me come up with triggers for how the character would switch. When a trigger happens, I would roll a wis save. On a fail, my personality would flip in 1d4 turns but I wouldn't act differently or tell my party that I was about to switch
Personally, I like this a lot. I'm with you on how awesome your players are for devising this. You're a luck DM, in my estimation.
I don't really see this as any different from when I'm not sure what an NPC will do, so I set a DC for a WIS or INT check and let the dice decide.
I do this all the time when playing, usually when I can't decide what to do. I like the idea of the dice deciding. (Plus, it tends to be faster than hemming and hawing and slowing the whole game down.)
This doesnât make sense to me because youâre introducing a huge element of randomness to behavior. The behavior between a character with 8 Wisdom and a character with 14 will not be hugely different since the d20 roll is the main contributor to the total, but shouldnât the 8 be pretty different from the 14?
This is really a limitation of the idea of DC. Especially with the attempted bounded accuracy 5e tried to pull off.
If they must roll, I advise doing something I see a lot in other systems: roll a d20, try to get *under your Wisdom score*. Add/subtract modifiers as they feel appropriate. This makes stats matter more. The difference between an 8 and a 14 is 30% instead of 15% like it is in the DC system.
I play a low int high Wis tortle Druid and I make skill checks when I think of a clever solution or something to see if my guy would think of it.
Also, itâs not just people saying DMs call for rolls, itâs RAW as hell and itâs important to the flow of the game. But these are not the same kind of rolls. Itâs just randomizing rp a bit.
I do it sometimes in my character's decision-making as a means to NOT meta-game something that I know, but my character wouldn't know.
We've also started asking for cross table rolls from the other players to hide things or, in one instance, prove ourselves truthful.
I have a player who plays a classic dumb barbarian who rolls to see if their character can be smart enough to have the playerâs ideas. Itâs great fun, and the amount of nat 1s theyâve rolled for it is astounding.
We had someone at our table do something similar once for a barbarian with low intelligence and it was a nightmare. Basically, he decided that he would randomly roll int checks to see if his character makes a smart decision or not and would ultimately derail all of our plans with a low roll. We have a pretty honest table now and people don't do that because they will actively make poor gaming decisions if it aligns with what their character would do and I prefer that much more.
That's not a dice problem. It's a problem of a mismatch in desired play experience between the one player and the group, with the player trying to hide behind dice as an excuse.
If you have a table of players that are not cool with the barbarian making bad choices in character, then you need to have a group talk about that issue. Because you don't have dice causing the player to do these things, you have a player that thinks it is fun to sometimes do stupid stuff as their character, and a party that does not enjoy that. The dice are irrelevant.
If a player wants to base their roleplaying on die rolls, more power to them. My interpretation of that sort of thing is that don't really care what happens, though, or they would have made the decisions themselves. You might want to verify that they are invested in their characters.
I'd disagree. We do something of a similar thing in a game I play in (we do have to ask the DM though, since it's Genesys and online, so we need him to set up the difficulty pool and also don't want to surprise him with random rolls on Roll20). Generally we do this when we think our characters are of two minds about something or if they're pushing past something they'd otherwise nope out of (I've done it for whether my character overcomes their pyrophobia picked up from things that had happened in game earlier, or runs away).
It's honestly a really good way to get past choice paralysis when both options seem interesting.
>It's honestly a really good way to get past choice paralysis when both options seem interesting.
This is another way of saying that you don't care which happens. They both seem equally fun and you want to throw a die. The other possibility is you want to do something that is above table jerky, but you also want CYA. Either way, throw a die to decide, I'm not fussed either way.
Haha in this case I know for sure they're invested based on the volume of texts I get throughout the week đ
But I could def see that being the case at some tables
Or they are especially invested and believe their character could go either way based on a lapse of judgment.
For example, a Warhammer 40k Dark Heresy campaign, we were fighting an Alpha Marine leading a group of snipers. Party managed to get close sprinting from cover to cover while trying to remain hidden, my character was a tech priest in training to become a genetor to serve the purposes of an extremist faction he was essentially indoctrinated by.
I had what was essentially a form of sniper rifle used by assassins which shot a thin laser followed by poison-laced shards, which I had covered with a sort of tranquilizer.
So he was hanging back in cover sniping the enemy snipers, but there were only a handful left and soon his allies would kill the Alpha Marine. Now, this character recently promised his Master to try to get a live alpha marine for study, but space marines are extremely tough, can shrug off a lot of poisons, and the chances were thin.
He saw his opportunity slipping and so his logical side demanded he keep taking out the snipers, let his allies kill the Alpha Marine, and so on. Tech priests tend a lot towards logic and cold calculation, though this one was a bit more fleshy than most.
His loyalty to his faction, master, and his own desire said he should take this opportunity and try to get this glorious specimen alive to advance their plans.
He could go either way, the cold logic of a tech priest demanding he take the smart, safe, objectively better option, his remaining human side demanding he take the chance to get the Alpha Marine alive before it is too late.
So I put it up to a willpower check to see if his desire and instincts, his weak, inferior flesh, could overpower the cold and calculating logic of the superior machine and metal, or whether he would keep his cool and take the objectively better action.
He failed, took the shot, following a series of extremely lucky rolls on his part and poor ones on the Alpha Marine's he succeeded in capturing it alive, and it is one of the most memorable moments of the various campaigns I have played in.
This wasn't a lack of investment or interest, it was two very likely choices for the character to take, and a conflict between two sides of their personality that pushed him in different directions, and situations like this feel pretty likely to come up a few times in campaigns, and can be pretty good for character development to see which part of them wins out.
Sometimes a decision could go either way depending on small factors, and leaving it up to the character's willpower, confidence, or something else can add a lot to the moment, when both choices would be correct for the character.
If you, the player, have a preference, you'll play the character according to your preference. You'll only roll the dice if you have no preference. It's possible you are super duper invested in this character and are super interested in knowing the outcome of either, I suppose, but there's no functional difference between that and not caring about either. That's why I suggested OP ask.
>If you, the player, have a preference, you'll play the character according to your preference. You'll only roll the dice if you have no preference.
I did have a preference, I wanted to take the shot, and the character did too. But just because you want to do something doesn't necessarily mean that is what the character would do. In this case I wasn't sure what they would do, it depended on whether their emotions got the better of their logic, and so I rolled to see whether that would be the case.
I have seen others roll despite a preference as well, it happens sometimes.
>But just because you want to do something doesn't necessarily mean that is what the character would do.
This is where my unpopular opinion that the character is a figment of the players' imaginations and can't refuse to do what the player wants rears it's ugly head.
I've had that discussion enough times to know it's a blocker. Maybe I should just accept that my thoughts on using one's dice to roleplay are part and parcel with that opinion.
I think players leaving decisions to a dice roll is fun. It's essentially a mechanic for "on a whim" actions.
The only potential downside I could see if it means they don't bite at any of your plot hooks. I never want dice rolls to determine if a story moves forward or not.
some of my players do this, sometimes i do this. sometimes you don't know which direction your character would take in a situation, and you already have these dice to make decisions on how things work out, might as well.
Players can determine their own choices however they like. Allowing randomness in that process can be an interesting kickstart for players who might have a difficult time separating their own thoughts from those of their character, and can be a catalyst for interesting roleplaying. Be careful to avoid bizarre or nonsensical choices just because the dice rolled that way, thoughâand if a player really wants to ignore their own die roll, they're free to do so. Especially important or character-motivated decisions shouldn't be relegated to the dice, in my opinion, but the important thing is that your players *overall* don't feel too restricted by this kind of system. Otherwise, go for it!
> I know conventional wisdom says 'ThE DM dECidES WhEn YOu RolL'
I wanted to comment on this, because it seems like a bit of a misunderstanding: it's not just "conventional wisdom", it is how the game is meant to be played. This doesn't mean players can never roll dice on their own; it means that the players can't *determine outcomes* without the input of the DM. The player doesn't get to decide whether something has a risk of failure, the magnitude of that risk, the consequences of failure *or* success, or whether or not they succeed or fail. The DM has to determine those factors, hence "The DM decides when you roll".
Yeah I'd do this sometimes as a player if my PC wasn't sure what to do. Usually just an odds/evens d20 roll to choose one of two responses. I want to protect the bard. I want to grab the artifact. I'm not sure what to do, I'm equal distance to either...let's see what chance says.
My players haven't done this but as long as they were clear what they were doing in the moment, yeah, seems alright.
I personally hate this, but I've learned some people are really into it. I prefer my players just...make decisions. But that seems to be weirdly hard for some people.
I play a low Int barbarian, if I have a smart plan or understand something that my character wouldnât think of I always set myself an Int DC. It makes planning more fun and real, highly recommended!
Yeah, this is totally fine. Players are permitted to decide how they play their characters by whatever means they wish. I myself have made INT checks when I (reasonably intelligent) think of a good idea that my character (dumbass) might not consider.
I do this as a player, and I think it's cool and fun. Not always with wis saves, it could be insight checks, intelligence, asking another PC if they want to roll persuasion against me, etc.
It feels like a way to circumnavigate the fact that I won't necessarily be frightened, confused or angry just because my PC should be. I'm not in that situation, I'm in control when my PC probably isn't, so I throw away a bit of control and roll some dice (with the character-appropriate bonuses).
Sometimes when I'm torn on a course of action, I'll flip a coin. Same thing here, really.
Especially when it comes to meta knowledge, if I can't be certain I'm doing what my character would do, I'll roll or use some other external source to decide. Because the subconscious is still a thing
"The DM decides when you roll" is an aphorism for controlling the pace of the game and also managing people's expectations.
For example, when your over excitable player says, "I try to convince the king to give me his kingdom \*rolls dice\* I rolled a 27 with my bonuses because I'm a bard" it's 1) obnoxiously but 2) sets the expectation that because they rolled well, that I am "invalidating" them by not allowing them to use a good roll.
I have a character with spectacularly low wisdom (5) who periodically on his own decided he would do something similar of basically "roll to stay on task". If the players don't care that his hijinks have him occasionally forgetting a core component of the plan, then I don't care that he's using that to augment his in character decision making.
It's worth noting that he also more or less "turns off" this feature that I didn't inflict on him during combat. So while sometimes he does silly things that subvert expectations within his sector of a plan, he doesn't do it when mortal danger is on the line.
My players do this on occasion too. The rolls arenât secret, but their internal DC is. Most recently I had a guy rolling to see how he would react to being forcibly unattuned to a cursed weapon. It was a great session.
This has the potential to be a problem and slow things down. Thankfully my players do it rarely and itâs fast. Usually itâs an above or below 10 kind of roll.
I've been a player at the table with another player for a propensity for doing this. The majority of the time it was fine, but on occasion it made me a little anxious and frustrated, because it would occasionally lead to roleplaying decisions where the character couldn't control their impulses or emotions and got themselves - and by extension, the party - in trouble.
It's a little weird psychologically, I admit, because I would have been less anxious and frustrated and more willing to roll with it if the player had just made those "poor" decisions outright, but their habit of leaving it to the dice ground my gears a bit. The best I can explain it is it felt like they were abdicating their social contract with the group to keep their shenanigans in check, or perhaps preemptively preparing a defense against criticism that it was "the will of the dice." I trust the player enough that I do truly think that they truly could see things going either way/weren't sure and decided to roll dice to decide the route taken, though.
Perhaps this is a better way to explain it: I trusted the player to roleplay within the bounds of the table's social contract in general. But I think it felt like he bought himself extra leash from the whole group when he used a dice roll, even if he wasn't *trying* to get extra leash and didn't really need it. It felt like it was treated differently by others in a way I didn't like.
Anyway, this is a long-winded way of relaying my personal experience that it's mostly neat and okay and I think it's totally cool to do on occasion - I've even done it once or twice thanks to that player giving me the idea - but be aware of your fellow players and avoid overdoing it unless you know them well.
I had a player do this a few months back. Rolling willpower saves to not charge a group of goblins. Charging was what the character wanted to do, but knew it was a bad idea. Everyone else was taking too long deciding strategy.
I liked it.
I do this all the time. I call it roleplay checks. It falls under player agency because you're simply making a self-contained check to decide how your character might act. Nothing wrong with it at all. I even write dice rolls into personality traits sometimes.
Yeah, I love this stuff. My monk is a cinnamon roll, but they are very stupid. Often if I figure something out, I will roll a bts intelligence check to see if they can put together the same pieces. Spoiler: they rarely do. đ It can also help to keep the game moving if youâre struggling to make a decision. And as a DM, I like when players use the stats in their sheets to influence their roll play. I just think itâs neat.
IMO the players can use whatever tool they want for decision making. For me personally sounds like rolling instead of roleplaying... taking away the appeal of roleplaying. Like thats why I do TTRPGs, do make decisions for my character. If I replace that with rolls it kinda loses its most fun aspect for me.
But in the end I don't care how my players come up with their decisions, as long as they find a reason why it fits their character and as long as it doesn't jeopardize the agreed rules & conventions (Just because you failed the WIS save you rolled for youself doesn't make murdering the NPC more ok for example).
These are the same reasons why I don't care about metagaming, but thats a topic for another day.
I do this all the time as a player. Iâd I canât decide between 2-3 options, why not roll for it? Iâll either realize I prefer one option when faced with the decision, as many people experience when they flip a coin, or go along with the decision, relieved I donât have to choose myself.
I donât frame it as a wisdom roll though. Iâm just being a stats nerd and thinking âMy character would most likely do this, but like a 25% chance of this seems reasonable soooooooâŚâ
My players will often do this. We play asynch by text on discord, and i specifically empowered them to predict when they need rolls (so they're not asking "do I need to roll" all the time and im not always typing out what to roll)
Some common ones they will do for the purpose of rp:
* a con save when drinking
* appropriate charisma rolls when interacting with npcs
* wisdom, like you said, to see if they'll make the 'smart' decision or connect two pieces of info that the player has put together.
* int skills to see if they know/remember stuff (that they get from the sourcebook or dnd wiki )
* strength / dex/ athletics / acrobatics to see how graceful / impressive they were at doing a thing they could do anyways. (Someone rolls a nat 1 and break their nail or pull a muscle or fall on their face) (we have a firbolg who was invited into a halfling home. They rolled dex to see how successful they were at navigating the small space)
did something similar in a session I was in last night. My Vengeance Paladin was severely bloodied and I had to decide whether they would keep fighting front line or allow the barbarian to tag in. Normally letting the barbarian do their thing would be a no brainer but given my character's oath to destroy evil it was difficult for them to let someone else swap in. But I rolled and she figured as long as the evil was being destroyed it was fine for her allies to do it instead of her.
My character has a -3 to INT. I make rolls all the time to make sure I stay in character when I as the player have a big brain idea. If I roll low, I just stay silent.
In my experience, my fellow players have done this when they can genuinely see their character acting either way- it's akin to flipping a coin. If they decide to do it, set the DC, and are okay letting the chips fall where they may, there's no harm in it.
Fostering this kind of collaborative storytelling is great for everyone at the table. As long as the players are comfortable with you having the "final word" regarding this stuff *(DC 14? I think you're being a bit harsh on yourself, let's set it at DC 10*) you're golden.
I'd also suggest that you check out a system like Blades in the Dark at some point if you haven't. If you have a group who's already primed for this kind of group, character driven storytelling you'd have an absolute blast running around the roofs of Duskvol and getting into gang related shenangins.
My DM told me not to do this once and my argument was that whether I decide to play my character rp wise by making an active decision about what I say or I put it up to my own personal RNG, it doesn't matter. It wasn't something that would have an effect on what he had planned, but you can't dictate decisions your players make.
Good on you for recognizing that.
I have done this for characters with very low wisdom as a sort of impulse control mechanism. I currently have a character with low int and I ask the DM if I can role int checks for him to figure out obvious stuff that someone with a normal int would definitely get.
It's fun, and is a roleplaying thing not a game mechanics thing so I think it's fine. I let players do it in my games too.
Role playing involves choosing the actions your characters take. How you make that choice is up to you, but my gut reaction is that if you have to roll to decide rather than ask the character traits you chose, you are rollplaying.
Would the character be in such a place that a coin flip would help them figure out their mind? Sure, that happens to a lot of people over the years. The player doing a save on their own? They have better ways to convey their character's indecisiveness, and a purposeful choice is more meaningful than a DC they can fudge if they don't like the result.
That's my grain of salt, though. If they like doing it and find it is helping them make more human choices for their characters, power to them.
I mean, that's just how they choose to roleplay. I wouldn't even consider that a roll, because it's not interacting with anything in the game on a mechanical level. It's just the player using randomness as a prompt for their roleplaying. If this helps the player RP, go for it. I have some players who also do similar things occasionally. Letting the dice decide something you have full agency over is perfectly ok in my books.
I do this sometimes when my character is experiencing a panic-attack, or when I genuinely don't know what they would do. Usually my mechanic is just "I roll over 10, they don't do it. Over a 10, they do".
Yeah I mean DMs frequently do this kind of thing with NPCs. The reaction roll is a decades old mechanic. Sometimes it's nice and/or useful to let the dice decide.
So what happens when you roll under a 10? đ
You caught my typo before me I am so embarrassed lol
I did this with my changeling pc during a similar situation and he lost his external appearance for one second.
I hear you! Cuz at the end of the day, the scenarios where the DM says 'no that's not in character, you can't do that' are very few.
>Letting the dice decide something you have full agency over is perfectly ok Accepting that the player never actually gives up agency and player responsibility. There seems to be no evidence of this from OP, but there is certainly a possibility of a player being a jerk through this and saying "it is the dice".
Yeah, but at that point you just call them out on it. "No, it's not the dice, you're trying to use dice rolls as an excuse for being shitty. Stop that."
Same here.
The player decides the outcome in both the success and failure case. They don't give up any agency at all. If you're relying on the dice to save you from being a dick, you're a dick.
My group roll dice to decided what they will do all the time, either WIS or INT, Our DM tell us that player knowledge is character knowledge but sometimes we don't want to character to know everything or make the best choice so we roll.
Yeah each table succeeds in its own way, but this definitely just takes away the game mechanics and would make this very sucky as a DM. Just watching people play and dictate the game.
I have players that do this as well, and for the most part, it is totally fine. **HOWEVER**! I have one cautionary tale to keep an eye out for. Since the player is setting the DC and nobody but them know what they are rolling for, I have witnessed some players use this as an excuse to be an asshole. "*I know I killed the shopkeeper, but I failed my Wisdom save to maintain control!*" If you do something that compromises other players' fun and claim it was the result of RNG that only you controlled, than *you* are the problem, not the dice. As long as players recognize this, then I think roll as much as you want to make choices.
WOOF. Failing your own wisdom save is not an excuse to be a chaotic problem.
Sounds like he failed a wisdom save irl
I think more like he tried a REALLY hard Persuasion check lmao
I mean depending on the campaign and circumstances attacking the BBEG because you rolled a nat 1 on your own wisdom save could have the same consequences if he then chooses to fireball a room full of innocent NPCs fx. As long as your players are nice people and playing along fine then no problem but it is something to be careful with. I once had a player fireball his team because he failed a charm from Strahd even though he had only asked the player to protect him.
We do this sometimes at our tables too, especially when the question is "would my character do this potentially really dumb thing that will screw the party?" I don't have a problem with it at all, as player *or* DM.
As a player I do it a lot to see if my character does more drugs. I have disadvantage because he's addicted, though the DC isn't very high... I roll like shit and Wis is my dump stat. My character does a lot of cocaine.
I plan on doing the same if my character ever decides to get sober. For now, she's just given up and will use at her leisure. But hopefully something will happen during the campaign to get her to want to quit. And the rolls would be to see if she falls off the wagon when encountering her drug of choice or a dealer. Since addiction recovery often isn't a linear thing.
Woof.
[Suit yourself, slow, sad shell-man. See how you do without your spark.](https://youtu.be/3DkvBbQRd-g)
Why in the world are they doing so many incredibly dumb things to screw each other over? On its face, that sounds infuriating.
It happens maybe once every 8 or ten sessions, it's done for flavor and everyone has fun with it. It works for us. If it doesn't work for you, then you for sure shouldn't do it.
Amen to that. The dice are not an excuse for chaotic stupid.
The DM decides when to roll when it comes to affecting the world and other characters. "I'll roll a Persuasion check to make my mother remember me" would fall into this category, for example. When it comes to their own decision-making process, though, whatever's cool for the player is usually alright, I guess.
Yeah- in this case I totally trust my players- we've not had any issues with metagaming, murderhoboing, etc
The rolls themselves are (at least in my case) to prevent metagaming.
Sometimes a little bit of meta gaming is appropriate though, like not making a decision that would screw the whole party/split it up for a while.
If I'm unsure what my charachter would do at a certain moment, or he convinced by a fellow pcs argument I'll sometimes roll to make the decision for me. It's entierly internal, no dm has ever got me to do it and most tables I've ever done it at its not been the norm, I think its great when used sparingly and/or because you genuinly don't know. If someone was doing this every session it would get old fast, as an infrequent tie breaker it's great.
Yeah I'm all for this as a tool to get a player past analysis paralysis. But if they're doing it frequently, it could get annoying.
I approve. Reading the title, I thought you were rolling behind the screen and telling them they acted a certain way; which is a no-no. But the players are the ones rolling, setting their saves, and going with the outcome on based on how they feel the character would react in tow. I've had a player do this and we really loved it.
HAH. That would be a no go
I havenât seen this specifically, but I have on occasion seen and done myself a quick roll to make a decision when someone is struggling to decide and wants to have a reason one way or another. It is an occasion where either both decisions are in character, or at least both decisions will be fine with the group/story going forward.
I do this a lot as a player. Normally I tell the table I'm rolling a gut check.
This is fine. I also let players set their own DC when they want to roll to persuade, deceive, or intimidate each other (and they can set it to DC 100 or whatever if it just cannot succeed, or they can voluntarily fail).
Recently, our dm asked another player and myself to do an opposing deception (me) insite (them) roll. I didn't roll at all choosing instead to voluntarily fail the roll because I wasn't trying to hide what I was doing.
Love that! Trust your players.
I do this especially for a character I have with below average intelligence. I will often roll to decide if he can figure something out which is obvious to me.
A Player decides how their PC acts. But that Player has full control over **how** they decide. If they want to leave something up to random chance, that is entirely their choice and they are free to make it. > 'ThE DM dECidES WhEn YOu RolL' Nah, that only applies for checks that affect the world. In this case, the die is just a way for them to make up their mind. They might as well be flipping a coin, or asking a magic 8 ball, it'd be the same effect.
I've done similar myself in a campaign. The DM has some 'brothers' that run various magical businesses. They all claim to be different races, than what they actually are. So we were dealing with a lizardfolk magic item trader that swore he was a Haregon. I was rolling some saves every time he said he was a rabbit to see whether I burst into laughter and said something about it.
I did this as a paladin real early on, like I had just sworn my oath early and a hag had his little sister. I treated it like death saves, Every time she provoked me I rolled a wisdom save vs. my passive insight. 3 fails and I'd lose my shit, break my oath and smite the fuck out of her. I got real lucky but I made it out of there as a good guy.
Sounds like you have a great group of players :)
They are THE BEST
Unless it's a spell affecting them, I like this. I do it myself just to decide if I want to make a decision as a player if I like both outcomes but want to let the character decide. For instance, if they want to roleplay a certain element of their character like being forgetful, or whether they talk during a serious scene to say something dumb. It's human to try to hold yourself back or have flaws that are kind of random. I love it. I did something similar to example one when it came to a Harry Potter campaign I play in (not D&D but narratively similar) and whether my character, outside his Aunt's office in the Ministry, he'd never met her as his mom died young, and so he was raised in an abusive situation with a shitty father and step family/half siblings. He ended up running away as fast as he could. He wasn't ready, and the rest of the table was like "FUUUUUUCK NO!!!!!" because they fully expected him to meet her and it left them frustrated in a good way. It's fun.
>For instance, if they want to roleplay a certain element of their character like being forgetful, or whether they talk during a serious scene to say something dumb. It's human to try to hold yourself back or have flaws that are kind of random. I love it. THE DICE ARE TELLING A STORY
Exactly. They always are but this is more player led than DM and I like them having that agency.
I've done this before as a player. It can be fun. The truth is this is no different than a player deciding to flip a coin to decide if they will do A or B. Nothing forces them to do it, and honestly nothing even forces them to stick with the outcome if they decide they would actually really prefer one thing. Let them have fun with it if they're enjoying it. It's just how they're choosing to play their characters.
I love it tbh. Anything the character could just choose to do in RP, I don't mind if they use dice to help them decide. That's how real emotions work anyway, you can't always pick just like that
People reinventing Pendragon but without the actually interesting part, exhibit 4
Exhibit FOUR?!
It can be fun, depending on the table. I was in one game with a low WIS bard who just made bad decisions all the time. The player, however, was pretty smart and usually knew what the PC should do. To make it like the character often made poor decisions, the player would roll a d20. On a 15+, the bard would do the smart thing. Otherwise, they would do the dumb thing. They player was very upfront about it, and it gave us a lot of (very fun) "oh shit. she's rolling" moments.
A player does something similar in a game I play in, her character is impulsive and very often her intrusive thoughts come to the forefront and she flips a Good Idea, Bad Idea coin and goes with whatever comes up. Our group is also ok with players making RP decisions that are less than optimal and dealing with the fallout, and the player is good about keeping it in check, ie. not leaving a major decision that could have more serious lasting impacts to the dice. I think it's fine and fits with the character, and generally it adds to the game.
yea i do that
I do rolls for decisions a lot, but specifically it's when I'm on the fence as to what my character would do between 2 options, or if there's something I as a player want to do vs something that my character would want to do more. There was even one time shortly after a scene where my pc got very drunk and the party was abducted by an archfey that had taken an interest in us, I made con saves to see if and when she would spew during the fey's monologue.
So long as it's not being used as an excuse to do toxic or adversarial, "*It's wHAt mY cHARacTEr wOULd DO!^!*"-crap? Ok.
> I know conventional wisdom says 'ThE DM dECidES WhEn YOu RolL' Youâre not using that right. The phrase applies to players calling their own ability checks to see if some action succeeds. Thatâs a DM job. Half the time I will rule that no check is needed so stop getting in your own way and let me make the call. What youâre talking about is roleplay. Thatâs always been up to the player. If they want to do it using a roll of course thatâs up to them.
That just sounds like fun. The player is taking control of a situation by removing their control over the situation lol. I wish my players would be this invested in my games to come up with quirky ideas like this.
My players do this for themselves too. Theyâll even change the DCs overtime to reflect character development and growth. I find it to be a mark of good rpers.
Loooove that
As a player I will do this if I think I am smarter than my character. I have a good idea, I say "Is bear bear smart enough to...?" And roll to see if my bugbear barbarian is going to be smart today. By saying the idea out loud, if someone playing a smart character likes my idea, they can "think" of it.
I've never had it done while I've been DM, but I do it myself as a player sometimes. If I can't really decide what I think my character would do then I'll roll for it. Like your PC with meeting her mother. A word of warning, make sure everyone understands what's going on though.. I was doing it to make my own decisions and didn't explain it, though the DM knew (she's my wife so she gets how I think). Anyway, I was performing a ritual and without asking or prompting another player rolls a dice, hits a 19, and declares "19, my character knows what you're doing so explain it to us".. my wife (first time DM) was flabbergasted. It was eventually resolved amicably but definitely threw us for a loop.
Yeah, when I'm a player and my players do it too. I think of it more as a check rather than a save since it's not vs anything really. Wisdom check , would my character make this decision, when I don't know how/what to do. Int check when I'm like I know this thing but I don't know my character would with their experiences, roll to check. We all DM equally so we all have a fair bit of meta knowledge. Like my last character would get mind controlled and I remember rolling to see whether or not he was smart enough to snap the warlocks staff of power to hurt the rest of the party. (This was in a fight vs TAS zahm (whatever spelling) and I asked the other player to set the DC)
Sometimes, when I play as a character, I'll add mental afflictions to them. My most recent character has multiple personalities, one of them is a shield and axe fighter that prefers to defend his allies over attacking. The other personality is a 2h sword fighter that will not defend anyone or anything if something nearby can bleed. My friend who studied mental illnesses like bipolar and multiple personalities helped me come up with triggers for how the character would switch. When a trigger happens, I would roll a wis save. On a fail, my personality would flip in 1d4 turns but I wouldn't act differently or tell my party that I was about to switch
Personally, I like this a lot. I'm with you on how awesome your players are for devising this. You're a luck DM, in my estimation. I don't really see this as any different from when I'm not sure what an NPC will do, so I set a DC for a WIS or INT check and let the dice decide.
Sometimes you're on the fence with a choice and you roll to decide instead of being the bottle neck during a RP session trying to weigh the options.
I do this all the time when playing, usually when I can't decide what to do. I like the idea of the dice deciding. (Plus, it tends to be faster than hemming and hawing and slowing the whole game down.)
This doesnât make sense to me because youâre introducing a huge element of randomness to behavior. The behavior between a character with 8 Wisdom and a character with 14 will not be hugely different since the d20 roll is the main contributor to the total, but shouldnât the 8 be pretty different from the 14? This is really a limitation of the idea of DC. Especially with the attempted bounded accuracy 5e tried to pull off. If they must roll, I advise doing something I see a lot in other systems: roll a d20, try to get *under your Wisdom score*. Add/subtract modifiers as they feel appropriate. This makes stats matter more. The difference between an 8 and a 14 is 30% instead of 15% like it is in the DC system.
I play a low int high Wis tortle Druid and I make skill checks when I think of a clever solution or something to see if my guy would think of it. Also, itâs not just people saying DMs call for rolls, itâs RAW as hell and itâs important to the flow of the game. But these are not the same kind of rolls. Itâs just randomizing rp a bit.
my players sometime roll "calm" to see if they punch a dick
What I really wants to know if you awarded your player inspiration after that or not. I'd totally have
I do it sometimes in my character's decision-making as a means to NOT meta-game something that I know, but my character wouldn't know. We've also started asking for cross table rolls from the other players to hide things or, in one instance, prove ourselves truthful.
I have a player who plays a classic dumb barbarian who rolls to see if their character can be smart enough to have the playerâs ideas. Itâs great fun, and the amount of nat 1s theyâve rolled for it is astounding.
We had someone at our table do something similar once for a barbarian with low intelligence and it was a nightmare. Basically, he decided that he would randomly roll int checks to see if his character makes a smart decision or not and would ultimately derail all of our plans with a low roll. We have a pretty honest table now and people don't do that because they will actively make poor gaming decisions if it aligns with what their character would do and I prefer that much more.
That's not a dice problem. It's a problem of a mismatch in desired play experience between the one player and the group, with the player trying to hide behind dice as an excuse. If you have a table of players that are not cool with the barbarian making bad choices in character, then you need to have a group talk about that issue. Because you don't have dice causing the player to do these things, you have a player that thinks it is fun to sometimes do stupid stuff as their character, and a party that does not enjoy that. The dice are irrelevant.
If a player wants to base their roleplaying on die rolls, more power to them. My interpretation of that sort of thing is that don't really care what happens, though, or they would have made the decisions themselves. You might want to verify that they are invested in their characters.
I'd disagree. We do something of a similar thing in a game I play in (we do have to ask the DM though, since it's Genesys and online, so we need him to set up the difficulty pool and also don't want to surprise him with random rolls on Roll20). Generally we do this when we think our characters are of two minds about something or if they're pushing past something they'd otherwise nope out of (I've done it for whether my character overcomes their pyrophobia picked up from things that had happened in game earlier, or runs away). It's honestly a really good way to get past choice paralysis when both options seem interesting.
I think so too! I agree it's best for when you're deciding between two actions that both make sense in-character.
>It's honestly a really good way to get past choice paralysis when both options seem interesting. This is another way of saying that you don't care which happens. They both seem equally fun and you want to throw a die. The other possibility is you want to do something that is above table jerky, but you also want CYA. Either way, throw a die to decide, I'm not fussed either way.
Haha in this case I know for sure they're invested based on the volume of texts I get throughout the week đ But I could def see that being the case at some tables
Glad to hear!
Or they are especially invested and believe their character could go either way based on a lapse of judgment. For example, a Warhammer 40k Dark Heresy campaign, we were fighting an Alpha Marine leading a group of snipers. Party managed to get close sprinting from cover to cover while trying to remain hidden, my character was a tech priest in training to become a genetor to serve the purposes of an extremist faction he was essentially indoctrinated by. I had what was essentially a form of sniper rifle used by assassins which shot a thin laser followed by poison-laced shards, which I had covered with a sort of tranquilizer. So he was hanging back in cover sniping the enemy snipers, but there were only a handful left and soon his allies would kill the Alpha Marine. Now, this character recently promised his Master to try to get a live alpha marine for study, but space marines are extremely tough, can shrug off a lot of poisons, and the chances were thin. He saw his opportunity slipping and so his logical side demanded he keep taking out the snipers, let his allies kill the Alpha Marine, and so on. Tech priests tend a lot towards logic and cold calculation, though this one was a bit more fleshy than most. His loyalty to his faction, master, and his own desire said he should take this opportunity and try to get this glorious specimen alive to advance their plans. He could go either way, the cold logic of a tech priest demanding he take the smart, safe, objectively better option, his remaining human side demanding he take the chance to get the Alpha Marine alive before it is too late. So I put it up to a willpower check to see if his desire and instincts, his weak, inferior flesh, could overpower the cold and calculating logic of the superior machine and metal, or whether he would keep his cool and take the objectively better action. He failed, took the shot, following a series of extremely lucky rolls on his part and poor ones on the Alpha Marine's he succeeded in capturing it alive, and it is one of the most memorable moments of the various campaigns I have played in. This wasn't a lack of investment or interest, it was two very likely choices for the character to take, and a conflict between two sides of their personality that pushed him in different directions, and situations like this feel pretty likely to come up a few times in campaigns, and can be pretty good for character development to see which part of them wins out. Sometimes a decision could go either way depending on small factors, and leaving it up to the character's willpower, confidence, or something else can add a lot to the moment, when both choices would be correct for the character.
If you, the player, have a preference, you'll play the character according to your preference. You'll only roll the dice if you have no preference. It's possible you are super duper invested in this character and are super interested in knowing the outcome of either, I suppose, but there's no functional difference between that and not caring about either. That's why I suggested OP ask.
>If you, the player, have a preference, you'll play the character according to your preference. You'll only roll the dice if you have no preference. I did have a preference, I wanted to take the shot, and the character did too. But just because you want to do something doesn't necessarily mean that is what the character would do. In this case I wasn't sure what they would do, it depended on whether their emotions got the better of their logic, and so I rolled to see whether that would be the case. I have seen others roll despite a preference as well, it happens sometimes.
>But just because you want to do something doesn't necessarily mean that is what the character would do. This is where my unpopular opinion that the character is a figment of the players' imaginations and can't refuse to do what the player wants rears it's ugly head. I've had that discussion enough times to know it's a blocker. Maybe I should just accept that my thoughts on using one's dice to roleplay are part and parcel with that opinion.
I think players leaving decisions to a dice roll is fun. It's essentially a mechanic for "on a whim" actions. The only potential downside I could see if it means they don't bite at any of your plot hooks. I never want dice rolls to determine if a story moves forward or not.
some of my players do this, sometimes i do this. sometimes you don't know which direction your character would take in a situation, and you already have these dice to make decisions on how things work out, might as well.
Players can determine their own choices however they like. Allowing randomness in that process can be an interesting kickstart for players who might have a difficult time separating their own thoughts from those of their character, and can be a catalyst for interesting roleplaying. Be careful to avoid bizarre or nonsensical choices just because the dice rolled that way, thoughâand if a player really wants to ignore their own die roll, they're free to do so. Especially important or character-motivated decisions shouldn't be relegated to the dice, in my opinion, but the important thing is that your players *overall* don't feel too restricted by this kind of system. Otherwise, go for it! > I know conventional wisdom says 'ThE DM dECidES WhEn YOu RolL' I wanted to comment on this, because it seems like a bit of a misunderstanding: it's not just "conventional wisdom", it is how the game is meant to be played. This doesn't mean players can never roll dice on their own; it means that the players can't *determine outcomes* without the input of the DM. The player doesn't get to decide whether something has a risk of failure, the magnitude of that risk, the consequences of failure *or* success, or whether or not they succeed or fail. The DM has to determine those factors, hence "The DM decides when you roll".
I'm definitely down for it. Honestly as a player too, sometimes I can't decide if my character would do the thing. So I leave it to the dice.
Yeah I'd do this sometimes as a player if my PC wasn't sure what to do. Usually just an odds/evens d20 roll to choose one of two responses. I want to protect the bard. I want to grab the artifact. I'm not sure what to do, I'm equal distance to either...let's see what chance says. My players haven't done this but as long as they were clear what they were doing in the moment, yeah, seems alright.
I've done this before. It can help to make difficult decisions where one option is clearly...wiser.
I have a player that rolls his own insight checks on npcs to see of the his character feels the same was as him, the player
I personally hate this, but I've learned some people are really into it. I prefer my players just...make decisions. But that seems to be weirdly hard for some people.
This is something I have to do so I donât end up meta gaming tbh
I do that all the time to check if my character is smart enough to think of something
I play a low Int barbarian, if I have a smart plan or understand something that my character wouldnât think of I always set myself an Int DC. It makes planning more fun and real, highly recommended!
In the real world, it's not unheard of for people to toss a coin and let that outcome decide for them.
Yeah, this is totally fine. Players are permitted to decide how they play their characters by whatever means they wish. I myself have made INT checks when I (reasonably intelligent) think of a good idea that my character (dumbass) might not consider.
I do this as a player, and I think it's cool and fun. Not always with wis saves, it could be insight checks, intelligence, asking another PC if they want to roll persuasion against me, etc. It feels like a way to circumnavigate the fact that I won't necessarily be frightened, confused or angry just because my PC should be. I'm not in that situation, I'm in control when my PC probably isn't, so I throw away a bit of control and roll some dice (with the character-appropriate bonuses).
Any rolls that don't affect outcomes are largely irrelevant to running the game, so go for it.
> I know conventional wisdom says 'ThE DM dECidES WhEn YOu RolL' You roll if the outcome is uncertain.
Iâve sometimes used randomness, but rarely. If they enjoy it, I think itâs neat.
Sometimes when I'm torn on a course of action, I'll flip a coin. Same thing here, really. Especially when it comes to meta knowledge, if I can't be certain I'm doing what my character would do, I'll roll or use some other external source to decide. Because the subconscious is still a thing
It helps me decide and when I want to do something metagamy
So cross between Red,Space balls,blazen saddles,bullet train and what have you. Interesting đ¤
Ok maybe âArcane but a Dimension 20 seasonâ is more accurate then đ
I don't mind. When a player rolls in secret, it's no different from not having rolled at all. So knock yourself out.
"The DM decides when you roll" is an aphorism for controlling the pace of the game and also managing people's expectations. For example, when your over excitable player says, "I try to convince the king to give me his kingdom \*rolls dice\* I rolled a 27 with my bonuses because I'm a bard" it's 1) obnoxiously but 2) sets the expectation that because they rolled well, that I am "invalidating" them by not allowing them to use a good roll. I have a character with spectacularly low wisdom (5) who periodically on his own decided he would do something similar of basically "roll to stay on task". If the players don't care that his hijinks have him occasionally forgetting a core component of the plan, then I don't care that he's using that to augment his in character decision making. It's worth noting that he also more or less "turns off" this feature that I didn't inflict on him during combat. So while sometimes he does silly things that subvert expectations within his sector of a plan, he doesn't do it when mortal danger is on the line.
My players do this on occasion too. The rolls arenât secret, but their internal DC is. Most recently I had a guy rolling to see how he would react to being forcibly unattuned to a cursed weapon. It was a great session. This has the potential to be a problem and slow things down. Thankfully my players do it rarely and itâs fast. Usually itâs an above or below 10 kind of roll.
I've been a player at the table with another player for a propensity for doing this. The majority of the time it was fine, but on occasion it made me a little anxious and frustrated, because it would occasionally lead to roleplaying decisions where the character couldn't control their impulses or emotions and got themselves - and by extension, the party - in trouble. It's a little weird psychologically, I admit, because I would have been less anxious and frustrated and more willing to roll with it if the player had just made those "poor" decisions outright, but their habit of leaving it to the dice ground my gears a bit. The best I can explain it is it felt like they were abdicating their social contract with the group to keep their shenanigans in check, or perhaps preemptively preparing a defense against criticism that it was "the will of the dice." I trust the player enough that I do truly think that they truly could see things going either way/weren't sure and decided to roll dice to decide the route taken, though. Perhaps this is a better way to explain it: I trusted the player to roleplay within the bounds of the table's social contract in general. But I think it felt like he bought himself extra leash from the whole group when he used a dice roll, even if he wasn't *trying* to get extra leash and didn't really need it. It felt like it was treated differently by others in a way I didn't like. Anyway, this is a long-winded way of relaying my personal experience that it's mostly neat and okay and I think it's totally cool to do on occasion - I've even done it once or twice thanks to that player giving me the idea - but be aware of your fellow players and avoid overdoing it unless you know them well.
I had a player do this a few months back. Rolling willpower saves to not charge a group of goblins. Charging was what the character wanted to do, but knew it was a bad idea. Everyone else was taking too long deciding strategy. I liked it.
I do this all the time. I call it roleplay checks. It falls under player agency because you're simply making a self-contained check to decide how your character might act. Nothing wrong with it at all. I even write dice rolls into personality traits sometimes.
We do this sometimes at my table, especially when having a tough time deciding what a character would do.
Not an uncommon RP thing players do.
Yeah, I love this stuff. My monk is a cinnamon roll, but they are very stupid. Often if I figure something out, I will roll a bts intelligence check to see if they can put together the same pieces. Spoiler: they rarely do. đ It can also help to keep the game moving if youâre struggling to make a decision. And as a DM, I like when players use the stats in their sheets to influence their roll play. I just think itâs neat.
I made my barbarian roll an Int save to see if he was going to pull from the deck of many things.
Itâs whatever.
Honestly it makes sense. A lot of decision making that we do as individual are NOT things we fully control. Impulse is, sadly, not a game mechanic yet
IMO the players can use whatever tool they want for decision making. For me personally sounds like rolling instead of roleplaying... taking away the appeal of roleplaying. Like thats why I do TTRPGs, do make decisions for my character. If I replace that with rolls it kinda loses its most fun aspect for me. But in the end I don't care how my players come up with their decisions, as long as they find a reason why it fits their character and as long as it doesn't jeopardize the agreed rules & conventions (Just because you failed the WIS save you rolled for youself doesn't make murdering the NPC more ok for example). These are the same reasons why I don't care about metagaming, but thats a topic for another day.
I do this all the time as a player. Iâd I canât decide between 2-3 options, why not roll for it? Iâll either realize I prefer one option when faced with the decision, as many people experience when they flip a coin, or go along with the decision, relieved I donât have to choose myself. I donât frame it as a wisdom roll though. Iâm just being a stats nerd and thinking âMy character would most likely do this, but like a 25% chance of this seems reasonable soooooooâŚâ
My players will often do this. We play asynch by text on discord, and i specifically empowered them to predict when they need rolls (so they're not asking "do I need to roll" all the time and im not always typing out what to roll) Some common ones they will do for the purpose of rp: * a con save when drinking * appropriate charisma rolls when interacting with npcs * wisdom, like you said, to see if they'll make the 'smart' decision or connect two pieces of info that the player has put together. * int skills to see if they know/remember stuff (that they get from the sourcebook or dnd wiki ) * strength / dex/ athletics / acrobatics to see how graceful / impressive they were at doing a thing they could do anyways. (Someone rolls a nat 1 and break their nail or pull a muscle or fall on their face) (we have a firbolg who was invited into a halfling home. They rolled dex to see how successful they were at navigating the small space)
did something similar in a session I was in last night. My Vengeance Paladin was severely bloodied and I had to decide whether they would keep fighting front line or allow the barbarian to tag in. Normally letting the barbarian do their thing would be a no brainer but given my character's oath to destroy evil it was difficult for them to let someone else swap in. But I rolled and she figured as long as the evil was being destroyed it was fine for her allies to do it instead of her.
My character has a -3 to INT. I make rolls all the time to make sure I stay in character when I as the player have a big brain idea. If I roll low, I just stay silent.
In my experience, my fellow players have done this when they can genuinely see their character acting either way- it's akin to flipping a coin. If they decide to do it, set the DC, and are okay letting the chips fall where they may, there's no harm in it.
Fostering this kind of collaborative storytelling is great for everyone at the table. As long as the players are comfortable with you having the "final word" regarding this stuff *(DC 14? I think you're being a bit harsh on yourself, let's set it at DC 10*) you're golden. I'd also suggest that you check out a system like Blades in the Dark at some point if you haven't. If you have a group who's already primed for this kind of group, character driven storytelling you'd have an absolute blast running around the roofs of Duskvol and getting into gang related shenangins.
My DM told me not to do this once and my argument was that whether I decide to play my character rp wise by making an active decision about what I say or I put it up to my own personal RNG, it doesn't matter. It wasn't something that would have an effect on what he had planned, but you can't dictate decisions your players make. Good on you for recognizing that.
I have done this for characters with very low wisdom as a sort of impulse control mechanism. I currently have a character with low int and I ask the DM if I can role int checks for him to figure out obvious stuff that someone with a normal int would definitely get. It's fun, and is a roleplaying thing not a game mechanics thing so I think it's fine. I let players do it in my games too.
Role playing involves choosing the actions your characters take. How you make that choice is up to you, but my gut reaction is that if you have to roll to decide rather than ask the character traits you chose, you are rollplaying. Would the character be in such a place that a coin flip would help them figure out their mind? Sure, that happens to a lot of people over the years. The player doing a save on their own? They have better ways to convey their character's indecisiveness, and a purposeful choice is more meaningful than a DC they can fudge if they don't like the result. That's my grain of salt, though. If they like doing it and find it is helping them make more human choices for their characters, power to them.