I consider myself a pretty seasoned DM, but one thing that grinds my gears kinda is players that need to be doing everything everywhere.
For example: Artificer : ooh, can I roll arcana? DM: Yeah go ahead Paladin : oh can I too? DM: you're on the other side of the room. Paladin: Can I roll a perception check to see if I can hear them then?
Maybe I'm the jerk here, but it wasn't their idea to make an arcana check in the first place, and maybe I'm being too nice by letting them. It's not just that though, it's like everything. Needs to be involved in every check, every action, and also taking away some moments away for other characters to shine. Also I need to curb this Paladin's feeling of FoMo.
Simple rule: Only the DM can call for skill checks. PERIOD.
If they refuse to stop, I'd say, "Not only does only the DM call for checks, but if you ask to make one, I will not call for it, and you will not be allowed to make it."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
At a certain point you sometimes need to cut across any additional requests and play out the scene. Like;
Artificer: can I roll arcana?
DM: sure, go ahead.
Paladin: ok I'm gonna roll too, can I roll perception?
DM: let's resolve this arcana roll first and see. Ok, so you examine the artifact and find...
Players spin their wheels trying to come up with additional solutions after they've come up with one or two viable plans but events do not advance, making them think that the situation must have some crucial element that you, the dm, haven't heard from them yet and they will surely die without. Essentially if a player says their character does something and nothing happens, the rest of the characters are going to think the floor is still open and pile on or go off in different directions. The only way to really stop this is to settle on an order of operations and continue the scene. You'll usually also find that advancing the scene brings new questions and challenges for them to address, so some of the things some players were talking about doing before the status quo of the scene had changed and are no longer relevant. The players shouldn't be salty about this either (unless they felt they had a really cool solution that was ignored, so take care when ruling on how a scene should resolve) , as that means they've progressed. Now, you don't want to just shut down all discussion and always go with whoever talks the loudest or fastest, so there's a bit of a line that needs to be walked in regards to how long you do give them to plan before resolving a sequence of events.
You'll want to add phrases like "ok nice, which of those do you do?" or "ok time for a decision" or "ok one sec while we do this first" to your vocabulary. You can also increase the pressure for them to stop waffling in-game, like "you hear the weird galloping through the halls of the dungeon coming closer; it's almost on top of you now, what do you do?" Or "the priest's face grows visibly more impatient..." stuff like that.
Another helpful tool would be to check out Matt Coville's video on Skill Dogpiling, as that's also something you touched on in your original example. Here's a link: https://youtu.be/canhaxHlFg8
In my game we use simple rule. Who ever made idea/called roll can throw it and everyone that is proficient in that skill can do it also if nearby. Works well enough.
That's meta gaming, its terrible, and you should call it out, because they will only get worse.
Its different if they are actively doing something together, digging through the same pile to find something, etc etc. And they can definitely ask for a check in a roundabout way "I want to go listen at the door", but they don't get a check just because another player does.
At a certain point you sometimes need to cut across any additional requests and play out the scene. Like;
Artificer: can I roll arcana?
DM: sure, go ahead.
Paladin: ok I'm gonna roll too, can I roll perception?
DM: let's resolve this arcana roll first and see. Ok, so you examine the artifact and find...
Players spin their wheels trying to come up with additional solutions after they've come up with one or two viable plans but events do not advance, making them think that the situation must have some crucial element that you, the dm, haven't heard from them yet and they will surely die without. Essentially if a player says their character does something and nothing happens, the rest of the characters are going to think the floor is still open and pile on or go off in different directions. The only way to really stop this is to settle on an order of operations and continue the scene. You'll usually also find that advancing the scene brings new questions and challenges for them to address, so some of the things some players were talking about doing before the status quo of the scene had changed and are no longer relevant. The players shouldn't be salty about this either (unless they felt they had a really cool solution that was ignored, so take care when ruling on how a scene should resolve) , as that means they've progressed. Now, you don't want to just shut down all discussion and always go with whoever talks the loudest or fastest, so there's a bit of a line that needs to be walked in regards to how long you do give them to plan before resolving a sequence of events.
You'll want to add phrases like "ok nice, which of those do you do?" or "ok time for a decision" or "ok one sec while we do this first" to your vocabulary. You can also increase the pressure for them to stop waffling in-game, like "you hear the weird galloping through the halls of the dungeon coming closer; it's almost on top of you now, what do you do?" Or "the priest's face grows visibly more impatient..." stuff like that.
Another helpful tool would be to check out Matt Coville's video on Skill Dogpiling, as that's also something you touched on in your original example. Here's a link: https://youtu.be/canhaxHlFg8
I don't let players ask to make checks. They can make an action that leads to a check, but not say "I want to make a check".
They make their character do something, like search a bookshelf. I ask them to roll.
I wouldn't even respond to "Can I make an Arcana check", unless they are speaking sideboard on if a rule allows it. It makes games run much smoother.
That's meta gaming, its terrible, and you should call it out, because they will only get worse.
Its different if they are actively doing something together, digging through the same pile to find something, etc etc. And they can definitely ask for a check in a roundabout way "I want to go listen at the door", but they don't get a check just because another player does.
Ofcourse they are actively doing something. IE trying to identify item history. Who ever came that idea can roll history check. If some other has history proficiency they can give item to them and they can try to indentify it also ("Hey Jack as you know so much about history, do you know about this?). Rule just is that after idea has been brought up, only those in proficient might have second try.
My house rule is that only one person gets to attempt a skill check. If the others are there to offer timely insight, like when Merry helped Gandalf solve the riddle on the Doors of Durin, they roll with advantage. But if the first character (Gandalf) doesn't succeed, nobody else gets to try. That encourages people to help each other shine—they'll call over the Wizard to examine some runes, ask the Fighter to heave up the portcullis, and enlist the Rogue to pick a lock.
Also, I agree: only the DM can call for checks. In my game, players can ask to make them, and even that is pretty lenient. Some DMs prefer players to just describe their actions, and the DM will decide if a check is required for them.
In my game we use simple rule. Who ever made idea/called roll can throw it and everyone that is proficient in that skill can do it also if nearby. Works well enough.
If multiple people want to do a check, I ask who wants to do the check and who wants to help, and then I let them have advantage.
So in the OP, you could say to the Paladin, if you want to help, you could do so and the artificer will get advantage.
You might want to limit helping to only those with proficiency. Up to the DM.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I do this very simply the person that calls out the thing rolls, if someone nearby wants to help them the first player gets advantage as per the rules.
Once the dice are rolled unless something changes thats it. The only situation I will allow multiple rolls are investigating the same area, if players 1 and 2 find nothing and there is a reason player 3 would think they missed something I will allow it otherwise, the characters say nothing is there, nothing is there. I will say my players are really good at playing the dice rolls and not meta gaming them.
I dont like "helping" idea (we used it before) because it mostly will result almost all checks made with adventage (All others are "helping"... all the time). Thats why I prefer who ever get idea gets the roll (encourages everyone to try things) and proficient one can have second try becasue they should know those sorts of things. If there are no proficient ones (or first to roll was only proficient) then there is no second try.
Helping has to be RPed. If they can't figure out a way they could actually help, no advantage.
I'm thinking for example about something like deception. If player A is lying to an NPC, and player B wants to help, player B had better do some RP about it. Otherwise, no advantage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Helping has to be RPed. If they can't figure out a way they could actually help, no advantage.
I'm thinking for example about something like deception. If player A is lying to an NPC, and player B wants to help, player B had better do some RP about it. Otherwise, no advantage.
How do you RP like history check? Character either knows it or dont. Or in investigation when they both try to find example ring in the haystack (it is too easy as other will just join in there to search). Tying it to RP just doesnt work that well many sitatuations (in deception it will work nicely tought).
I dont like "helping" idea (we used it before) because it mostly will result almost all checks made with adventage (All others are "helping"... all the time). Thats why I prefer who ever get idea gets the roll (encourages everyone to try things) and proficient one can have second try becasue they should know those sorts of things. If there are no proficient ones (or first to roll was only proficient) then there is no second try.
Yeah my caveat for the Help Action is that the player needs to have an idea of *how* they're helping. If they're in dialogue helping on persuasion, I'll ask them what they say to help. If they're trying to investigate a room, what do they do to aid the chief investigator? Stuff like that.
If it becomes an issue, I put out of combat action on turns. If the paladin wants to get involved with what someone else is doing more than he cares about whatever he's currently trying to do, he can spend his next turn doing it.
How do you RP like history check? Character either knows it or don't.
If it cannot be RPed, helping is not allowable.
"My character was in the army... would I know about this tactic?" What are they going to say, "Can I read her mind and try to assist her telepathically?"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
How do you RP like history check? Character either knows it or don't.
If it cannot be RPed, helping is not allowable.
"My character was in the army... would I know about this tactic?" What are they going to say, "Can I read her mind and try to assist her telepathically?"
Or player just say: "My character was sage and read lot of history books. Do I know this? "... in every histroy check. That RP point is totally moot.
And this will gets even worse IMO. Example:
Some rogue ( You all know, they just want to do stuff on their own) try to know history of artifact when archmage and super history buff in next room is setting up to glyphs. Then he later comes to room and see that rogue already tried to identify what this item is. "You fool! now I cannot try do that, becasue of.... things!" :)
I consider myself a pretty seasoned DM, but one thing that grinds my gears kinda is players that need to be doing everything everywhere.
For example: Artificer : ooh, can I roll arcana? DM: Yeah go ahead Paladin : oh can I too? DM: you're on the other side of the room. Paladin: Can I roll a perception check to see if I can hear them then?
Maybe I'm the jerk here, but it wasn't their idea to make an arcana check in the first place, and maybe I'm being too nice by letting them. It's not just that though, it's like everything. Needs to be involved in every check, every action, and also taking away some moments away for other characters to shine. Also I need to curb this Paladin's feeling of FoMo.
How do you guys handle these players?
Power WORD KILL. Um I me just tell your players "NO". And I have told some of my recent players to "SHARE THE TABLE".
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
Simple rule: Only the DM can call for skill checks. PERIOD.
If they refuse to stop, I'd say, "Not only does only the DM call for checks, but if you ask to make one, I will not call for it, and you will not be allowed to make it."
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
At a certain point you sometimes need to cut across any additional requests and play out the scene. Like;
Artificer: can I roll arcana?
DM: sure, go ahead.
Paladin: ok I'm gonna roll too, can I roll perception?
DM: let's resolve this arcana roll first and see. Ok, so you examine the artifact and find...
Players spin their wheels trying to come up with additional solutions after they've come up with one or two viable plans but events do not advance, making them think that the situation must have some crucial element that you, the dm, haven't heard from them yet and they will surely die without. Essentially if a player says their character does something and nothing happens, the rest of the characters are going to think the floor is still open and pile on or go off in different directions. The only way to really stop this is to settle on an order of operations and continue the scene. You'll usually also find that advancing the scene brings new questions and challenges for them to address, so some of the things some players were talking about doing before the status quo of the scene had changed and are no longer relevant. The players shouldn't be salty about this either (unless they felt they had a really cool solution that was ignored, so take care when ruling on how a scene should resolve) , as that means they've progressed. Now, you don't want to just shut down all discussion and always go with whoever talks the loudest or fastest, so there's a bit of a line that needs to be walked in regards to how long you do give them to plan before resolving a sequence of events.
You'll want to add phrases like "ok nice, which of those do you do?" or "ok time for a decision" or "ok one sec while we do this first" to your vocabulary. You can also increase the pressure for them to stop waffling in-game, like "you hear the weird galloping through the halls of the dungeon coming closer; it's almost on top of you now, what do you do?" Or "the priest's face grows visibly more impatient..." stuff like that.
Another helpful tool would be to check out Matt Coville's video on Skill Dogpiling, as that's also something you touched on in your original example. Here's a link: https://youtu.be/canhaxHlFg8
In my game we use simple rule. Who ever made idea/called roll can throw it and everyone that is proficient in that skill can do it also if nearby. Works well enough.
That's meta gaming, its terrible, and you should call it out, because they will only get worse.
Its different if they are actively doing something together, digging through the same pile to find something, etc etc. And they can definitely ask for a check in a roundabout way "I want to go listen at the door", but they don't get a check just because another player does.
I don't let players ask to make checks. They can make an action that leads to a check, but not say "I want to make a check".
They make their character do something, like search a bookshelf. I ask them to roll.
I wouldn't even respond to "Can I make an Arcana check", unless they are speaking sideboard on if a rule allows it. It makes games run much smoother.
Ofcourse they are actively doing something. IE trying to identify item history. Who ever came that idea can roll history check. If some other has history proficiency they can give item to them and they can try to indentify it also ("Hey Jack as you know so much about history, do you know about this?). Rule just is that after idea has been brought up, only those in proficient might have second try.
My house rule is that only one person gets to attempt a skill check. If the others are there to offer timely insight, like when Merry helped Gandalf solve the riddle on the Doors of Durin, they roll with advantage. But if the first character (Gandalf) doesn't succeed, nobody else gets to try. That encourages people to help each other shine—they'll call over the Wizard to examine some runes, ask the Fighter to heave up the portcullis, and enlist the Rogue to pick a lock.
Also, I agree: only the DM can call for checks. In my game, players can ask to make them, and even that is pretty lenient. Some DMs prefer players to just describe their actions, and the DM will decide if a check is required for them.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
If multiple people want to do a check, I ask who wants to do the check and who wants to help, and then I let them have advantage.
So in the OP, you could say to the Paladin, if you want to help, you could do so and the artificer will get advantage.
You might want to limit helping to only those with proficiency. Up to the DM.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I do this very simply the person that calls out the thing rolls, if someone nearby wants to help them the first player gets advantage as per the rules.
Once the dice are rolled unless something changes thats it. The only situation I will allow multiple rolls are investigating the same area, if players 1 and 2 find nothing and there is a reason player 3 would think they missed something I will allow it otherwise, the characters say nothing is there, nothing is there. I will say my players are really good at playing the dice rolls and not meta gaming them.
I dont like "helping" idea (we used it before) because it mostly will result almost all checks made with adventage (All others are "helping"... all the time). Thats why I prefer who ever get idea gets the roll (encourages everyone to try things) and proficient one can have second try becasue they should know those sorts of things. If there are no proficient ones (or first to roll was only proficient) then there is no second try.
Helping has to be RPed. If they can't figure out a way they could actually help, no advantage.
I'm thinking for example about something like deception. If player A is lying to an NPC, and player B wants to help, player B had better do some RP about it. Otherwise, no advantage.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Yeah I mean I want my party to succeed, and I encourage teamwork - but the "Always helping" thing is B.S.
This was super helpful. Dogpiling is a great term for that too. Thanks.
How do you RP like history check? Character either knows it or dont. Or in investigation when they both try to find example ring in the haystack (it is too easy as other will just join in there to search). Tying it to RP just doesnt work that well many sitatuations (in deception it will work nicely tought).
Yeah my caveat for the Help Action is that the player needs to have an idea of *how* they're helping. If they're in dialogue helping on persuasion, I'll ask them what they say to help. If they're trying to investigate a room, what do they do to aid the chief investigator? Stuff like that.
If it becomes an issue, I put out of combat action on turns. If the paladin wants to get involved with what someone else is doing more than he cares about whatever he's currently trying to do, he can spend his next turn doing it.
If it cannot be RPed, helping is not allowable.
"My character was in the army... would I know about this tactic?" What are they going to say, "Can I read her mind and try to assist her telepathically?"
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Or player just say: "My character was sage and read lot of history books. Do I know this?
"... in every histroy check. That RP point is totally moot.
And this will gets even worse IMO. Example:
Some rogue ( You all know, they just want to do stuff on their own) try to know history of artifact when archmage and super history buff in next room is setting up to glyphs. Then he later comes to room and see that rogue already tried to identify what this item is. "You fool! now I cannot try do that, becasue of.... things!" :)