D&D 5E A case where the 'can try everything' dogma could be a problem

[iserith]

Typically I see a bit of both. Players straight up claiming stuff and waiting for the DM to stop them or Players claiming outlandish things and rolling automatically since they doubt the DM will just let them. However at my table, we tend to "time out" and plan who rolls, who helps, and who acts as auxiliary.

Cleric: The murder dropped this religious pendant in the struggle, you say? As a cleric, I probably know with deity it relates to and that will tell us where to look. So which deity?
DM: Roll Intelligence for it.
Cleric: Time out. I'm rolling as I have the highest mod for religion.
Rogue: I'll help you.
Paladin: I'll roll too in case you roll double 3s again.
Cleric: Shut up.
Wizard: What did the pendant look like again?
DM: It's a dagger with a jagged edge on a bronze plated disc. There is a faint imprinting of a hand on it.
Wizard: I'm going to roll History to recall any history of that image and narrow down the guessing. 16.
DM: Ummm... You recall the Jagged Edge Alliance of the Age of Conquest.
Cleric: Age of Conquest, eh? Then all modern religious imagery wouldn't apply. That would make it easier... right?
DM: Somewhat. You know its not a newer symbol. (I'll drop the DC)
Cleric: 10 and 18
Paladin: 11
DM: The cleric notices that the old symbol is of Vultura, the goddess of scavengers, peddlers, and street folk from back when the empire was strongest.
Paladin: Guess we're going to that part of town.

In my games, getting the benefits of the Help action would require the player of the character who is helping to be specific about how he or she is actually helping. Based on the stated goal and approach, it may help, may not help, or I might ask for an ability check (though this last bit tends to be fairly rare in practice).

So Rogue and Paladin are going to have to tell me what they're specifically doing to help Cleric or else they contribute nothing. Wizard is clearly helping in this example in my view and would impart advantage to Cleric's roll. I would, however, ask the player to refrain from asking to make ability checks because (1) that's my job and (2) why would you ask the DM for a chance to fail?

Doing this a couple times is generally enough to stop players from asking for checks and to be explicit about the things they are doing so I can adjudicate their actions more easily. It also adds more context to the scene which makes for more interesting storytelling in my view.

 

[Agamon]

As a player, I would never do that. I would say "Drawing upon my time as a cloistered cleric, I examine the icon we've found and see if it has any religious significance." Then I'd wait for the DM to respond. The smart play is to avoid making ability checks and shoot for success. I certainly wouldn't want to assume I have to make one or to ask to make one. That's the same as saying, "Hey, DM, I definitely want a chance to fail at this." No thanks!

Yes, basic game theory here. Why players want to roll all the time boggles my mind, honestly. Might be some sort of Pavlovian conditioning response (roll high, get cookie).

 

[iserith]

Yes, basic game theory here. Why players want to roll all the time boggles my mind, honestly. Might be some sort of Pavlovian conditioning response (roll high, get cookie).

I think it's a combination of monkey-see-monkey-do and believing that a check is an action. Certain games and certain DMs promote this way of playing more than others. Even some of the designers' games have the players asking to make ability checks and the DM saying it's okay - it's that common. Often it's in the form of "I want to make a Perception check to..." This mistakes the purpose of ability checks: They aren't there to enable people to do things. It's the fictional action taken that enables a character to do a thing. If the thing you're doing has a certain outcome, then there's no roll. If the thing you're doing has an uncertain outcome, then you're going to roll and your characters' stats and proficiency help you take some of the uncertainty out of it.

A lot of DMs also roll for practically everything. It's mentioned in the DMG as the "Rollling With It" method (page 236). The DMG is smart to point out a serious drawback to this approach, however: "...roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success."

A further influence on this probably has something to do with ability checks frequently having no cost attached to failure. If it doesn't cost you anything to fail, then why not just give it a shot? I try to always have a failed ability check mean the scene changes in some way and often not for the better (for the characters).

 

[77IM]

I allow all my players to make knowledge checks, and then for the ones that succeed, the information they get is based on which knowledge proficiencies they have.

This solves two problems:
1) The person with no relevant proficiencies can still get some information, it's just not as specific and useful.
2) The person with MULTIPLE relevant proficiencies doesn't have to pick one. We avoid pointless arguments about "Is knowledge of an ancient cult of Mystra going to be History, Religion, or Arcana?" If at least one relevant knowledge skill applies, you add the proficiency bonus, and the information you learn is based on all the relevant proficiencies you have.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

What would have happened if the players decided to claim their rights to all try a roll of any knowledge each time?

1) With four characters, they would have succeeded almost always. Unless I artificially increased the DC.

2) The proficient character would only marginally succeed more often than the others, at least at low level when the proficiency bonus is only +2.

3) Some unproficient PC (the Rogue) had a much higher Int than the Cleric. So the Cleric player would be actually penalized by choosing the Religion skill, rather than just stick to Wis-based skills.

4) Not much spotlight effect. Probably more common for multiple characters to succeed rather than one.

5) Game slowed down a little bit.

This only happens if your knowledge checks are a binary pass/fail. When I want to make knowledge checks entertaining, I let everybody roll their checks (and I have a mechanism which prevents the players from knowing whether they rolled well or poorly, essentially by randomly determining whether they are trying to roll high or low) and then pass out information based on the quality of their checks. When one PC says that vampires are pushovers who can't attack anyone wearing garlic, and another says they have a necrotic aura which withers anyone who touches them, and another says he thinks they're injured only by silver weapons and can turn into mist, who do you trust? Usually the guy with the most knowledge (highest bonus), unless there's a clear consensus of other knowledgeable characters that he is wrong, or if the information he has just doesn't make sense.

It takes a bit of work to set this up so I don't always do it, but then again my players are oddly averse to proactively seeking out knowledge. It has led to four character deaths over the past two days so hopefully they'll start to learn soon.

 

[Ristamar]

...the information they get is based on which knowledge proficiencies they have.

I like that approach. It allows the DM to put a different a spin on the information relative to the PC's area of expertise.

As for Knowledge checks, I tend to follow Mr Angry's advice: http://theangrygm.com/ask-angry-passive-skills-active-skills-perception-and-knowledge/

TL;DR - Use passive scores for "on the spot" knowledge, and don't make the players actively call for the check unless there is a good reason.

 

[jrowland]

Group checks with half succeeding meaning success are a bit wonky - in those situations, the more skilled character has a better chance without help.

I see what you mean. But you can look at like schroedinger's cat. That is, in your view (the common view I should add), the more skilled PC should KNOW more than the less skilled PCs and therefore should succeed more often. In the schroedinger view, the more skilled PC both KNOWS and DOESN'T know at the same time (rather its indeterminate), until a measurement is made. Regardless of which measurement is made (solo check or group check) the answer only then solidifies. In other words, you don't know anything until you check to see what you know.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

I never allow retries (by the same character or other characters) unless there is a penalty for failure or a cost associated with the attempt (i.e. roll Wisdom to find your way out of the labyrinth, each failed check costs 1d6 hours of time OR roll Dexterity to try to snatch the artifact from the demon's shrine, but you take 3d6 damage for each attempt).

If the whole group is doing something I use the group check mechanic. If it's a task for one person, I use the character who suggested the action or I randomly select a player to make a check. The situation is resolved quickly and we move on.

Spamming rolls or rolling unnecessarily is dull and pointless. Speed of play and gripping action are the way to go. If you as the DM thinks the group's combined knowledge and abilities is enough to get them past something, it should just happen. For knowledge checks, structure it to give them the info they need to make choices but make them work for the knowledge to make the best choice.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What would have happened if the players decided to claim their rights to all try a roll of any knowledge each time?

1) With four characters, they would have succeeded almost always. Unless I artificially increased the DC.

The issue here is that you need only one success to get the necessary knowledge, with no penalty for failure.

But, as anyone who remembers the world before 5g phones & Wikipedia knows, when you ask a group of people a question, they'll come up with both right and wrong answers, and it's more a matter of personality than veracity which one they settle on as a consensus.

There's a couple alternate ways you could handle whole-group knowledge checks:

The old-school or 'simulationist' way would be to have the DM make all the checks behind the screen and tell each player what they 'know,' making up wrong information for failed checks, and telling characters who barely made or barely failed that they 'weren't sure,' and characters who succeeded for failed by a large margin that they were 'certain.' Then let them RP to a consensus.

The 4e more 'gamist'/'narativst' way would be to set a number of successes needed to get to the right answer (or failures to get the wrong one, or combination to reach no conclusion, but in either case 'fail forward' to move the story along). In 4e you'd just use the formal Skill Challenge structure, in 5e you'll have to make something up.

The obvious, and simpler on all counts, "5e way," though would be the (drumroll) - Group Skill Check! (Yes, I know 4e had group skill checks too.) Everyone rolls and if at least half the party succeeds they get the right answer. If they fail, you can either give them no information, or, if there was at least one success perhaps, conflicting information that is partially true.

I think it's a combination of monkey-see-monkey-do and believing that a check is an action. Certain games and certain DMs promote this way of playing more than others. Even some of the designers' games have the players asking to make ability checks and the DM saying it's okay - it's that common. Often it's in the form of "I want to make a Perception check to..."

One thing I like about 5e is that it actively discourages jumping the gun like that. I've never liked the players calling out checks in any system. Even in 4e, it'd bug (me outside of the structure of a Skill Challenge where I'm often asking, specifically, what skills they want to use, and to 'make a case' for them). In 5e, no DM should put up with it!

The resolution system is clear: the player states the action (not a 'skill') and the DM decides how it will be resolved - which may or may not involve calling for a check (which may or may not be the one the player was hoping for).

A further influence on this probably has something to do with ability checks frequently having no cost attached to failure. If it doesn't cost you anything to fail, then why not just give it a shot?

And that's the very problem we're talking about. 5e makes it to easy for anyone to try most any check, and that gets tedious. Consequences are certainly one way to cut down on it. Only having the first character to declare an action make a check would be another...

 

[ExploderWizard]

As a player, I would never do that. I would say "Drawing upon my time as a cloistered cleric, I examine the icon we've found and see if it has any religious significance." Then I'd wait for the DM to respond. The smart play is to avoid making ability checks and shoot for success. I certainly wouldn't want to assume I have to make one or to ask to make one. That's the same as saying, "Hey, DM, I definitely want a chance to fail at this." No thanks!

I think the best selling point for players is that asking to make a check is asking for a chance to fail when the DM might otherwise grant success for a good idea. So instead, put forth your best idea based on your understanding of the situation, describe it clearly and what you hope to accomplish, then wait for the DM to respond. Your character's stats and proficiencies are effectively a backup in case the DM doesn't think your idea will certainly get the job done.

I think more than anything else, this mode of play has fallen out of fashion because it actually requires players to pay attention to what is happening in the game world. I have seen so many instances of this and observed games being played where the players kind of "zone out" until its their turn to roll a die for something. Such conditioning might have been the work of DMs who run games in which nothing of significance can take place without a die roll or check of some kind so the players naturally only pay attention to the stuff that gets things done- rolling dice.

Yes, basic game theory here. Why players want to roll all the time boggles my mind, honestly. Might be some sort of Pavlovian conditioning response (roll high, get cookie).

I think you are on the right track, especially when playing with a DM that actually runs the game true to this theory. Another factor in play is the obsession with a character's mechanical abilities and a natural desire to see them in action. Taken too far the testing of these constructs, to see how well they perform overshadows other concerns such as role playing, and keeping up with events in the game world. Wanting to roll all the time for these reasons isn't about wanting to fail, its about wanting to see if build decisions perform well in the field and that can't be done via clever player input or good descriptions of actions taken. When what is attainable with a high enough die roll becomes the object and purpose of playing then there is little outside the realm of checks and rolls that hold any interest for the player.