Restricting rerolls in D&D

[pemerton]

I haven't seen this discussed yet - from the latest "Save My Game":

First, if you’re letting characters make multiple attempts to use the same skill in the same situation, stop. Various DM’s books make it clear that in many cases, a character gets one chance to succeed with a skill; if the first check fails, the task is beyond him for the time being. Second, if you’re letting everyone have a shot at the same task, someone is bound to succeed just by rolling high. Consider whether a task is a type that can be attempted just once, by one character, with a few other characters assisting.

Moving a boulder is a good example of both of these principles. No one should get more than one chance; either you can move it, or you can’t. It is perfectly reasonable to insist that only the strongest character gets to make the check, with a few other characters using the aid another action to give a boost. How many characters can help depends on how many people can get their shoulders against the boulder. It’s also reasonable for you to rule that if the fighter with Strength 20 can’t move it, then the wizard with Strength 11 doesn’t get to try. When someone asks why not, explain that the fighter didn’t fail because he rolled poorly; rather, his poor roll indicated that the boulder is wedged in so tightly that it will take a Strength higher than 20 to move it. This makes the dice rolls an integral part of the unfolding story and not just a momentary sound effect while characters steamroll their way across the adventure.​

I'm not sure what the "various DM's books" are to which reference is being made - the 4e DMG, for example, in its discussion of searching rooms, seems to imply that rerolls are permitted, until the PC with the best Perception score gets a 20.

Personally, though, I like the suggestion. It resolves an ambiguity in the 4e rules, but could equally be used in other versions of the game. Other opinions?

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

I guess jars in the quoted text's author's house stay closed.

Brad

 

[Macbeth]

I'm a big fan of this concept. I refer to it with the term Burning Wheel uses: "Let it ride." Basically, if you make a roll (success or failure) the result stands until the circumstances change.

It's a way of looking at rolls that I really like. It says that your roll was about your best effort, not just a random attempt.

The other way to approach it is to make failures have interesting consequences. This approach says "sure, search all you want, but each failure means something. Maybe you spend enough time here to alert someone, trigger a trap, or something."

Either way, getting rid of the practice of just rolling until you get a success or failure is a great thing, for my style.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I guess jars in the quoted text's author's house stay closed.

Brad

Buy "take 10" jars.

"Market research indicates that many small, physically inactive and elderly customers cannot access our product..."

I actually agree with the author. I find failing rolls frustrating as a PC, but only if it keeps happening. Failed skill rolls can lead to a different kind of fun, as long as the DM gives multiple ways of solving a problem or getting to an area.

 

[ExploderWizard]

In this regard nothing has changed much. Why roll dice at all if the result is meaningless. It doesn't matter if you are playing OD&D or 4E, when you have determined that success rides on the outcome of a die roll then stick with the results. If any result of a roll is considered unacceptable then it shouldn't be a possibility to begin with.

 

[Macbeth]

In this regard nothing has changed much. Why roll dice at all if the result is meaningless. It doesn't matter if you are playing OD&D or 4E, when you have determined that success rides on the outcome of a die roll then stick with the results. If any result of a roll is considered unacceptable then it shouldn't be a possibility to begin with.

That's not really what the OP was talking about, I think. Both failure and success can be acceptable outcomes, but multiple rolls can be allowed. There's the typical "I search the room! *5* I search the room again!" The action wasn't blocked, but without some consequences or guidance on rolling, they can just keep rolling until they got a result they like.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

I actually agree with the author. I find failing rolls frustrating as a PC, but only if it keeps happening. Failed skill rolls can lead to a different kind of fun, as long as the DM gives multiple ways of solving a problem or getting to an area.

Oh, true.

It's just that in most cases, you'll logically be able to try again. Sure, you may have to change conditions somewhat, but just because the fighter rolls a 1 on his Str check and gets a 19 instead of the 20 he needed doesn't mean the boulder's immovable, it means he needs to clear the area of the debris he slipped on and maybe stretch a bit before he tries again.

Brad

 

[Macbeth]

Oh, true.

It's just that in most cases, you'll logically be able to try again. Sure, you may have to change conditions somewhat, but just because the fighter rolls a 1 on his Str check and gets a 19 instead of the 20 he needed doesn't mean the boulder's immovable, it means he needs to clear the area of the debris he slipped on and maybe stretch a bit before he tries again.

Brad

I feel like clearing debris and stretching isn't enough. That's just kind of killing time before rolling again. Getting a lever, getting help from the inside, lubricating it with oil: those require some action to get another roll, and make more sense in game.

 

[El Mahdi]

There's another aspect of check rolls that we sometimes forget about due to their abstractness - Time.

Each check, depending on what's being attempted, takes a certain amount of time. Most situations that PC's find themselves in usually require a certain amount of expeditiousness. Taking multiple attempts to pick that lock, at 5 minutes each attempt, while in a dangreous monster infested dungeon, may not necessarily be a practical or reasonable thing to do.

So, if you do allow multiple checks for one activity, at least make sure you're realistically keeping track of the time the PC's are using, and the possible ramifications of their temporal indulgences.

 

[Krensky]

I don't necessarily agree with no allowing rerolls, but it's sort of nuanced.

The specifics terms here are from Spycraft 2.0 and Fantasy Craft, but the concepts apply to pretty much any game I've played or ran.

If the PCs can not fail, whether it's because their bonus is the DC-1 (which also means they can't fumble) or higher, they have time to Take 10 or 20 and that will succeed, or some other reason, I don't bother rolling. Their are a few exceptions to this due to the peculiarities of Action Dice, criticals, and multiple levels of success. In general though, no chance of failure means no roll.

Rerolls typically have consequences. Typically because the PCs are under some sort of pressure or threat so they can't Take 10 or 20.

If it's a check where only one participant needs to succeed, like searching for a secret door, only the person with the highest total bonus rolls.

If it's a check were only one person needs to fail to screw it all up, like sneaking past some guards, only the person with the lowest total bonus rolls.

If the DC is greater then their bonus plus 20, I will usually give them some sort of hint. They can still try, but they should have a feeling going in what sort challenge their facing. Action Dice, even though they explode, only go so far.