Restricting rerolls in D&D

[The Shaman]

Personally, though, I like the suggestion.

In general I agree, though I think there's room for a little referee judgement here about whether or not a check can be tried again - that's probably something I would specify in my notes, like, "can only be attempted once," "only strongest player may attempt and only once," "multiple attempts permitted," et cetera.

Proving once again that there is always time for lubrication.

You are a bad, bad man.

 

[Jhaelen]

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.[/indent]

That's not how it usually happens, though:
The rules-savvy players will try to first budge the boulder in the order of increasing strength, then start aiding the strongest until it budges.

Saying that the boulder cannot be budged after the first botched attempt might work - but that depends on why the boulder is there in the first place:

Is it covering the one and only entrance to the dungeon that the party needs to investigate under severe time pressure? Or is it sitting at the edge of a cliff overlooking a well-travelled road?

Of course the former case is essentially a sign of bad adventure design: There should never be only one way to move on.

Anyway, I wonder what happened to the 3e skill descriptions? Every skill had an entry detailing whether retries were allowed, whether you could take 10 or take 20, etc.

 

[wedgeski]

This is another game vs. sim situation where I come down firmly in the "game" camp.

Does a Strength check represent the physical act of the PC heaving his shoulder against the boulder, with or without help from his friends? If so, the only consequence(s) of failure are time, which is not a tangible enough currency to matter in most games I would warrant, and the possible unwarranted attention they're going to get from the racket they're making.

Or does it represent the party's attempt to overcome an obstacle, which includes clearing the roots around the boulder, using levers, checking out the terrain, maybe even greasing the damn thing, but for which, ultimately, someone with muscle gets to do the heavy lifting?

In this case failure is not a blip in the road, it's an acceptance on the part of the party that unless something radically new is brought to bear, that boulder isn't going anywhere and they're going to have to find another way around.

I much, much prefer the latter. And for serious obstacles, Skill Challenges or whatever equivalent people like to use in their system of choice are a good way of modelling the application of several different skills to what might otherwise be a fairly dull aided Strength check.

 

[delericho]

I think it depends a lot on whether you're primarily "playing a game" or "simulating a world".

If a character tries to shift that boulder and fails, there is typically no logical reason to think they should not be able to try again. And as we well know, there are a whole bunch of factors that could lead to the second attempt succeeding: perhaps the character just needed better leverage, perhaps his first attempt loosened the boulder, perhaps Kord was in a fickle mood.

(Indeed, many of those same reasons could explain why the second attempt succeeded even if the second character was weaker.)

But, if you're primarily playing a game, you probably want to keep the game moving, and so rule that that first result has to stand.

Personally, I favour the compromise provided by the "take 20" rule - if the character fails the first time, then they can retry, but they have to do so by taking 20, applying more effort, taking their time, and (potentially) expending more resources.

 

[Zhaleskra]

I think it depends what you're trying to do. Pick a lock and there's no sense of urgency? Sure, go ahead and take another chance.

Jump across a gap and miss? I'm guessing jump isn't the next skill you'd use.

 

[Stumblewyk]

I've pretty much always used a sliding scale of failures for situations like failed skill checks.

Fail within 5 or so? You can try again if time permits.
Fail within 10? If you've got the time, are willing to waste even more of it, and possibly take a -2 penalty depending on the situation, you can try again.
Fail beyond 10? Tough crap. The situation is beyond your current ability.

And I generally restrict a skill check to the character with the highest chance of success, allowing assists from others. Then if they want to, I'll let the next-most-likely-to-succeed character give it a go, in the hopes for a "lucky try."

 

[delericho]

If the character with the best attack bonus fails to hit a monster, do you let him try again? Do you let characters with lower bonuses try to hit the monster? Why is this different?

On another note: if a task is within a character's ability (that is, they would succeed on a 20), if there is no penalty for failure, if there is no pressure of time, and if there is no logical reason to disallow a retry, I would advocate skipping the roll entirely. I believe the advice is "Say Yes".

 

[TerraDave]

Usually one check, unless there is clearly time, and time is taken, at which point I limit it to three tries. 3 failures is of course the norm for skill challenges, and at least one sport...

 

[Simm]

Hmm, from a game flow perspective I can see his point, rolls in a game break flow and damage emersion. Therefore the number of rolls in an encounter should be kept to a bare minimum (this is also why I'm not a fan of parry rolls or miss chances). However there is no reason in most situations why the characters should not me able to retry until they succeed or realize that the task is impossible in the current cricumstances.

If we view the problem as: I want to prevent players taking longer to complete a task in real time than they currently are by making multiple rolls to accomplish a task, then I can see ywo obivous solutions.
1. As a DM when the players attempt a roll and fail say "you fail, would you like to take 20?" players often forget that taking 10/20 is an option in the heat of the moment.
2. Disallow rerolls on most checks as the article suggests. In this case I would also make two further changes. I would lower the DCs on most skill or ability checks by 5 to 10 in order to preserve the success rate of the party in accomplishing goals, and I would make most of these new checks take longer than a standard action because they now represent the total attempts of a individual to accomplish a goal rather than a single attempt.

 

[Janx]

I like where Simm is heading. What is the problems to solve and example scenarios to prevent misuse. What is the simplest set of mechanisms to resolve a skill check and prevent problems?

Examples of skill usages:

1. opening the pickle jar
2. Jumping across a gap
3. attacking after a miss
4. repeated pick lock attempts
5. searching a room
6. Trying to change somebody's mind
7. Conga line skill attempts by each PC

We could all live without the embarrassment of the wife opening the wimp opening the pickle jar after mr. Muscles failed. The no-reroll rule doesn't hurt here.

Jumping and failing kind of takes care of itself

Missing in combat has a consequence. Your enemy lives to make an attack against you. In fact, this reveals the concern with allowing re-rolls on other skill checks.

If your thief fails to pick the lock, what happens? Time passes? Some GMs don't think to bring in a Wandering Monster or other consequence. So the result is, failure is FREE. Unlike all the other times.

Failure should probably not be free. It should cost money to get more parts/tools. Your hands should get tired, making subsequent attempts harder. Time passing should have a negative consequence. Or you should only get one chance, the one that matters.

If you do limit a check to 1 try, I recommend:

• always use the highest skill level in the party
• Add in helper bonuses for the other PCs who can help

If you allow a re-roll, there must be a consequence:

• PC used up resources to improve their chance
• PC is tired, so the next attempt is harder (DC increased)
• Time went by, bas stuff happens as a result

I actually pre-roll Spot checks for dungeons on this best-1-roll premise. Before the game starts, I roll for all the hidden stuff. That way, when I reveal the room, I reveal the extra information as part of the description. Rather than wasting time doing rolls. Though for the pre-Spot check, I do it individually as that's a solo activity.