Levels of success would be great for rolls during social encounters.
D&D 5E Should there always be a chance of failure in D&D Next?
- Thread starter ForeverSlayer
- Start date
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
Right, where I was saying that I think players should be able to be completely in control sometimes (or even oftentimes).
What you're saying seems simple, but Fifth Element rightly pointed out why it's such a weird question:
Fifth Element then goes on to point out that the take 10/20 rules are supposed to be there to let us see what should be "part of the narrative" and what shouldn't be. That is, if I can take a 10 and succeed, then that means that I can skip the roll and just narrate it (whether it's the GM or player depends on the actual player dynamic); however, if I can't take a 10 and succeed, then I need to roll, and since I can't succeed on a 10, I obviously have a chance of failure.Fifth Element said:
What it boils down to is you're saying "players should have a chance a failure whenever they have to roll" and we're saying "right...?" Whenever you have to roll, you obviously have a chance of failure. That's why the question is so weird to me.
What I think we disagree on is when the player should have to roll. I'm okay with them being extremely competent, and only needing to roll at a lot of things every so often. It seems on your end (and correct me if I'm wrong) you want players rolling often, and with a built-in auto-fail mechanic even if they should have no chance of failure mechanically.
In essence, I think we're disagreeing on matters of degree on when you should be able to fail, not on what you actually seem to be asking. But maybe you are asking that, and it's just worded in a way that confused me, Fifth Element, Dice4Hire, Ahnehnois, Zustiur, and any others who read this but didn't post their confusion. As always, play what you like
Ask me ten years ago, I would have answered "Yes, In real life there is always a chance that things fail!" (I even remember house ruling auto success out of one game we played).
Ask me today what I think. No. Too many times have we had plot derailment and loss of game momentum attributable to irrelevant skill test that I found myself forcing in to enable the dogma of "you have a chance of failing at even the simplest tests".
Alot of the discussion I have read has lead me to the conclusion that the two important facets of skill application are
a) Characters contribution to the situation reflects investment in skill set
b) The game doesnt stall
For a), you dont need a chance of failing, and forcing chance of failure on every single roll in the game just guarantees b) wont be true.
Ask me today what I think. No. Too many times have we had plot derailment and loss of game momentum attributable to irrelevant skill test that I found myself forcing in to enable the dogma of "you have a chance of failing at even the simplest tests".
Alot of the discussion I have read has lead me to the conclusion that the two important facets of skill application are
a) Characters contribution to the situation reflects investment in skill set
b) The game doesnt stall
For a), you dont need a chance of failing, and forcing chance of failure on every single roll in the game just guarantees b) wont be true.
I currently play in a system where each players has a pool of rerolls per session. It feels like there is a 50/50 mix between "important" rerolls (life savers, plan savers, plot savers) and "vanity" rolls ("I refuse to let my character look bad in this situation"), which is quite interesting.
Aberzanzorax
Hero
I voted no.
It seems that always having a chance to fail neither models:
reality
cinematic narrative
In reality, yes, there is a chance to fail at mundane tasks. Let's go to an absurd level...many people are killed slipping in their own bathrooms every year. But that number is incredibly small. The reality is not modeled by 5% (or even by 1%) for many things. At some point, the reality is such a small number (say 1 in 100,000 or more) that actually rolling at the table would be pointless. The point here is that either the chance is 5% or so for an even (in which case we roll) or it's lower...maybe a lot lower...in which case it's not worth rolling, as it is increasingly likely that we'll never, ever, see the chance be rolled at the table.
Cinematic narrative. What is gained storywise by having experts fail? This is perhaps even truer if it was random happenstance (someone else hit their car; a turtle bit the horse's leg while crossing a stream). What if someone rolls that one in 100,000 chance, then slips and dies on the way to the outhouse? What's accomplished by this for the narrative? When you read books or watch movies, how often does the expert fail at a mundane task? EVER? I'm not talking about an expert horseman leaping a ravine...I'm talking about an expert horseman fording a very shallow stream. It's not a trope that occurs, as far as I am aware.
At some point, rolling to see if you succeed, especially if you are a master at the ability, doing a fairly mundane task, doesn't add tension...it adds frustration, detracts from realism, and makes even the simplest tasks "challenges of fate" where the world acts against you.
No. I'm firmly against the idea.
It seems that always having a chance to fail neither models:
reality
cinematic narrative
In reality, yes, there is a chance to fail at mundane tasks. Let's go to an absurd level...many people are killed slipping in their own bathrooms every year. But that number is incredibly small. The reality is not modeled by 5% (or even by 1%) for many things. At some point, the reality is such a small number (say 1 in 100,000 or more) that actually rolling at the table would be pointless. The point here is that either the chance is 5% or so for an even (in which case we roll) or it's lower...maybe a lot lower...in which case it's not worth rolling, as it is increasingly likely that we'll never, ever, see the chance be rolled at the table.
Cinematic narrative. What is gained storywise by having experts fail? This is perhaps even truer if it was random happenstance (someone else hit their car; a turtle bit the horse's leg while crossing a stream). What if someone rolls that one in 100,000 chance, then slips and dies on the way to the outhouse? What's accomplished by this for the narrative? When you read books or watch movies, how often does the expert fail at a mundane task? EVER? I'm not talking about an expert horseman leaping a ravine...I'm talking about an expert horseman fording a very shallow stream. It's not a trope that occurs, as far as I am aware.
At some point, rolling to see if you succeed, especially if you are a master at the ability, doing a fairly mundane task, doesn't add tension...it adds frustration, detracts from realism, and makes even the simplest tasks "challenges of fate" where the world acts against you.
No. I'm firmly against the idea.
Last edited:
This is the crux of it to me. When we (I collectively refer to my group with this) play what are we trying to do? We are, as a group of 6-7 players, trying to tell a story, where each of us contributes in our own way.
The "there is always a chance of failure "approach carries with it that failure can occur at irrelevant story junctures. Failure is acceptable in a story if it has some form of relevance, if it doesn't, testing for it is just causing the flow of the game to stall for no reason.
To me, neither absolute is correct. Its a mix of both.
In many stories the hero fails and that ads to the story. When the hero fails that is a hindrance when he succeeds that is a furtherance. A good plot is made of these. If everything is all furtherance then there is no drama if it is all hindrances then there is nothing but frustration.
In DnD a high level character can't easily be killed falling off a mountain why would he die if he fell on the way to the outhouse.
It is very simple really if you don't think it ads in any way to the story that there might be a chance for the expert to fall of his horse then simply don't ask for a roll.
As someone who rode and competed in show jumping. dressage and barrel racing I tend to ask for a lot of ride skills in my game especially because most of my players don't really put ranks in it. My real life experience colors this for me I don't care how good you are you are dealing with a 600 pound prey animal that has a tiny mind and can spook at a butterfly.
But I look at a lot of things what kind of horse is it, how skilled is the rider, what else is going on.
I have played with DMs who have you roll a skill for everything and that does get tedious and sometimes it does not make any sense. Like I had to roll a diplomacy to ask the head of the church who also happens to be my uncle to help me fulfill a quest or god has asked of me. I had to do that and I failed the roll so the head cleric would not aide me. To me that was just dumb.
I think skill rolls should be used when they benefit the game not just because there is a rule for them.
Fifth Element
Legend
The confusing part is this: In the post below, you agreed that some actions should not require a roll:
Since presumably no one is ever in 100% control of any situation, your first post above implies that there should be a roll for everything. But the second one explicitly states that there shouldn't be. That's what I'm not following.
Similar Threads
