D&D 5E skill failure: where is it discussed?

[Kobold Stew]

I don't recommend what [MENTION=23484]Kobold Stew[/MENTION] says where you tell the player what his character thinks.

Fair enough. "You see no evidence of any traps." (regardless of whether there is one) is the same thing, as far as the point I am making is concerned.

 

[iserith]

"You examine the chest and find nothing out of the ordinary." is a pretty valid way of getting around telling people how they feel. But, I think, in context, Kobold Stew's idea is fine. "You think it's not trapped" is hardly turning someone's PC into a robot. AFAIC, either way is fine.

Fair enough. "You see no evidence of any traps." (regardless of whether there is one) is the same thing, as far as the point I am making is concerned.

Personally, I think there's a subtle yet important distinction here. "You examine the chest and find no traps" and "You think it's not trapped" are different. In the former, the DM is narrating the result of the adventurer's actions. In the latter, the DM is telling the player what conclusions his character draws from having found no traps. How the DM communicate this matters, especially as it relates to what the player chooses to do next. This is very similar to how I see some DMs narrating the result of an adventurer's action when the player fails a Wisdom (Insight) check. Commonly, DMs say "You believe him." I think this is misleading and oversteps the role of DM. "You're unable to discern if he's being truthful" is better.

Having said that, I don't typically narrate the adventurer's action in the wake of the player failing a check in this way. I much prefer to reveal the trap but escalate the tension by having their search put them in a spot or cost them a resource like time. Doing it this way also sidesteps a problem commonly reported by DMs: That players "metagame" by hearing "You examine the chest and find no traps" while a looking at a low roll of the die. This can lead to players continuing to search repeatedly which often results in DMs making these checks in secret for the players so they don't respond in that way. (Which of course leads to another problem of players basically playing a guessing game now.) This can all be avoided by simply revealing the trap after a failed check and then complicating the situation or making it cost.

At least, that's how I see it. It should go without saying that anyone else should do what they want to achieve the goals of play.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Look at the situation as it's actually happening. The thief attempted to detect a trap and failed in that attempt. OK fine, what happens next? To me that would be determined by what the PCs do at that point.

If they ignore the chest and leave it alone, nothing happens. The trap remains active and the PCs go elsewhere.

If they attempt to open the chest the trap may trigger depending on the design of the trap.

What you DO NOT have to worry about in this case is a failed attempt to remove a trap. One cannot remove a trap without being aware of it's existence.

 

[iserith]

Look at the situation as it's actually happening. The thief attempted to detect a trap and failed in that attempt. OK fine, what happens next? To me that would be determined by what the PCs do at that point.

If they ignore the chest and leave it alone, nothing happens. The trap remains active and the PCs go elsewhere.

If they attempt to open the chest the trap may trigger depending on the design of the trap.

What you DO NOT have to worry about in this case is a failed attempt to remove a trap. One cannot remove a trap without being aware of it's existence.

I'd like to point out what I think is another subtle but important distinction in the part I bolded of your post above: A failed check doesn't necessarily mean that the thief failed to detect the trap in the fiction. It depends on what stakes the DM sets before the roll. Those stakes could be "Successful Check: Detect trap, Failed Check: Do not detect trap," but it could also be a lot of other stakes. When the rules are talking about success and failure (see Basic Rules, page 58), they're talking about whether the check meets or exceeds the DC. That doesn't necessarily equate to the attempt outright failing if the roll falls short (though it could be and I've given reasons above why I think it's best that it's not in most cases).

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'd like to point out what I think is another subtle but important distinction in the part I bolded of your post above: A failed check doesn't necessarily mean that the thief failed to detect the trap in the fiction. It depends on what stakes the DM sets before the roll. Those stakes could be "Successful Check: Detect trap, Failed Check: Do not detect trap," but it could also be a lot of other stakes. When the rules are talking about success and failure (see Basic Rules, page 58), they're talking about whether the check meets or exceeds the DC. That doesn't necessarily equate to the attempt outright failing if the roll falls short (though it could be and I've given reasons above why I think it's best that it's not in most cases).

I would assume the stakes would be known before the roll. The probability of success or failure of the action can be adjusted via the target DC before the roll is made.

Altering what a failed roll means after the fact means it was pointless to roll the dice in the first place, which is a waste of time. Either the results of the roll matter or they don't. It is a game. Rolling dice means that things don't always turn out the way we envisioned them.

 

[iserith]

I would assume the stakes would be known before the roll. The probability of success or failure of the action can be adjusted via the target DC before the roll is made.

Altering what a failed roll means after the fact means it was pointless to roll the dice in the first place, which is a waste of time. Either the results of the roll matter or they don't. It is a game. Rolling dice means that things don't always turn out the way we envisioned them.

Yes, as I said in my previous post, "It depends on what stakes the DM sets before the roll."

My larger point is that nobody is locked into the binary "You find it/You don't find it" stakes and that in my experience those particular stakes can come with additional issues for the table.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yes, as I said in my previous post, "It depends on what stakes the DM sets before the roll."

My larger point is that nobody is locked into the binary "You find it/You don't find it" stakes and that in my experience those particular stakes can come with additional issues for the table.

There are some actions and skills that can incorporate varying degrees of success or failure. Noticing something isn't one of them IMHO. Either you are aware of something or you are not.

If one were to barely succeed at an attempt to notice a trap, then you might tell the player that they notice something out of the ordinary instead of outright declaring that they found a trap.

If the player fails to notice anything amiss, then it doesn't matter if it was by 1 or by 20. Any information beyond the fact that nothing was detected would be turning a failure into a success of sorts.

I will say straight out that failure =success with complications is a concept I do not use in traditional rpg play. Only if the game I am playing is focused on story creation would I use such mechanics.

 

[iserith]

There are some actions and skills that can incorporate varying degrees of success or failure. Noticing something isn't one of them IMHO. Either you are aware of something or you are not.

If one were to barely succeed at an attempt to notice a trap, then you might tell the player that they notice something out of the ordinary instead of outright declaring that they found a trap.

If the player fails to notice anything amiss, then it doesn't matter if it was by 1 or by 20. Any information beyond the fact that nothing was detected would be turning a failure into a success of sorts.

Again, I think the subtle difference is in what success and failure refer to. By my reading of the rules, it applies to the check hitting or failing to hit the DC, not the action the player described. After the check, the DM can narrate the result of the adventurer's action with success ("Yes..."), failure ("No..."), or progress combined with a setback ("Yes, but..."). This is discussed on page 58 of the Basic Rules (referenced here for the benefit of the OP).

I will say straight out that failure =success with complications is a concept I do not use in traditional rpg play. Only if the game I am playing is focused on story creation would I use such mechanics.

I would submit that the game you are playing (if not the game at your table) is focused on story creation:

"The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery."

"Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils."

"The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win."

These are all from just page 2 of the Basic Rules and there are many, many more references in the Basic Rules and DMG about D&D being a game focused on story creation.

But of course, how you choose to see the game or adjudicate at your table is your business.

 

[Shiroiken]

Personally, I think there's a subtle yet important distinction here. "You examine the chest and find no traps" and "You think it's not trapped" are different. In the former, the DM is narrating the result of the adventurer's actions. In the latter, the DM is telling the player what conclusions his character draws from having found no traps. How the DM communicate this matters, especially as it relates to what the player chooses to do next. This is very similar to how I see some DMs narrating the result of an adventurer's action when the player fails a Wisdom (Insight) check. Commonly, DMs say "You believe him." I think this is misleading and oversteps the role of DM. "You're unable to discern if he's being truthful" is better.

Depending on how you emphasis the words, "you don't think it's trapped," actually works better. It means that they didn't find anything, but cannot EVER be sure. I use this every single time, even with high rolls with no trap, just to keep player's on their toes.

Having said that, I don't typically narrate the adventurer's action in the wake of the player failing a check in this way. I much prefer to reveal the trap but escalate the tension by having their search put them in a spot or cost them a resource like time. Doing it this way also sidesteps a problem commonly reported by DMs: That players "metagame" by hearing "You examine the chest and find no traps" while a looking at a low roll of the die. This can lead to players continuing to search repeatedly which often results in DMs making these checks in secret for the players so they don't respond in that way. (Which of course leads to another problem of players basically playing a guessing game now.) This can all be avoided by simply revealing the trap after a failed check and then complicating the situation or making it cost.

The best way to prevent that meta-game is to simply not allow a second check. If they search again, there is no roll and receive the same information (unless something has significantly changed). As you've pointed out in the past, player's don't call for rolls, only the DM does.

 

[Hussar]

Personally, I think there's a subtle yet important distinction here. "You examine the chest and find no traps" and "You think it's not trapped" are different. In the former, the DM is narrating the result of the adventurer's actions. In the latter, the DM is telling the player what conclusions his character draws from having found no traps. How the DM communicate this matters, especially as it relates to what the player chooses to do next. This is very similar to how I see some DMs narrating the result of an adventurer's action when the player fails a Wisdom (Insight) check. Commonly, DMs say "You believe him." I think this is misleading and oversteps the role of DM. "You're unable to discern if he's being truthful" is better.

Having said that, I don't typically narrate the adventurer's action in the wake of the player failing a check in this way. I much prefer to reveal the trap but escalate the tension by having their search put them in a spot or cost them a resource like time. Doing it this way also sidesteps a problem commonly reported by DMs: That players "metagame" by hearing "You examine the chest and find no traps" while a looking at a low roll of the die. This can lead to players continuing to search repeatedly which often results in DMs making these checks in secret for the players so they don't respond in that way. (Which of course leads to another problem of players basically playing a guessing game now.) This can all be avoided by simply revealing the trap after a failed check and then complicating the situation or making it cost.

At least, that's how I see it. It should go without saying that anyone else should do what they want to achieve the goals of play.

Assuming a lack of time pressure, why wouldn't you keep trying to find a trap? I just presume, again assuming a lack of time pressure, that why wouldn't you take 20? Yes, I know they don't technically have "Take 20" with 5e, but, there's nothing stopping a player from rolling five or six times in a row.