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

[Agamon]

As for the specific case of knowledge checks, a typical DM response might be to dictate automatic failure for anyone who didn't have a reasonable chance of knowing the answer. For a Dwarven history check, everyone would automatically fail, unless the character is a dwarf and/or the character has History proficiency.

I like to cut the typical DM a little more slack in understanding how knowledge works. One doesn't have to be a master of X to maybe know a tidbit or two about X. However, a master of X will indeed know a whole lot about X, and shouldn't require a roll in regards to non-esoteric information about X.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I wouldn't want to be in such a game and I wouldn't run it that way. I'm generally looking for reasons why a player's idea does work rather than why it doesn't (something many DMs in my experience do not do), so your idea has to be pretty bad for me to tell you that it automatically fails. (Or possibly you acted without understanding the situation fully due to bad assumptions.) Generally, it will succeed (with or without cost) or you'll roll.

Eh, different strokes. I'd rather an idea not work based on its own merits, rather than it working because I want it to work, or because the DM thinks that I want it to work. I'd rather the DM just not take my personal investment into account when deciding whether or not something works, or else it starts to get really complicated and meta.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I like to cut the typical DM a little more slack in understanding how knowledge works. One doesn't have to be a master of X to maybe know a tidbit or two about X. However, a master of X will indeed know a whole lot about X, and shouldn't require a roll in regards to non-esoteric information about X.

We're still dealing with a d20 here, so we need to ascertain whether the chance of someone knowing something is within the scope of the die. Sure, there's an off chance that the human rogue might know the name of a Dwarven chancellor from 200 years ago, but that chance wouldn't necessarily be significant enough to allow the same DC 16 check that a Historian or dwarf would get.

 

[Psikerlord#]

That's the thing, though. Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't. But where's that line? Asking, "Does it have anything to do with any of the words written on the character sheet?" is a basic one, but not really good enough criteria for me, personally.

There's a few other questions I ask myself before calling for a roll. Is failure (or success, for that matter) actually an option? Are there consequences to failure? What's more interesting in this case: the suspense of possibly failing, or more predictably moving the game forward? Has the player done anything that negates the need for a roll (like looked under the pillow to find the ring hidden under the pillow)?

I find the game flows better the less rolls there are, and just leave the rolling for when a) the PCs actions haven't already qualified success or failure, and b) failure is meaningful.

I like a mix of rolling and not rolling. It's a judgment call. It's a spectrum, and I prefer "let the dice decide" to "let the DM decide" when it is something important.

I am not a believer in "success with a cost" always being possible. Sometimes the PCs just fail, and the adventure will take an unexpected turn. Being captured would be an example. A campaign is better, overall, when concrete failure occurs from time to time. Makes the successes more genuine/enjoyable. The illusion that the DM is not helping the players out too much is very important ime.

 

[Agamon]

We're still dealing with a d20 here, so we need to ascertain whether the chance of someone knowing something is within the scope of the die. Sure, there's an off chance that the human rogue might know the name of a Dwarven chancellor from 200 years ago, but that chance wouldn't necessarily be significant enough to allow the same DC 16 check that a Historian or dwarf would get.

That's why I qualified "non-esoteric knowledge" in my post. In such a case, I'd ask the player of the human rogue why his PC might know such a thing before discussing specifics about rolling.

On the other hand, how important is this Chancellor's name? Will it result in an etiquette faux pas if not remembered, or some other consequence? If not, then I decide (or let the PC decide) why the dwarf or historian in the party knows this name without a roll, and if the human rogue doesn't know it, who cares?

 

[Agamon]

I like a mix of rolling and not rolling. It's a judgment call. It's a spectrum, and I prefer "let the dice decide" to "let the DM decide" when it is something important.

I am not a believer in "success with a cost" always being possible. Sometimes the PCs just fail, and the adventure will take an unexpected turn. Being captured would be an example. A campaign is better, overall, when concrete failure occurs from time to time. Makes the successes more genuine/enjoyable. The illusion that the DM is not helping the players out too much is very important ime.

Definitely, I don't disagree. I just don't let the dice decide everything, just the questionable stuff, and certainly the important stuff.

 

[iserith]

Eh, different strokes. I'd rather an idea not work based on its own merits, rather than it working because I want it to work, or because the DM thinks that I want it to work. I'd rather the DM just not take my personal investment into account when deciding whether or not something works, or else it starts to get really complicated and meta.

That's not really what I'm talking about. For any given idea a player has, the DM must judge it and make a call as to the certainty or uncertainty of its outcome. This isn't objective - the DM eyeballs it and decides based on whatever reasoning he or she likes. I think we agree on this point.

Where I depart from some DMs is that I do try and find ways for the player's reasonable idea to be at least uncertain so they can roll. Other DMs I've experienced often look for ways a player's idea can't work. I find that terribly annoying. I don't do this at the table. To me this is seeing the good in other people's ideas rather than the bad.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Where I depart from some DMs is that I do try and find ways for the player's reasonable idea to be at least uncertain so they can roll. Other DMs I've experienced often look for ways a player's idea can't work. I find that terribly annoying. I don't do this at the table. To me this is seeing the good in other people's ideas rather than the bad.

That sounds to me like, what some games would call, "Say yes, or roll the dice," or "Yes, and..."; which doesn't sit well with me. It's not a traditional way of playing an RPG. It's a radical concept, and for me at least, it completely undermines the illusion of an objective reality that the characters are exploring. It kills suspension of disbelief.

When someone tries something in the game, the answer should be "no" as often as it is "yes". The ability of a character to do something should depend on that character, and events that are internal to the game world, and never on meta-game concepts such as what the player thinks would be cool.

 

[Shiroiken]

There are three ways I've seen to do group knowledge checks:

1) One person rolls with advantage (from the Help Another action). This is the same as in the Social Interaction section. It's the simplest method, but it tends to force people to train only in prime ability skills.

2) There are multiple DCs for different amounts of information, and everyone rolls, getting information based on their roll. This takes longer, as everyone rolls, but is the most authentic. It also usually assure the party gets at least the basic information.

3) Everyone rolls against the DC, with each success gaining an additional piece of information. This makes the group more important than the individual, but limits the usefulness of knowledge specialists (like sages). This also can be a lot of info for the DM to come up with if everyone succeeds.

 

[iserith]

and for me at least, it completely undermines the illusion of an objective reality that the characters are exploring.

You said it best: That objective reality is an illusion. It's not objective at all. It's completely subjective, based on whatever the DM thinks works or doesn't work at any given time for any (hopefully reasonably consistent) reason. I see no value in pretending it's something that it isn't. I'd rather call it what it is, work with it, and use it to achieve the game's stated goals of play.

When someone tries something in the game, the answer should be "no" as often as it is "yes". The ability of a character to do something should depend on that character, and events that are internal to the game world, and never on meta-game concepts such as what the player thinks would be cool.

Notably, I have never said that I make adjudications based on "what the player thinks would be cool." As for the rest, I'd say with skillful players it's mostly yes, often uncertain (time to roll), and rarely no.