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

[Psikerlord#]

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.



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.

As a point of comparison, the games I DM tend to be Mostly uncertain/roll, sometimes yes and sometimes no. And the games I play in are Mostly uncertain/roll, rarely yes and sometimes no. This is with respect to things with a degree of importance.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

The fundamental premise of a Role-Playing Game is that the events of the game world are really happening as far as the characters are concerned, and the characters are portrayed by the players. The role of the GM (and to a lesser extent, of the players) is to maintain that illusion.

If you abandon that premise, then you aren't even playing an RPG anymore. At best, you're playing a Story-Telling Game. At worst, you're just telling a story, or playing a game.

I'd rather call it what it is, work with it, and use it to achieve the game's stated goals of play.

Unlike other games, an RPG doesn't have a goal. What D&D has instead are a method of play (the 1-2-3 dynamic), and a criteria for acknowledging success (have fun, tell a memorable story). If you mistakenly take the story as some sort of goal, and violate the 1-2-3 method in pursuit of it, then you have destroyed the integrity of the game world and the story becomes meaningless.

 

[delericho]

I think it's a combination of monkey-see-monkey-do...

Please. It's a simple matter of preference - describing it in those terms is actually pretty offensive.

This mistakes the purpose of ability checks: They aren't there to enable people to do things. It's the fictional action taken that enables a character to do a thing.

I'm a great believer in Associated Mechanics, where the distinction is blurred - the character sheet lists a proficiency in Religion because the character has studied religious lore, and his modifier reflects just how much of a grasp on it. And, consequently, when determining if he knows some piece of religious lore (which he might or might not - even experts have gaps in their knowledge), you roll the dice because that's how the mechanics model uncertainty.

And understand that nothing is lost by rolling the dice - if it truly was trivial knowledge or beyond the scope of what the character could know, this is easily reflected with a DC that is appropriately low or high.

In this model role-playing can't be impeded by falling back on the mechanics because applying the relevant mechanics is itself part of role-playing.

(But, again, this is just a matter of preference. You'll not that I haven't said this is the one true way to play, nor that you're wrong to play otherwise. As in almost everything else, YMMV.)

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

Sure. In a typical 3e published adventure, you would often have a sidebar with DC levels like:

"What can you know about X?"
Knowledge (TYPE)
DC 10 - <some useful bits>
DC 15 - <more useful bits>
DC 20 - <even more useful bits>
DC 25 - <most useful bits>

IIRC the game also told you that if you weren't trained in that type of Knowledge, you would be able to know only common knowledge (at least if I remember correctly...). This would equate to being proficient in 5e. The DM could simply decide that whatever your check result, if you are not proficient you have at best access to the DC 10 or 15 results.

That said, it's enough for me now to have clear in mind that in 5e the DM (not the rules) grants you the right to roll. So there is no worry about the knowledge specialist roll too low, and then everybody else start to roll moot checks one after the other in hope to get a 20.

BTW I don't remember to ever had a Knowledge check that, if failed, would have ruined the adventure. I use plenty of knowledge checks and they always give extra clues, but not vital information, which usually is delivered by the story or taking actions. So the fact that I wouldn't grant a chance to non-proficient characters is not really to be seen as a punishment.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

My technique that I'm considering is to allow a maximum of two d20 rolls for something like a knowledge check where one character succeeding is as good as all succeeding.

First, I'm going to apply some sort of auto-success for proficient characters. Passive is just too good--so probably bonus +5 or something. So that tells you what sorts of stuff you just already know. It gives you basic ideas, and not necessarily specific details.

Beyond that basic knowledge, I roll d20s in secret. If only one character attempts it, it's just a standard roll. If more than one character in the group is attempting it, there are two* d20s rolled. Half of the attempting characters (determined randomly) get to use one of the rolls, and the other half get the other. Their own modifiers are applied to the d20 result to see what they know (or think they know).

This makes it so that sometimes the experts are wrong while their uneducated pals know the right piece of lore, but usually not. It also means that having the second best modifier is still good, because you might very well not end up using the same d20 as the character with the best mod, and end up being the one who actually beats the DC.

The two dice rule can also apply to advantage when someone is helping, which generally is some sort of check where either both characters are proficient, or no proficiency can apply to the check. Instead of rolling your own check, you can just grant the best character advantage. That's not so common for a knowledge check, but works well with a lot of other checks.

I haven't fully implemented these rules yet (though I've been doing the two dice rule for a while) but I think it's going to give me about the results I'm going for.

The overall results I expect are that generally it isn't any more effective to have 3+ characters attempt something than it is to just have the best 2 characters in the group. But...it can be interesting to do so anyway, because it might be the unexpected character (ie, low mod) who gets the natural 20 and ends up knowing the information that the educated characters didn't with their roll of 3. (My gut is telling me that randomly allotting who uses which die result might actually mean that adding a third character makes success less likely than just having the best two characters make their own rolls, but my tired brain is telling me to sleep first and figure that out tomorrow.)

*If we were dealing with large quantities of people, I might allow more d20s.

 

[iserith]

The fundamental premise of a Role-Playing Game is that the events of the game world are really happening as far as the characters are concerned, and the characters are portrayed by the players. The role of the GM (and to a lesser extent, of the players) is to maintain that illusion.

Again, that's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to the notion that the outcomes of actions are objective. They are not. Suspending disbelief over the existence of dragons or elves or magic is a different issue. I know when I'm playing a game that the DM is deciding what happens. It doesn't happen objectively.

If you abandon that premise, then you aren't even playing an RPG anymore. At best, you're playing a Story-Telling Game. At worst, you're just telling a story, or playing a game.

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

You're welcome to read my actual play transcripts. Then tell me I'm not playing an RPG.

Unlike other games, an RPG doesn't have a goal. What D&D has instead are a method of play (the 1-2-3 dynamic), and a criteria for acknowledging success (have fun, tell a memorable story). If you mistakenly take the story as some sort of goal, and violate the 1-2-3 method in pursuit of it, then you have destroyed the integrity of the game world and the story becomes meaningless.

The goal we pursue is achieving success by the criteria you mention. That's how you "win" this game, according to the Basic Rules.

 

[iserith]

As a point of comparison, the games I DM tend to be Mostly uncertain/roll, sometimes yes and sometimes no. And the games I play in are Mostly uncertain/roll, rarely yes and sometimes no. This is with respect to things with a degree of importance.

How does player skill chiefly manifest itself in these games? Is it generally in how well a player builds a character and applies its class features, abilities, spells, etc.?

 

[iserith]

I'm a great believer in Associated Mechanics...

Are you referring to that thing The Alexandrian made up? If so, I don't buy into that.

...the character sheet lists a proficiency in Religion because the character has studied religious lore, and his modifier reflects just how much of a grasp on it. And, consequently, when determining if he knows some piece of religious lore (which he might or might not - even experts have gaps in their knowledge), you roll the dice because that's how the mechanics model uncertainty.

And understand that nothing is lost by rolling the dice - if it truly was trivial knowledge or beyond the scope of what the character could know, this is easily reflected with a DC that is appropriately low or high.

In this model role-playing can't be impeded by falling back on the mechanics because applying the relevant mechanics is itself part of role-playing.

(But, again, this is just a matter of preference. You'll not that I haven't said this is the one true way to play, nor that you're wrong to play otherwise. As in almost everything else, YMMV.)

What I suggest is the "middle path" the DMG discusses (pages 236-237): Sometimes the DM says you succeed, sometimes he or she says you fail, other times you roll. This method has no drawbacks as mentioned by the DMG. You appear to roll for "everything," but the DM can set the DC to something you couldn't possibly succeed or fail at in some cases. This is effectively the same thing as the "middle path," except that there is a superfluous roll.

 

[delericho]

Are you referring to that thing The Alexandrian made up? If so, I don't buy into that.

It is indeed. And I gathered as much.

What I suggest is the "middle path" the DMG discusses (pages 236-237): Sometimes the DM says you succeed, sometimes he or she says you fail, other times you roll. This method has no drawbacks as mentioned by the DMG. You appear to roll for "everything," but the DM can set the DC to something you couldn't possibly succeed or fail at in some cases. This is effectively the same thing as the "middle path," except that there is a superfluous roll.

I don't roll for everything, because the player doesn't always just make the roll and if it's an auto-success why bother.

But what I'm saying is that very often it's obvious both that there will need to be a roll and also what that roll should be. In which case I would prefer that the player does just jump to the roll, because in those cases that's the more efficient route.

If the PCs in my game have discovered an icon of obviously religious significance, then if they say, "calling on my training as a cloistered cleric I examine the icon to determine if I know any significance" they know* that I'm going to respond "okay, roll Int (religion)". Given that our game-time is short, better just to jump straight to the roll.

* They know because of long experience at my table, just as I 'know' that in certain circumstances they'll react in particular ways.

Amongst other things, it's perhaps worth noting I use varying levels of success for things like Knowledge checks. A simple success on the roll will give basic knowledge while an exceptional success will give considerably more. So even if it's common enough knowledge that some facts are just a gimme, there's still a need to roll to determine how much else you get.

 

[iserith]

I don't roll for everything, because the player doesn't always just make the roll and if it's an auto-success why bother.

But what I'm saying is that very often it's obvious both that there will need to be a roll and also what that roll should be. In which case I would prefer that the player does just jump to the roll, because in those cases that's the more efficient route.

If the PCs in my game have discovered an icon of obviously religious significance, then if they say, "calling on my training as a cloistered cleric I examine the icon to determine if I know any significance" they know* that I'm going to respond "okay, roll Int (religion)". Given that our game-time is short, better just to jump straight to the roll.

* They know because of long experience at my table, just as I 'know' that in certain circumstances they'll react in particular ways.

Amongst other things, it's perhaps worth noting I use varying levels of success for things like Knowledge checks. A simple success on the roll will give basic knowledge while an exceptional success will give considerably more. So even if it's common enough knowledge that some facts are just a gimme, there's still a need to roll to determine how much else you get.

By what you're saying though, the player can't really know if a roll is necessary unless he or she knows the DC. You don't roll, after all, if the player can't roll lower than the DC or can't possibly roll high enough, right?