The help action is not broken, but Working together is

[doctorbadwolf]

If it’s not within your power to do it regardless of how many times you try, then there shouldn’t be a roll in the first place. You just fail.

I seem to have communicated poorly. I’ll try again, with a different approach. There is a chance to succeed. It’s represented by the roll I tell the player or players to make. If you don’t come up with a different approach, I won’t allow a reroll, unless it’s soemthing where trying again is likely to produce different results. If you fail to push the door open, then I’m not going to let you make 17 checks to push the door open, until you finally get a high roll.

That wouldn’t even make sense. What, each roll represents a different amount of effort? On the 16th roll you just try much harder than you did on the other 15 rolls? Absurd! You did your best the first time, you just weren’t able to do it. You won’t get stronger in the next three hours of conintuously doing the same strenuous activity.

That was my point, if there’s nothing preventing repeat attempts and no time pressure, then there’s no roll.

that depends on the situation, and the characters. Some things aren’t a matter of time. Some things require that someone be in the zone and really perform, and if you can’t get it, no amount of time is going to make you more able to get it.

Right, which is why I conceded that it’s mechanically sound. The trouble is, it’s unsatisfying to see the die come up a 2 and be told that was your character’s best effort. Bull poop it was my best effort, there are 18 numbers I could have rolled that would have represented a better effort if one of them had come up on the die, so clearly that wasn’t my best.

Given what I’ve said above, do you see how this misses my point?

Players don’t declare checks, but the do declare their character’s actions. If you tell them they don’t succeed, and they tell you, “ok, we keep trying,” then you’re going to need to tell them why trying again isn’t being resolved the same way as it was the first time they tried, and the answer “because I’m the DM and I said so” is in my opinion a poor one.

I never use “bc I said so”, in any situation. Not in life, not in games.

When something is tried, I decide how it’s resolved, and narrate the results. If a player asks why, I explain why.

 

[CleverNickName]

Are they? It was you who said you’ve heard “clearly it doesn’t represent my character’s best effort, it’s only a 2 out of 20” almost directly quoted at your table before.

Yep. I mean, sure, they are always going to be frustrated with bad rolls. And it took a bit of time to get accustomed to the change. But for the most part, I think everyone's happy with it.

I’m not seeing how these examples relate to what we were discussing.

The first was when the wizard failed an Arcana check...the bard made the same check but passed, even though she has a lower bonus to the roll (it was hilarious). The second example was when the rogue tried to disarm a trap with his thieves' tools and failed, so the monk tried jamming the mechanism with dirt and succeeded. They were just examples of where I allowed a retry, so long as it was done differently.

what I’m advocating here is specifically a way to avoid the same person doing the same thing over and over again until it works, without having to resort to the unsatisfying answer of “you can only roll once.” Attach a risk or cost to the attempt, and let the player decide for themselves if trying again is worth it or not. If there’s nothing risked, then it’s not a very interesting challenge in the first place and you might as well just let it succeed.

Again, I never said you should only be allowed to roll once. The rogue could have been the one to say "hmm, my thieves' tools aren't working...let me try jamming the mechanism with dirt instead." Or whatever. As long as the player can tell me what they are doing differently, I'll usually allow a second (or even third, or fourth) attempt.

 

[Charlaquin]

I seem to have communicated poorly. I’ll try again, with a different approach. There is a chance to succeed. It’s represented by the roll I tell the player or players to make. If you don’t come up with a different approach, I won’t allow a reroll, unless it’s soemthing where trying again is likely to produce different results. If you fail to push the door open, then I’m not going to let you make 17 checks to push the door open, until you finally get a high roll.

Why not? A high roll is objectively within the character’s power to achieve. It is more satisfying, from a player perspective, to be allowed to weigh their chances of success versus the cost of failure and make their own decision about whether or not to try again, rather than simply being told they can’t. You can justify it any way you want, but at the end of the day you are the only thing stopping them from trying again,

That wouldn’t even make sense. What, each roll represents a different amount of effort? On the 16th roll you just try much harder than you did on the other 15 rolls? Absurd! You did your best the first time, you just weren’t able to do it. You won’t get stronger in the next three hours of conintuously doing the same strenuous activity.

There are a lot of complex factors that go into success and failure. I can attempt to shoot a basket ball and fail 15 times only to succeeding on the 16th. Was I trying harder that time? Did I unconsciously do something slightly different? Did the humidity, temperature, or wind have something to do with it? I don’t know, but for one reason or another the result changed despite me not consciously taking a different approach.

that depends on the situation, and the characters. Some things aren’t a matter of time. Some things require that someone be in the zone and really perform, and if you can’t get it, no amount of time is going to make you more able to get it.

Sure, and sometimes getting in the zone takes trying and failing a few times.

Given what I’ve said above, do you see how this misses my point?

No, sorry.

I never use “bc I said so”, in any situation. Not in life, not in games.

When something is tried, I decide how it’s resolved, and narrate the results. If a player asks why, I explain why.

You may not think you’re saying “because I said so,” but from the player’s perspective, that’s what you are effectively saying. I tried to pick the lock. I got a 2 on the die. I want to try to pick the lock again. Why can’t I?

 

[Charlaquin]

Yep. I mean, sure, they are always going to be frustrated with bad rolls. And it took a bit of time to get accustomed to the change. But for the most part, I think everyone's happy with it.

Alright, like I said, if your group is ok with it, don’t let me stop you. Personally, that’s not a change I would want to make my players get accustomed to.

The first was when the wizard failed an Arcana check...the bard made the same check but passed, even though she has a lower bonus to the roll (it was hilarious).

That’s just different characters with different bonuses attempting the same thing. Nothing about the method I am advocating prevents this from happening.

The second example was when the rogue tried to disarm a trap with his thieves' tools and failed, so the monk tried jamming the mechanism with dirt and succeeded. They were just examples of where I allowed a retry, so long as it was done differently.

Again, this scenario could still occur under the method I am advocating. The difference is, it would be the players’ decision to try a different method to avoid the risks or cost associated with rogue’s method, rather than something they were forced to come up with because the DM wouldn’t let them try the rogue’s method again.

Again, I never said you should only be allowed to roll once. The rogue could have been the one to say "hmm, my thieves' tools aren't working...let me try jamming the mechanism with dirt." As long as the player can tell me what they are doing differently, I'll usually allow a second (or even third, or fourth) attempt.

But if the Rogue had said “I try [whatever method they had been using before, it’s uncler from the example] again,” would you allow them to try again? I’m getting the impression that you would say “no,” where I would say “sure, but it’s going to add another die to the time pool,” or something along those lines.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Why not? A high roll is objectively within the character’s power to achieve. It is more satisfying, from a player perspective, to be allowed to weigh their chances of success versus the cost of failure and make their own decision about whether or not to try again, rather than simply being told they can’t. You can justify it any way you want, but at the end of the day you are the only thing stopping them from trying again,

they got to do that, they made a roll. It failed, so, within whatever amount of time they spent on it, they weren’t able to do it. Nothing where success matters will ever, in my game, be something where you can realistically spend 4 hours trying over and over until you succeed. That’s a complete waste of everyone’s time.

There are a lot of complex factors that go into success and failure. I can attempt to shoot a basket ball and fail 15 times only to succeeding on the 16th. Was I trying harder that time? Did I unconsciously do something slightly different? Did the humidity, temperature, or wind have something to do with it? I don’t know, but for one reason or another the result changed despite me not consciously taking a different approach.

and that’s represented by a successful roll. If you aren’t playing against someone, but are just practicing, I’m not going to let you waste everyone’s time playing out every shot you take while practicing for 3 hours. I’d be a terrible DM if I did. No, you either narrate that you practiced and we move on, or I ask for a roll to see how well you practice, in general, and we narrate the result together.

Sure, and sometimes getting in the zone takes trying and failing a few times.

sometimes, and if it’s a situation where there is an opportunity to keep trying, and success or failure matters, your roll can tell me soemthing like how long it takes to get it right.

You may not think you’re saying “because I said so,” but from the player’s perspective, that’s what you are effectively saying. I tried to pick the lock. I got a 2 on the die. I want to try to pick the lock again. Why can’t I?

Because you already tried. Doing the same thing again won’t get different results. Shooting a basketball isn’t the same sort of thing, either. It’s more like making attack rolls.

And I’ve already said that *sometimes* multiple checks can make sense, or narrating past it can. Other times, if you don’t have a new approach to try, then 1 roll covers it. It’s also vanishingly rare, in my games, to have a “challenge” that has no time limit or cost for failure. When those situations do arise, it isn’t treated as a challenge to overcome at all, and no mention of skills is ever made. The door is old and the was never that sturdy, any character that isn’t a weakling can just force it open. I just narrate that immediately when someone tries to open it, without ever a “it resists being opened, what do you do?”. It’s just “you turn the handle and push, and at first the door resists, but a little extra pressure gets it, and the door opens with a rusted squeal”.

 

[CleverNickName]

But if the Rogue had said “I try [whatever method they had been using before, it’s uncler from the example] again,” would you allow them to try again? I’m getting the impression that you would say “no,” where I would say “sure, but it’s going to add another die to the time pool,” or something along those lines.

Ehhh...probably not, because they haven't done anything to change the result. But it rarely comes up, because when they ask to try again I immediately ask how they are doing it differently. It usually goes down like this.

[SBLOCK]Me: "You stand before a stout oak door, clearly locked with an iron padlock. It looks brand new."
Bixby: "I get out my tools and try to pick the lock."
Me: "Okay, make a Dex check."
Bixby: "Rats, I rolled a three. I got a ten on the check."
Me: "Sorry, that isn't enough. You try for a few minutes, but you can't budge the lock."
Bixby: "Can I try again? That roll was garbage."
Me: "Maybe, what are you going to do differently this time?"
Bixby: "Um...can I pry the padlock off with a crowbar?"
Me: "Let's see if it works. Make a Strength check, and the crowbar gives you Advantage."
Bixby: "Okay, here goes....eight. Even with advantage I'm rolling like garbage!"
Me: "Sorry, you put all your weight into it, but it just doesn't budge."
Chux: (to the rogue) "Need some help?"
Bixby: "Can I try again, but with his help?"
Me: "Sure. I'll say that both of you are hanging off the crowbar, bouncing up and down, trying to pry the lock off. Sound good?"
*both players nod*
Me: "Okay. Both of you make an Athletics check, with Advantage since you are both using the crowbar. I'll take the highest result."
Chux: "Woo, nineteen!"
Bixby: "Better, a fifteen."
Me: "Fifteen was the number. The stubborn iron padlock finally gives way, and you both tumble to the floor with a clang. The door is opened."[/SBLOCK]
If the player had said "I'll try picking the lock again," I would have answered "You try for a few minutes, but you can't budge the lock." I wouldn't ask for a new roll, because nothing has changed. But this has never come up, because I always ask what they are going to do differently this time. I've heard some creative answers ("I try again but with someone else's thieves' tools", "This time I will cast grease on the lock first," "I get frustrated and hit it with a hammer,") but as long as it isn't something silly ("I ask the lock nicely to open itself," etc.) I'm happy to roll with it. Pun intended.

 

[77IM]

The cause here is that there's no cost. The helping character would otherwise have done nothing.

This is rarely true at my table. If you Help in a situation, you don't get to do anything else to "help" in that situation. So sometimes Help (or Working Together) is the best option for your PC, but very often it's not, because there's something more useful you in particular could be doing.

 

[5ekyu]

Indeed. But if you do the same thing you did before, the same way you just did it, you should expect the same result you just got.

Me, the Dungeon Master. I speak for the Fates, and They have just told me that They want you guys to accept the fact that the dead-end tunnel really is a dead end, and that no matter how many people and untold hours of searching are employed, They will not let you find anything but cobwebs. So either cast a detect secret doors spell, or use percussion testing, or move on already! :-D

"Indeed. But if you do the same thing you did before, the same way you just did it, you should expect the same result you just got."

Really?
So if i step up to the free throw line and take a shot and miss and pick up the ball and try again trying the same way i will miss again?

Better yet, if i made the first shot and do the same thong again it will keep going in?

Sorry... Thats not how doing stuff works.

I might be trying to do the same thing the same way but,maybe i executed badly first then better the second... See i am only in charge of how i try to do what i try to do not the "degree of perfection" and so shot after shot produces different outcomes.

To presume the same result will occur on retry after retry is to presume the same performance level which is not how it works for most things.

Even non-physical things.

For about three days now i have bern trying to figure out a couple angles, even talked with some guts, no dice... But then today out of the blue coming back to the ssme steps, ssme pages again **bam** two great solutions came from different directions that did not occur the first three times i looked at the same stuff and not with any link to those discussions.

In 5e terms, i would use this to narratively describe it as failure on day one, failure on day two and crit success on day three.

I cook a mean italian beef - but it never comes out the same twice.

So much real life experience says the idea of representing tasks with retry = same results is very flawed.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Again, I never said you should only be allowed to roll once. The rogue could have been the one to say "hmm, my thieves' tools aren't working...let me try jamming the mechanism with dirt instead." Or whatever. As long as the player can tell me what they are doing differently, I'll usually allow a second (or even third, or fourth) attempt.

So if it takes twenty tries before they roll well enough to pass, then the correct solution turns out to be the twentieth approach they think of it?

I'm not a huge fan of that method. It seems like it encourages wacky things to happen where they would be least plausible. I would probably want to apply penalties to unorthodox methods, to prevent that from happening. (That is to say, the monk has +5 to pick locks under the best of circumstances - when actually using a lockpick for its intended function - so other approaches must be less likely to succeed than that would.)

Although, in practice, it seems unlikely that they'll keep failing after the first three attempts. That places a practical limit on how weird their ideas need to get.

 

[Charlaquin]

they got to do that, they made a roll. It failed, so, within whatever amount of time they spent on it, they weren’t able to do it.

But they didn’t do as well as they know they could have done, and you are preventing them from attempting to do it better, which is unsatisfying.

Nothing where success matters will ever, in my game, be something where you can realistically spend 4 hours trying over and over until you succeed. That’s a complete waste of everyone’s time.

I agree, which is why I either assign a cost or consequence, or skip to the success if I cannot think of a meaningful one.

and that’s represented by a successful roll. If you aren’t playing against someone, but are just practicing, I’m not going to let you waste everyone’s time playing out every shot you take while practicing for 3 hours. I’d be a terrible DM if I did. No, you either narrate that you practiced and we move on, or I ask for a roll to see how well you practice, in general, and we narrate the result together.

You’re describing precisely what I do in a situation where there is no meaningful cost or consequence for failure.

sometimes, and if it’s a situation where there is an opportunity to keep trying, and success or failure matters, your roll can tell me soemthing like how long it takes to get it right.

Agreed.

Because you already tried. Doing the same thing again won’t get different results.

I move the pick slightly differently this time, in an attempt to correct the mistakes in my movements that I made previously resulting in the tumblers not getting forced into position.

Shooting a basketball isn’t the same sort of thing, either. It’s more like making attack rolls.

This seems like an arbitrary distinction to me. What criteria do you use to determine if an action is “like an attack roll”?

And I’ve already said that *sometimes* multiple checks can make sense, or narrating past it can. Other times, if you don’t have a new approach to try, then 1 roll covers it.

Maybe it would help if you gave me an example of an action where there is no time pressure and 1 roll covers it.

It’s also vanishingly rare, in my games, to have a “challenge” that has no time limit or cost for failure. When those situations do arise, it isn’t treated as a challenge to overcome at all, and no mention of skills is ever made. The door is old and the was never that sturdy, any character that isn’t a weakling can just force it open. I just narrate that immediately when someone tries to open it, without ever a “it resists being opened, what do you do?”. It’s just “you turn the handle and push, and at first the door resists, but a little extra pressure gets it, and the door opens with a rusted squeal”.

I agree 100%. It sounds an awful lot like what you and I actually do in practice is the same, but you have some kind of bugbear with the way I describe it.