Unsatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system

[Swarmkeeper]

I agree - one I recall was a magically warded door with an exceptionally high break DC - so high a PC rolled a natural 20 on an Athletics check and still failed to open it. If I had said "Don't roll" then they wouldn't have attempted to open the door or wouldn't have received the information that the door was incredibly hard to break.

Often though I like to tell players the target DC so they they can tell me "I auto pass" or "I can't make that".

In any case, different approaches suit different situations, different GM styles, and even different genres. And the 5e guidance is very supportive of a variety of approaches - it seeks to empower the DM, not constrain him or her.

Instead of going through the motions of a roll that is doomed to fail even on a 20, you could just cut to the chase by simply narrating: "as the party member with the best chance of breaking down a door, you give it your top effort but this door seems to be immune to your physical blows. What do you want to do now?" If you make them roll, and they roll very low, it could trigger the dreaded "waterfall" of rolls among the entire party where each player is hoping for a very high roll to succeed. IMO, better to narrate (or, perhaps like you said, tell the player that the DC is beyond reach for that strategy) and let the players move on to some other solutions.

 

[S'mon]

(If I've stepped in some kind of long-running feud, I'll let myself out! After all the 5e DMG is very clear we should run it however we like, it's all good, man! )

 

[S'mon]

Instead of going through the motions of a roll that is doomed to fail even on a 20, you could just cut to the chase by simply narrating: "as the party member with the best chance of breaking down a door, you give it your top effort but this door seems to be immune to your physical blows. What do you want to do now?" If you make them roll, and they roll very low, it could trigger the dreaded "waterfall" of rolls among the entire party where each player is hoping for a very high roll to succeed. IMO, better to narrate (or, perhaps like you said, tell the player that the DC is beyond reach for that strategy) and let the players move on to some other solutions.

After some attempt(s) I'll normally tell them the target number. This comes up most often with monster AC. My son is always trying to get me to tell him the monster AC before anyone has attacked it. I usually reveal the DC or AC on the second or third attempt.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Oh noes, I am cut to the quick by that rapier wit. And a picture! You pulled all the stops out on that one.

All I'm pointing out is that in some cases I allow PCs to roll even though I know the outcome because I don't want to give anything away to the players. In other cases, it's just a preference. Just like yours.

Sorry - yeah that was pretty childish of me. But, seriously, you should not invoke rapiers or [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] is going to descend and start taking names!

I guess what I'm trying to say, as long as I'm being a bit childish, is: stop pooping on [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s preference. You are mocking that which you don't seem to understand and it doesn't make you look good to many of us. And you do have good things to say as I've read (and occasionally XP'd) in other threads. Peace.

 

[iserith]

The door appeared normal, but was magically warded. As it happened there was no possibility of the particular PC breaking it successfully (I think the DC was 2 higher than their roll), but the attempt did give them information.

Did you decide the door looked like that or was it in a module?

What was the meaningful consequence of failure in that situation? I could see not knowing a PC's upper limits for the check (I know practically nothing about my players' character sheets). But if there isn't an particular time pressure or anything else that would manifest as a consequence, I would not call for a check here.

I'll also let PCs roll Perception and Investigate when there is nothing to be found - we do all rolls in the open, the roll itself provides information although there is no success/failure threshold.

What information is provided here that the DM cannot impart him or herself via describing the environment or narrating the result of the adventurers' actions?

Also, as an aside, are you one of these cats who can't stand "metagaming?"

 

[iserith]

(If I've stepped in some kind of long-running feud, I'll let myself out! After all the 5e DMG is very clear we should run it however we like, it's all good, man! )

Same! I didn't write the rules, I just play by them and occasionally quote them online. If someone has an issue with rules, take it up with the designers!

 

[Ovinomancer]

I didn't make any assertion about other people's styles, and I use a variety myself, depending on various factors, like I just said.

You did, you said, "If I had said "Don't roll" then they wouldn't have attempted to open the door or wouldn't have received the information that the door was incredibly hard to break." Given the discussion is on a style that says "don't roll" if the task is impossible, it's hard to read that as not making an assumption about that style. Context matters, here. Maybe it was a poor choice of phrasing on your part, I can see that, I've made many such myself, but you most certainly phrased it in a way that is naturally taken as speaking about styles were "don't roll for impossible tasks" is a thing.

That you carried that into a negation of action is even more concerning. It shows a broad lack of understanding about the principles involved in the style under discussion.

With the door, it was not literally unbreakable, a sufficiently high number could have broken it. For me to say "Don't roll" I would have had to first establish what the PC's maximum bonus was. Rather than have that discussion followed by you-bounce-off, for me it worked better to have player roll. It actually made for a dramatic little vignette - "No normal door could have withstood that!" Conversely with the high level Barbarians IMC I know what their minimum Athletics checks are (= STR, currently 24 & 30!) - so I will say "That was a DC 25 so you auto-succeed..." and that works well there, too.

It's fair that you don't have your player's stats memorized (although a DC 25+ door seems a bit obvious). However, that's not the point of not asking for a roll if the task is impossible or there is no consequence for failure. Here, it's pretty obvious there was no consequence for failure because you just provided information that it didn't work. Granted, that bit of information on this door showed players that it was impossible to bash, but that's not a consequence of the roll, but a consequence of that specific result. Had the result been less the a natural 20, the consequence would have been the same -- none. In this case, under my style, I would not ask for a roll, but still provide information to the party. The mistake often made in criticizing my style by those not familiar with it is that it still runs like yours -- you use rolls to convey information, I just provide the information. In the case of this door, I would have done as [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] did, and narrate as part of the description of the door that it looks nigh-unbreakable, that serious power outside the party's current ken was needed. Or, I, alternatively, would have done as I said above -- narrated the automatic failure of the action by providing all of the information you did on a natural 20. The lack of a roll doesn't mean nothing happens and the players are left with no new information. This is the assumption that comes from your style, where the roll is used to convey such, and which you assume, then, doesn't happen when no roll is made. That's not it, though, because the action is still attempted, and whatever outcome of that action obtains -- either auto-success/failure or a die roll -- information is still conveyed in the outcome that gives players necessary information to move forward in the game.

Conversely, I while I don't get the nice vignette of the natural 20 showing that the current task is beyond the strongest in the party (and I'm agreeing that's a fun outcome), I also don't have the frustration of rolling a 19 instead and wondering if it's worth it to keep trying for the 20. I recall that from my days using that style, and that's one of the reasons I switched -- that result was unsatisfying to me. If it works for you, awesome, I am legitimately glad this is so.

IMO the important thing with the 5e system is to be flexible, not doctrinaire, and use the best tools for the job.

I completely agree - doctrinaire styles really suck the wind out of the game. I'm very glad that neither I nor [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] use such a style, and also glad that you do not as well. We're all a very happy, non-doctrinaire party of gamers, yeah?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

What an odd assertion about a style you don't use! Nothing anyone has said should have indicated that not rolling means it doesn't happen. The PC could have made exactly the same roll in my game, and I wouldn't have called for a roll, I'd have narrated the failure with something along the lines of "you smash into the door a few times, but it doesn't even budge a bit." This both provides the players with the information and moves the game forward exactly the same way, just without rolling dice at all.

One major problem with the whole caveat about "meaningful outcomes" is that the DM has no way of knowing which outcomes the player will consider to be meaningful. If the player literally declares, "I keep bashing at the door until it either breaks down or I am reasonably certain that it won't break," then that's one thing. But if the player just says that they want to make an attempt, then you can't know for certain as to why they are making that attempt. And since you can't know whether any given outcome is meaningful or not, you can't skip the resolution without making an unfounded assumption. "Declaration of intent" is not part of the process of play. Players are only supposed to declare their actions.

The whole point of not rolling is that it skips the tedious process of rolling repeatedly until they succeed, but that only follows in those cases where they would actually follow that course of action. If they're going to keep trying until they succeed, then sure, go ahead and narrate their eventual success. If they make one attempt, and then stop to evaluate the outcome of that action before considering a further course of action, then rolling a 4 is meaningfully distinct from rolling a 20; the latter result indicates that no success is possible with this course of action, while the former result indicates that it might be possible.

Honestly, it's the same reason why Skill Challenges didn't work in 4E. A player needs the ability to react to the outcome of an action by changing their goal.

 

[Oofta]

Sorry - yeah that was pretty childish of me. But, seriously, you should not invoke rapiers or [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] is going to descend and start taking names!

No worries; for some reason I don't really understand this is a touchy subject so I'm a bit over-sensitive myself.

I guess what I'm trying to say, as long as I'm being a bit childish, is: stop pooping on [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s preference. You are mocking that which you don't seem to understand and it doesn't make you look good to many of us. And you do have good things to say as I've read (and occasionally XP'd) in other threads. Peace.

That's never been my intent. It's his preference. My preference is that if someone says they use an athletics check to open a door I'll let them. If there's no chance of success if they go to try it again I'll stop them before they roll and tell them they try a few times but it's not going to budge. Maybe I'll give them a check because they have a carpentry background using intelligence or wisdom with a proficiency bonus to figure out that it's just a fake door. Same result, ever so slightly different style.

I get how people follow this way of running their games and what they do but when it comes to why I'm at a bit of a loss. It's probably just that I keep hearing that "it's the rules". I think the rules are more of a guideline than hard-and-fast rules on this one. Some people just like rolling dice or stating intent by phrasing it as a skill check so I let them. But even if it is the rules, so what? If people want to know what the rules text says, read the book. Ask for advice and I'll let you know what works for me.

This seems to me to be the same as how people describe how raw fish with plain rice and green-tinted horse radish is the most awesome dish in the world because it's sushi. It's a personal preference and just like I don't really care if you like your fish raw. I'll still take mine cooked and with a side of brown or wild rice.

As far as the OP, I simply don't think there's one best way of doing any of this. Find a balance you find works for you, try a few different options, experiment.

P.S. I really don't want to argue about this any more. Different people have different ways of playing, I think we should be able to explain what we do without getting into another never-ending thread.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Sure. In addition, the rules have two tools that the DM can employ:

• Progress combined with a setback (PHB p. 174)
• Passive checks (PHB p. 175)

So if the DM fears that some aspect of the adjudication is going to give away information that the DM does not want to give away, then use a passive check ("...used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice...").

Or, upon failing an ability check, the DM can use progress combined with a setback. For example, "The subject is displaying body language indicative of untruthfulness, but she also signals that she knows that you saw her and adjusts her behavior." Now perhaps future attempts to discern truthfulness fails outright. Or the NPC is in a position of power and is insulted, leading to further complication. This can go a lot of different ways other than "You dunno."

It's a pretty weird position that some people take where they say they don't agree with rules I've quoted because they can't figure out how to use the said rules to solve a problem of their own making.

I thought you were quoting from the DFRPG players book, Your World. It’s a play style that FATE reinforces.