D&D 5E Players: Why Do You Want to Roll a d20?

[Seramus]

If you don’t like the risk/reward proposition, you can opt not to take the roll. That’s part of why it’s important, under this style, to tell the player the DC and the consequences for failure.

I think the example is bad, since a character could be reasonably attempt all three goals simultaneously. A single acrobatics roll could net any or all three results depending on how well she rolled, which leaves you in a weird place as far as consequences for failure.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think the example is bad, since a character could be reasonably attempt all three goals simultaneously. A single acrobatics roll could net any or all three results depending on how well she rolled, which leaves you in a weird place as far as consequences for failure.

That’s... Not really how D&D 5e works, at least not as-written. 5e doesn’t have a system for degrees of success, so no, they’re not all possible depending on how well you roll.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Well this is just a terrible way to handle auto success and auto failure. Here's how I do it:

Example of a hall with no traps in it

Player: I search the hall for traps.
DM: You find no traps, no check needed.
Player: Ok.

Example of a hall with a wall trap in it

Player: I search the hall for traps.
DM: How do you search the hall?
Player: I specifically check the walls, floors and ceiling for strange holes or things that look out of place. I make sure the rest of the party does not move beyond what I have declared safe.
DM: Make a search check, with advantage. (as I play 3.5, I would probably give a +2 to the check here)
Player: 15!
DM: You notice several tubes in the left wall, barely hidden behind some vines.

Example of a hall with a floor trap in it

Player: I search the hall for traps.
DM: How do you search the hall?
Player: I roll a rock across the floor and then take cover.
DM: The rock sets off several traps as dozens of spears shoot out from the floor, well away from where you are standing. You are however confident that they can only spring once, as they do not retract. (auto success)

If your happy with that go for it. I actually despise the words "how do you search?" from a GM and much prefer a roll meaningful nor not. If I have an idea of how I want describe something I will do it. If I am not describing it its because I have nothing creative to add and if I describe it and roll and rock across the floor and you auto fail me because its a high wire or auto succeed setting off all the traps I get annoyed because why did I bother making a character if its stats don't matter. So your method is terrible to me the way mine is terrible to you. I want above all else my character and not me to be running through the dungeon. That is the story I want to experience. But I am no way telling you how to enjoy your fun. I am glad you have a method you like. Happy gaming.

 

[Imaculata]

If your happy with that go for it. I actually despise the words "how do you search?" from a GM and much prefer a roll meaningful nor not. If I have an idea of how I want describe something I will do it.

Sometimes I also ask: "What does that look like?". I not only ask it to make a ruling on the outcome, but I also ask it to bring the scene to life for the other players. To me it is all about immersion, and about caring about the situation.

If I am not describing it its because I have nothing creative to add and if I describe it and roll and rock across the floor and you auto fail me because its a high wire or auto succeed setting off all the traps I get annoyed because why did I bother making a character if its stats don't matter.

Hang on there. When I design a trap for an adventure, that means I know where it is and how it works. If you say you roll a rock across the floor, and the trap is not floor activated, then nothing happens. I'm not sure if that qualifies as a failure, because it also gives you information. Nothing stops you from following up with just a normal search action, or any other combination of actions.

If however the trap IS floor activated, then yeah, a rock will probably activate it. This is why I'll ask if the players take cover and WHERE they take cover. This does not mean stats don't matter. But you can take other actions apart from just searching for traps. It may be something the player wants to fall back on if they roll badly on their check.

I care about giving my players lots of options and rewarding their cleverness. I like it when my game world operates by a certain logic.

I want above all else my character and not me to be running through the dungeon. That is the story I want to experience.

I don't see why allowing the players to have other options to success or failure would take away from that. Frankly, I think it immerses the player more in what is going on in the game.

For example:

I had a trap in my campaign where the players had to make their way across pillars above a pit of lava, while occasionally flames would shoot out from some of the pillars. The trap was not hidden, they could clearly see the flames and the holes they were shooting out from. So the players asked if they could simply plug the holes... and I figured, why not? Makes sense to me. Whether that requires another check is a matter of opinion, but above all else I want my world to obey a certain logic. The players should be free to think outside the box when trying to overcome the obstacles I throw at them.

 

[Hussar]

If you don’t like the risk/reward proposition, you can opt not to take the roll. That’s part of why it’s important, under this style, to tell the player the DC and the consequences for failure.
Uhh... What exactly is being risked there?
If there’s no consequence for failure (or punishment, if you like; they are synonyms, after all,) then I’d just let the player succeed without a roll, personally.
Was this in the midst of combat?

What is being risked? Well, if you don't roll well enough, you're going to take damage. Granted, you are always going to mitigate some damage, but, how much depends on the roll and your character's skill. How much more risk do we need? Again, pointing at combat, we don't penalize characters for missing an attack - they just miss. We don't have them miss, slip and fall flat on their face.

Why not? What's the difference?

"If you don't like the risk/reward proposition" isn't really the issue. It's that the risk/reward proposition is so bad that no one in their right mind would take it. All of those options are terrible. Why would anyone take that option?

Let's make a wager shall we? Ante up 100 gp. If you roll a 4 on a d4, you get your 100 gp back. If you roll 1-3, you lose your 100gp plus you lose another 100 gp. Would you take that bet? The only time you might take the odds given is if the fall damage would outright kill you. Otherwise, it's pointless. And, any player with a basic understanding of math will very quickly realize it. The consequences of failure are so great that it makes the roll superfluous.

So, yeah, I totally get why people feel like rolling is bad. Drop the DC for falling without damage to about 15 and we'll talk. DC 25 to avoid damage when I'm capped at a +10 check? I'd have to be stupid to take those odds.

And, yes, falling in the water was in the middle of combat. Out of combat, it likely would have been less of an issue, although, if they were at sail, then it might have been worse since they would very quickly leave the PC behind with the real risk of drowning.

Player: Can we climb down?
DM: You can sure try, but it is a steep wall with few handholds and you'll be battered by the wind while doing it. If you fail, you will meet up close and personal with those nasty looking sharp rocks I mentioned earlier. You will need to make a climb check.
Player: What if I tie a rope around a nearby tree, and secure it safely around my waist?
DM: That will require a Use Rope check, and if successful it should make climbing down a lot easier. It will still require a climb check, but I'll lower the DC. There's plenty of rocks or trees that you could tie the rope around.
Player: (Rolls really bad for their Use Rope) Uh oh.... I ehm... I pull it a couple of times, making sure it is secure.
DM: It seems secure enough... (evil smile)
Player: Crap... Ok, here goes... I climb down using the rope.
DM: The wind tosses you around a bit and the rope scratches back and forth along the sharp rocks... but eventually you arrive at the entrance of the city unscathed.
Player: Oh thank god!

Of course, what the players didn't realize at this point was that I was messing with their knowledge that it was a bad roll.

So, to put it another way, you lied to the players about the consequences of their checks. They didn't know that they couldn't send two down at the same time because you didn't tell them what a failed check meant. You were in no way up front about this. You hid the consequences and then aha gotcha!'d them when they tried something that they would have no way of knowing. Since they don't know what failure means, they cannot possibly declare a different action because they don't have the information needed to do so.

How does this fit into the mold of always knowing the consequences of a failure? How is this not an aha gotcha?

 

[Imaculata]

So, to put it another way, you lied to the players about the consequences of their checks.

I think that is a strange way to describe what I did. I told them that they might fall if they fail their check, they took a precaution, which I informed them would make their descend easier as long as they rolled well... and they rolled poorly, but still made it down safely initially, which was a surprise to them. But that was merely because they rolled well on their climb check. So even though the rope was unreliable, their climbing ensured a safe descend.

It's when they started taking more risks, that it came back to bite them. I wouldn't call that lying, I would call it a surprise that they should have seen coming. It would not have happened if they continued descending one by one. And on top of that I offered them a way to save their falling companions, and save them they did.

They didn't know that they couldn't send two down at the same time because you didn't tell them what a failed check meant.

Yes I did. I told them that they could fall to the razor sharp rocks below, especially if they rolled poorly, which they did. But I don't have to tell them 'how' the rope will fail.

They rolled well on their climb: They decend succesfully on their own, even with an insecure rope.
They rolled bad on their use rope: The rope fails eventually, due to the stress of too much weight.

 

[Hussar]

Well this is just a terrible way to handle auto success and auto failure. Here's how I do it:

Example of a hall with no traps in it

Player: I search the hall for traps.
DM: You find no traps, no check needed.
Player: Ok.

Example of a hall with a wall trap in it

Player: I search the hall for traps.
DM: How do you search the hall?
Player: I specifically check the walls, floors and ceiling for strange holes or things that look out of place. I make sure the rest of the party does not move beyond what I have declared safe.
DM: Make a search check, with advantage. (as I play 3.5, I would probably give a +2 to the check here)
Player: 15!
DM: You notice several tubes in the left wall, barely hidden behind some vines.

Example of a hall with a floor trap in it

Player: I search the hall for traps.
DM: How do you search the hall?
Player: I roll a rock across the floor and then take cover.
DM: The rock sets off several traps as dozens of spears shoot out from the floor, well away from where you are standing. You are however confident that they can only spring once, as they do not retract. (auto success)

Why is the player proposing three different actions when faced with the same hall? How did the player to know to roll a rock in one hall and check the walls, floors and ceiling in another?

 

[Imaculata]

Why is the player proposing three different actions when faced with the same hall? How did the player to know to roll a rock in one hall and check the walls, floors and ceiling in another?

I'm presenting three different scenarios, not one. The why doesn't matter. There may have been something in the description of the hall that gave the player the idea of rolling a rock across the floor, or it may have just been a hunch. The point is, if the traps follow a logic, then the outcome of some actions can be decided without a check. And this rewards player cleverness.

 

[Hussar]

I think that is a strange way to describe what I did. I told them that they might fall if they fail their check, they took a precaution, which I informed them would make their descend easier as long as they rolled well... and they rolled poorly, but still made it down safely initially, which was a surprise to them. But that was merely because they rolled well on their climb check. So even though the rope was unreliable, their climbing ensured a safe descend.

It's when they started taking more risks, that it came back to bite them. I wouldn't call that lying, I would call it a surprise that they should have seen coming. It would not have happened if they continued descending one by one. And on top of that I offered them a way to save their falling companions, and save them they did.



Yes I did. I told them that they could fall to the razor sharp rocks below, especially if they rolled poorly, which they did. But I don't have to tell them 'how' the rope will fail.

They rolled well on their climb: They decend succesfully on their own, even with an insecure rope.
They rolled bad on their use rope: The rope fails eventually, due to the stress of too much weight.

So, making the second check was actually making their action more difficult since now they have to succeed on two checks to make it to the bottom, rather than a single check. And, even though their climb check was good enough to get to the bottom, the use rope (I'm assuming Pathfinder? 3e?) check was so bad that they still fail.

What, if I might ask, was the DC on the use rope check? What were the odds of failure?

 

[Hussar]

I'm presenting three different scenarios, not one. The why doesn't matter. There may have been something in the description of the hall that gave the player the idea of rolling a rock across the floor, or it may have just been a hunch. The point is, if the traps follow a logic, then the outcome of some actions can be decided without a check. And this rewards player cleverness.

I would say the why gets to the heart of the issue. In your method, you would need to telegraph every single trap every single time. Every corridor, every room everywhere would need to be detailed to the point where the player would have some idea of what kind of approach might be effective in that specific location.

Good grief, how long are your descriptions?