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

[Ovinomancer]

I wouldn’t call for a roll if there wasn’t anyone to alert. I’d just narrate success.


Right, but failing your check had a consequence - specifically, being spotted. That’s consequence enough.


Then I think you might be arguing against boogeymen. Cause I’m pretty sure no one here is making that argument.


Right, but that’s only a meaningful cost if time is a limited resource. If you’re in combat, or if the time it takes you to attempt to goad the horse into jumping over the pit brings you a step closer to a check for random encounters, then yeah, that’s consequence enough that a roll would be needed to resolve it. But if what happens on a failure is nothing except that you get a little flavor text about your failure to convince the horse to jump and then you try again, repeat until you succeed, I would much rather save everyone the time and skip to narrating the eventual success.


When my players announce an action and I determine that it does require a check to resolve, I tell the players the DC and what will happen as a result of failure. If what will happen as a result of failure is “nothing,” I don’t make up some consequence out of my ass to satisfy the requirement that a check must have a consequence. I just narrate success. That’s why I object to my style being presented as “punishing the player for rolling.”

When my players announce an action and I determine that it does require a check to resolve, I tell the players the DC and what will happen on a failure. If what will happen on a failure is “nothing,” then I don’t call for a check, I just narrate success. I don’t make up something to punish the player with, which is why I object to my style being represented as “punishing the players for rolling.”I'm going more by what I've seen at tables, and what I'm seeing in virtually every single example that gets posited on the boards. @Maxperson set a DC of 20 to know 2 facts about a monster, with a chance that neither of those facts would actually be useful in context. To me, that's ridiculously high. And, IIRC, there was a chance on a failed check of learning false information. ((Correct me if I'm misattributing that to you @Maxperson, I know someone said it)) So, I have about a 50:50 chance of success, which means I learn a minimal amount of information, potentially of no value to me in context, and a 50% chance of learning misleading information which I have no means of falsifying beforehand.

And that's presuming a +10 on the skill check, which means I'm looking at about a 10th level character (or thereabouts). Certainly not a fresh off the farm character anyway.

So, yeah, while I cannot comment about your game, I can only go by the truckload of examples from the boards of DM's who really, really don't realize the implications of their math.

Ah. I have done a thing I can't mention to some participants, but from your formatting error I see that my understanding of odds is being questioned with regards to the DC 25 I set above? If so, I fully understand the odds. I almost always set DCs between 10-15, occasionally 20, and rarely higher. I also know that a rogue or bard with appropriate expertise can hit a DC 25 about 40% of the time by 12th level. I also generally dislike ability checks that replicate class features from other classes. So, yes, imitating a slow fall will get a low probability of success from me, with a high risk. The implication here is that you shouldn't do this. If you care to note, the DC for reducing damage by half dropped to a 15 and the risk was the loss of a turn of actions (but still being able to move), which steps down greatly from the DC25 double damage. I incentivize appropriately to my tastes, and it's not a lack of understanding on my part of odds. In fact, it's quite the opposite -- I very much intended that result.

 

[Seramus]

With goal and approach, however, the number of flips accomplished is immaterial. The goal is to do something, the approach is by doing flips to impress judges (I guess), and the result is then "did you get the something or not?" How many flips are done isn't even necessary to consider -- on a success, the number of flips done was of sufficient quantity and quality. On a failure, the number done was not sufficient. How many were done is now just a matter of color in the narration.

There are too many potential situations where the number of flips might matter for it to be immaterial. Certainly some of them will be immaterial - just doing a bunch of practice flips when nobody is around (not even worth a roll). But others will be quite material - flipping in front of judges to determine what medal will be rewarded, while someone watches from the sidelines to see if you are competent enough to hire after the competition.

The more actors and obstacles in a scene, the more important it is to know the actual outcome of someone’s action beyond the binary. Additionally, the binary doesn’t allow for non binary results even if they would make perfect sense in the circumstances, such as our strange flipping fellow stating a goal of trying to achieve a silver medal (because the DC is more reasonable) and rolling high enough to earn the gold medal, but not getting anything but silver because that wasn’t his goal.

 

[Hussar]

If so, I fully understand the odds. I almost always set DCs between 10-15, occasionally 20, and rarely higher. I also know that a rogue or bard with appropriate expertise can hit a DC 25 about 40% of the time by 12th level. I also generally dislike ability checks that replicate class features from other classes. So, yes, imitating a slow fall will get a low probability of success from me, with a high risk. The implication here is that you shouldn't do this

Which is fair. But, at that point, why not just say no, you can't do this? Why give a trap option?

And, why would the fact that a rogue or bard might have a better chance of success even enter into the calculation? Do we calculate odds based on the character attempting the action? So, if my rogue tries it, because my rogue has higher skills, all DC's are automatically set higher? I was told in no uncertain terms that DC's in 5e are objective. Who is attempting the check should never enter into the calculation.

Apparently @Ovinomancer has me on ignore, so, I probably shouldn't comment on his comments, but, yeah, I'm going to stand by this. He's flat out admitted to creating a trap option because he "dislikes ablity checks that replicate class features". So, if I'm a wizard, I can get away with Feather Fall, no problems at all, but, my 10th level acrobat rogue cannot possibly replicate a 1st level spell effect with a skill check?

Yeah, he might intend that result, I just think that the result is very poor.

 

[Charlaquin]

There are too many potential situations where the number of flips might matter for it to be immaterial. Certainly some of them will be immaterial - just doing a bunch of practice flips when nobody is around (not even worth a roll). But others will be quite material - flipping in front of judges to determine what medal will be rewarded, while someone watches from the sidelines to see if you are competent enough to hire after the competition.

The more actors and obstacles in a scene, the more important it is to know the actual outcome of someone’s action beyond the binary. Additionally, the binary doesn’t allow for non binary results even if they would make perfect sense in the circumstances, such as our strange flipping fellow stating a goal of trying to achieve a silver medal (because the DC is more reasonable) and rolling high enough to earn the gold medal, but not getting anything but silver because that wasn’t his goal.

There’s no “high enough to earn the gold medal” independent of an attempt to win the gold medal. DCs aren’t just out there in the wild, waiting for a player to come by and defeat them with a well-rolled ability check. DCs are set to establish the difficulty of succeeding at an action that has an uncertain outcome. For there to be a DC there must be a check, and for there to be a check, a character must be attempting to achieve a specific goal by means that might succeed, might fail, and have a cost or consequence for failing.

 

[Seramus]

There’s no “high enough to earn the gold medal” independent of an attempt to win the gold medal.

That means you can never accomplish anything greater than your stated goal.

 

[Maxperson]

Which is fair. But, at that point, why not just say no, you can't do this? Why give a trap option?

A few reasons. First, people might still use it sometimes. Second, it would be wrong to say no outright to something that is possible.

 

[Hussar]

There’s no “high enough to earn the gold medal” independent of an attempt to win the gold medal. DCs aren’t just out there in the wild, waiting for a player to come by and defeat them with a well-rolled ability check. DCs are set to establish the difficulty of succeeding at an action that has an uncertain outcome. For there to be a DC there must be a check, and for there to be a check, a character must be attempting to achieve a specific goal by means that might succeed, might fail, and have a cost or consequence for failing.

I'm not sure. For most skills, it seems that the consequence of failing is simply not succeeding. A failed check rarely carries any direct penalty for failure. And, of course, this ignores things like "failing forward" as well as a technique.

 

[Hussar]

A few reasons. First, people might still use it sometimes. Second, it would be wrong to say no outright to something that is possible.

Whereas, to me, this is pretty much exactly what I'm arguing against and have been all the way along. The DM gets to say, "Well, I gave you a chance to succeed, so, if you failed it was your fault" and can absolve himself or herself of any responsibility. The fact that the failure was virtually guaranteed and the set up was completely borked from the outset isn't mentioned.

Thinking about this, yeah, I can't see this as anything other than bad faith on the part of the DM. Setting up the players to fail is poor DMing. If the DM doesn't want skills to overlap with class abilities, just SAY THAT. Don't hide behind "Oh, well, I gave you a chance" as an excuse. Be honest with the player.

Just because people will try it sometimes doesn't make it good. You wouldn't take the bet, after all. Why not? Why wouldn't you take a bet where one in four, you get your money back, but three in four you pay double?

This, to me, is a perfect example of what I've been talking about all the way along. Goal and approach is great, when it's actually goal and approach. But, this isn't goal and approach, because the DM is stepping in with his own personal preferences - no replicating class abilities - and creates trap options instead of being clear with the player.

And there you are, @Maxperson, patting him on the back for it. And you wonder why I have issues with trusting DM's. @Ovinomancer just flat out admitted that the reason the DC was that high had nothing to do with goal:approach methods, but, rather to force his players to play in a certain way. I'm not making that up. He directly said that.

So, yeah, color me rather skeptical about the inherent "fairness" of the goal:method approach when every single example reveals unfair approaches by DM's and a lack of understanding of the math of the game.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm not sure. For most skills, it seems that the consequence of failing is simply not succeeding.

Only if you’re thinking about the skill in a vacuum, instead of thinking about it as a means of resolving uncertainty in a task.

Now, granted, plenty of tasks don’t have any consequence for failing beyond not succeeding. This just means that many of the things you attempt will simply be successful, especially if the DM is not taking steps to make time a limited resource outside of combat.

A failed check rarely carries any direct penalty for failure. And, of course, this ignores things like "failing forward" as well as a technique.

Failing forward isn’t really necessary with this style of action resolution. It’s a technique that exists specifically to address the problem of failure often causing nothing to happen. My style of adjudication also fixes this problem, by simply narrating success in cases where failing forward would be appropriate.

 

[ClaytonCross]

I'm not @Imaculata, but, for how I do it, you've got a common but incorrect assumption. Again, the goal of goal and approach play isn't to get you to tell me, the DM, the magic solution I've cooked up for this puzzle, but instead to look at your character and tell me how you're character would do this thing. If you're a rogue, and you suspect a trap, are you looking for it from what you think is a safe distance? Are you approaching and touching things, feeling carefully for a trigger? Are you using your thieve's tools? This is the level of specificity needed.

Now, in addition to this, the way the game is presented is also different. There are no bare stretches of hallway that you have to guess contain traps. Instead, the game is telegraphed. If there's a trap, there's something there that indicates that this is a dangerous area -- something that you can then directly follow up on because there's a hook to engage. It's not a blind, one-way street from the player to the DM, the DM must adequately describe the scene such that you, as the player, can make reasonable choices about how to proceed. The only time I ever "gotcha" traps is if players are knowingly engaged in extremely risky behavior. Otherwise, there's always something in the scene description that clues into a trap -- deep gouges in the floor from an overhead blade trap, or an odd glistening from the poisoned doorknob, etc., etc. Usually, I flat out point out the traps in an area, because I rarely ever use traps as an independent obstacle and prefer to use them as part of a whole setup, so knowing a trap is over there still adds to the situation. So, in this case, it's pretty easy to tell me what your character is doing in regards to a trap or other situation. I don't require specificity, or amazing plans (these rarely work), just an idea of what your character is doing and what they hope to accomplish by it.

The difference is a little subtle which is why I keep saying that if your table I happy. Don't stress it. However we I set up a following order and distance to stablish safeties, the I assume passives unless stated. Players would only get for warning from a hidden trap if a member of the party has high enough passive persuasion and/or investigation. Usually the first trap they run across in a dungeon etc, is easy to spot to inform players that this dungeon has traps. Traps are also usually securing something, players are prone to check doors and chests before opening them, and if they see shiny valuables in a room with gold head on a pedestal... they tend to be suspicious of a trap. That said, they will likely call for a check at those times without me asking. If there is trap on a pre-made dungeon in the middle of the hall and they would fail, I would call for a check as GM to give them a chance to spot it. Typically if I call it they don't add description and just roll. I describe the effect and we move on. If they call for check and are suspicious, I let them call it, if there is not trap and the rolled low... they are cautious but still moved forward with no idea if the trap is there and they rolled low or if there is no trap. If they just tried to open the door/chest on the other hand, I would call for roll if it is trapped or just open it if its is not. To that end, them calling roles creates more suspense. Automatic failures are not a thing in my game, but if they said they were afraid they failed a perception/investigation check to spot a trap and put the fighters shield in front of them I might give them advantage on the save for triggering the trap, while if it was not trapped the door would just open.

1. If it matters, they get a charcter skill role.
2. Descriptions and cleaver role play and good descriptions only ever provide bonuses never deficits.
3. I only auto succeed a test if the DC is reduce below there passive skill, but never auto fail.

Telegraphing everything can do something similar, but it requires I never forget a single word or detail and describe everything (which I do constantly). There would be no such thing as a hidden trap (because they are always foreshadowed). Auto success or failures would be based off players (not player characters) deciphering what I am trying to hint at and what description of events would be sufficient to ME (subjectively) to allow them to succeed. A preset DC doesn't care how good a player is at guessing what I mean, expressing what they mean, or them understanding a characters skill sufficiently to explain it as a player. I do not require players running as deckers to know how to hack to play a decker in shadowrun or players who choose to play rogues to know how to disarm traps in D&D to be able to explain in detail how to disable traps in the real world. I also don't require players who want to play Bards to have to audition and perform performance checks grading it on how much I like the show. TO ME these are all the same thing... however if your playing D&D with your band group and you all want to play bards requiring them to actually play instruments IRL, your party might love it.... so I am not saying its wrong. I am saying I have seen these subjective D&D calls based on GMs approval of Player descriptions instead of character stats.... go very badly. So I personally avoid them my requiring roles and as a result I don't care if I call them or the player calls for roles using their characters stats. In fact I actively encourage it because them calling for a check on a door lets me hide the check value of the check, where if I call for the check they know something is up and in many cases it requires me to warn the out come of the roll to get them to second guess decisions. If they call for the check the decision was made and player agency is preserved even if its a bad idea.