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

[Charlaquin]

But, this quote from @Ovinomancer


Sums up my point pretty well. The notion that if you attempt anything not specifically called out by a skill must not only carry the risk of failure but also must carry an additional penalty far in excess of whatever benefit you might get is why I am so opposed to this style of DMing. It's just not what I want in a game.

It’s also very much not a hallmark of this style of DMing. It’s a personal call of Ovinomancer’s, one I and many others wouldn’t make. Would you allow a PC to completely negate the damage from a 100 foot fall with any result on an Acrobatics check (or whatever it was)? Cause I sure wouldn’t. An important part of the style is evaluating if an approach can succeed at achieving the goal, and if you ask me, tucking and rolling can’t succeed at allowing you to walk away from a 100 foot fall unharmed. Maybe in Ovinomancer’s book it would, this style is very dependent on DM discretion (to its credit, in my opinion,) which means these kinds of things are going to vary from table to table. Just because you don’t like one DM’s call on a specific action doesn’t mean the whole style is useless.

Failure is it's own penalty. Failing a skill check does not mean that you must also add on additional punitive punishments.

Imagine I make a check to pick a lock and I fail. What consequence have I suffered from
this failure on its own?

It's not about getting "free stuff on high rolls". Because, I'd point out, @Ovinomancer's own example gifts free stuff on a high roll.

A strong indication that Ovinomancer isn’t concerned about giving “free stuff on high rolls.” Did he ever actually use this phrase?

It's about recognizing that there is underlying math here and it's a game. It needs to be balanced or it just becomes a trap option.

I don't play to drop trap options on my players.

Nor do I. Nor, I suspect, does Ovinomancer. You disagree with his assessment of the underlying math and what is or isn’t balanced. Fair enough, I guess, game balance is a tricky beast and people evaluate it in different ways. None of this is an indication that either of your preferred action resolution techniques are fundamentally flawed.

 

[Hussar]

It’s also very much not a hallmark of this style of DMing. It’s a personal call of Ovinomancer’s, one I and many others wouldn’t make. Would you allow a PC to completely negate the damage from a 100 foot fall with any result on an Acrobatics check (or whatever it was)? Cause I sure wouldn’t. An important part of the style is evaluating if an approach can succeed at achieving the goal, and if you ask me, tucking and rolling can’t succeed at allowing you to walk away from a 100 foot fall unharmed. Maybe in Ovinomancer’s book it would, this style is very dependent on DM discretion (to its credit, in my opinion,) which means these kinds of things are going to vary from table to table. Just because you don’t like one DM’s call on a specific action doesn’t mean the whole style is useless.

On a 100 foot fall? Yeah, it's probably going to be DC 25. However, the difference would be, you don't take any MORE damage from a failed check. An untrained character could never make the DC. A trained character who had spent a fair bit of character resources has a pretty slim chance of making the check. I just don't understand why I have to add in more damage to make it worth the check. Why am I punishing a player for making a check?

If you are going to up the stakes, you HAVE to up the reward. I posted a few times that no one would ever take this bet as it stands. And, Ovinomancer admitted that the DC and the stakes have nothing to do with the check per se, but, rather an attempt to nudge players into conforming to a certain style of play.

Imagine I make a check to pick a lock and I fail. What consequence have I suffered from
this failure on its own?

You've spent time, for one. But, other than that? Nothing. And, if you have unlimited time, I wouldn't even bother with the roll.

One of the worst things they left behind in 3e was the "Take 20" rule. That was a great rule. And something I pretty much add back into the game.

A strong indication that Ovinomancer isn’t concerned about giving “free stuff on high rolls.” Did he ever actually use this phrase?

Yup, he did. I quoted the line. I'll quote it again.

The dice aren't to be looked at as a friend that can gift free stuff on high rolls,

Nor do I. Nor, I suspect, does Ovinomancer. You disagree with his assessment of the underlying math and what is or isn’t balanced. Fair enough, I guess, game balance is a tricky beast and people evaluate it in different ways. None of this is an indication that either of your preferred action resolution techniques are fundamentally flawed.

He flat out stated that this was a trap option because he doesn't want players overshadowing class abilities with skill checks. I don't know how that can be any more clear. He specifically stated that this was a trap option and that the DC 15 option for partial damage was the more reasonable option.

Here is the pertinent quote:

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.

I'm sorry, but, how much clearer can we be here? This is SPECIFICALLY called out as a trap option BY the person doing it. I'm frankly at a loss as to why we're talking at cross purposes here.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It’s also very much not a hallmark of this style of DMing. It’s a personal call of Ovinomancer’s, one I and many others wouldn’t make. Would you allow a PC to completely negate the damage from a 100 foot fall with any result on an Acrobatics check (or whatever it was)? Cause I sure wouldn’t. An important part of the style is evaluating if an approach can succeed at achieving the goal, and if you ask me, tucking and rolling can’t succeed at allowing you to walk away from a 100 foot fall unharmed. Maybe in Ovinomancer’s book it would, this style is very dependent on DM discretion (to its credit, in my opinion,) which means these kinds of things are going to vary from table to table. Just because you don’t like one DM’s call on a specific action doesn’t mean the whole style is useless.


Imagine I make a check to pick a lock and I fail. What consequence have I suffered from
this failure on its own?


A strong indication that Ovinomancer isn’t concerned about giving “free stuff on high rolls.” Did he ever actually use this phrase?


Nor do I. Nor, I suspect, does Ovinomancer. You disagree with his assessment of the underlying math and what is or isn’t balanced. Fair enough, I guess, game balance is a tricky beast and people evaluate it in different ways. None of this is an indication that either of your preferred action resolution techniques are fundamentally flawed.

As Hussar cannot seem to stop prosecuting this, here's the deal: I picked that scenario as a response to a statement that goal isn't needed in some cases with the poster I was responding to having given the example approach of rolling Dex when falling. I picked a few scenarios to show it can matter, with one intending to show a hard/challenging goal and how that would work. So I picked avoiding damage entirely as a borderline auto-fail and used my engineering degree and multi-decadal career with math and my deep knowledge of how 5e math works to intentionally pick a DC that was a very risky try. It was intended to be a discouraging DC. Wherher I'd actually do this in game would depend on the totality of the circumstances, but likely I would not.

So, let it go, already. It was a hasty example to.display a concept. This is exactly why examples often make for bad discussion as the trees become the topic of close atudy.

 

[Hussar]

See, I would let this go except for a couple of things.

1. It's awfully convenient that once the example has been shown to be a bad one, it's "a hasty example" and shouldn't be taken seriously.

2. Virtually EVERY example that is given falls into Number 1 above.

I've yet to see an actual good example of how goal:method approches are supposed to work. Other than maybe @Baywilie's above. Other than that, I've got a shopping list of examples that are problematic at best. But, as soon as we actually start talking about the examples, I get accused of arguing in bad faith and not understanding the point and various other bits and pieces.

You want me to actually engage here, then give me a solid example.

 

[Oofta]

See, I would let this go except for a couple of things.

1. It's awfully convenient that once the example has been shown to be a bad one, it's "a hasty example" and shouldn't be taken seriously.

2. Virtually EVERY example that is given falls into Number 1 above.

I've yet to see an actual good example of how goal:method approches are supposed to work. Other than maybe @Baywilie's above. Other than that, I've got a shopping list of examples that are problematic at best. But, as soon as we actually start talking about the examples, I get accused of arguing in bad faith and not understanding the point and various other bits and pieces.

You want me to actually engage here, then give me a solid example.

Personally I like to give examples. But I do find that trying to nail down people is nearly impossible. Give an example of how "I grapple the orc" is acceptable? Suddenly it becomes 8 orcs ... and the DM is suddenly incapable of uttering the words "Which one?" Carefully exploring and using passive perception to spot traps becomes "Taking all the time in the world to examine every trap".

If an initial example was hasty, spend a minute or five and come up with a real example.

But I get the same thing at work sometimes (I'm a software developer). I like to draw things out on a whiteboard, test things out, work through pros and cons, discuss alternatives. Other people come along and it's like "Well, Bob's blog says to do it this way and his blog is really well written so he must be right. No further thought or examples are needed."

I don't have a problem with people using different approaches. GAO may work for them, but like you I dislike the fact that it's the players resolving problems, not the PCs. I use it sometimes in my games, but 100%? Nope. If someone invested a lot of resources into being really good at spotting traps, I'm going to reward that.

To use a geeky software design term, I want to discuss use cases. Pick common sample scenarios, what are the different actors going to do and what's the result? What are the options and their pros and cons? Discuss specifics, not generalities, and stay on one story at a time. Discussing using a skill to disarm traps? Don't bring in that one time when you had a "gotcha" DM that had your PC walking off the edge of a cliff because you didn't specifically state that you stopped at the edge.

Oh well. If wishes were horses and all that.

 

[Charlaquin]

See, I would let this go except for a couple of things.

1. It's awfully convenient that once the example has been shown to be a bad one, it's "a hasty example" and shouldn't be taken seriously.

2. Virtually EVERY example that is given falls into Number 1 above.

I've yet to see an actual good example of how goal:method approches are supposed to work. Other than maybe @Baywilie's above. Other than that, I've got a shopping list of examples that are problematic at best. But, as soon as we actually start talking about the examples, I get accused of arguing in bad faith and not understanding the point and various other bits and pieces.

You want me to actually engage here, then give me a solid example.

Look, man, I’m sorry you take such umbrage with Ovinomancer’s example. But less than perfect calls on the DC of a task neither typify goal and approach, nor are they exclusive to it. You can argue about whether or not it was a good call until you’re both blue in the face, it doesn’t actually say anything about goal and approach action resolution.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Look, man, I’m sorry you take such umbrage with Ovinomancer’s example. But less than perfect calls on the DC of a task neither typify goal and approach, nor are they exclusive to it. You can argue about whether or not it was a good call until you’re both blue in the face, it doesn’t actually say anything about goal and approach action resolution.

Yep, they can't avoid a close study of the bark and just circle around, "Clearly the forest is fatally flawed because this one person doesn't agree with me about lichen placement on the bark of this tree right here."

 

[Maxperson]

Oh, certainly. I'm not really sure how that's counter to what I'm saying though. By telegraphing traps, you avoid patroling monsters as well since you don't need to take any time finding the trap - there's a big sign that says, "TRAP HERE!" ((or, maybe a little sign. I dunno. There's a sign of some sort anyway))

It takes some time to find and disarm a trap, so patrols can still find you.

And note, and this is why these conversations are difficult, we've shifted from "passive perception" which takes no time at all, to "searching thoroughly". "Carefully observing" now means "searching thoroughly"? "I look around the room" now takes several minutes of in game time?

If all you are doing is standing in the middle of the room looking around, it takes very little time. You will also find very few traps that way. Traps are typically hidden in and under things, so if you aren't taking time to search, you aren't going to see the trap in the desk.

Sums up my point pretty well. The notion that if you attempt anything not specifically called out by a skill must not only carry the risk of failure but also must carry an additional penalty far in excess of whatever benefit you might get is why I am so opposed to this style of DMing. It's just not what I want in a game.

Your point is to Strawman his argument? He never said the bolded part at all. Big extra benefit = big risk does not equal anything not specifically spelled out equals big penalty.

Failure is it's own penalty.

No it's not. If you fail to climb the cliff wall, failure is not the only penalty. The big crunch at the bottom is also a penalty. If you fail to disarm the trap, failure is not the only penalty. The trap going off in your face is also a penalty. If you try to persuade the king to do something by calling him an obscene name, failure is not the only penalty. Jail and/or the loss of your head is also a penalty.

Failing a skill check does not mean that you must also add on additional punitive punishments.

Yes it does. At least in 5e. If there is no other penalty other than failing the roll, then there is no meaningful failure and there should be no roll at all. That's the rules.

 

[Maxperson]

You've spent time, for one. But, other than that? Nothing. And, if you have unlimited time, I wouldn't even bother with the roll.

One of the worst things they left behind in 3e was the "Take 20" rule. That was a great rule. And something I pretty much add back into the game.

Er, they didn't leave it behind. It just got rephrased. In 5e if it's possible to succeed and there's no meaningful consequence for failure, then you don't roll and just succeed. That's the take 20 rule stated a little differently.

 

[Oofta]

Yes it does. At least in 5e. If there is no other penalty other than failing the roll, then there is no meaningful failure and there should be no roll at all. That's the rules.

Ah, the "rules say" that's supposed to end all arguments.

If someone fails

• An insight check. Do you tell them what their character believes or just that they can't tell if the NPC is being deceptive?
• A perception check. That they see something that's not there or just that they don't see anything?
• A stealth check. Do they accidentally set off an alarm, or are they just seen as if they hadn't tried?

I'm sure I could go on. The point is that if you don't just let players get by any obstacle with a narrative, there doesn't have to be any extra special penalty for failure. It just doesn't work. That can be significant in and of itself.