D&D 5E What are your biggest immersion breakers, rules wise?

[Oofta]

Since the original thread has been 100% derailed into a discussion about how and when you should get to re-roll for picking a lock...

Does anyone in this thread see these two scenarios as being different and would one but not the other occur at your table?

Scenario 1
P1: I want to pick the lock.
GM: OK, give me a Lockpick roll.
P1: I got a 7.
GM: The lock doesn't budge.
P1: I try again. I got an 18.
GM: OK, now its open.

Scenario 2
P1: I want to know if his religion is tied to Tiamat.
GM: OK, give me a Religion roll.
P1: I got a 7
GM: You don't remember anything like that.
P1: I try again. I got an 18.
GM: Yes it is.

In general you either know something or you don't. Picking a lock is a physical activity that takes a variable amount of time unless it's simply completely beyond your skill level.

 

[5ekyu]

Since the original thread has been 100% derailed into a discussion about how and when you should get to re-roll for picking a lock...

Does anyone in this thread see these two scenarios as being different and would one but not the other occur at your table?

Scenario 1
P1: I want to pick the lock.
GM: OK, give me a Lockpick roll.
P1: I got a 7.
GM: The lock doesn't budge.
P1: I try again. I got an 18.
GM: OK, now its open.

Scenario 2
P1: I want to know if his religion is tied to Tiamat.
GM: OK, give me a Religion roll.
P1: I got a 7
GM: You don't remember anything like that.
P1: I try again. I got an 18.
GM: Yes it is.

In both cases, in my game, they would be treated much the same.

First, there would be the nig decision by the GM of are both pass and fail possible?

Assuming it doesnt get auto-success/fail, then the DC is chosen and they roll.

In both cases, I tend to use the some setback options giving them some info that is helpful to get close to success with a different approach and a setback that either prevents or discourages repeating the exact same way.

Maybe for the lock they find its vulnerable to being forced or sprung by another means that will be loud or take more time or ve more brute force or using some material they saw in another room, etc.

For knowledge, maybe they remember reading about it, know someone with more knowledge, or maybe a card song ssid something so a musical cue could... but also, they likely get some positive and false leads too... with enough to let them know "dont bet the bank on this."

So, mechanically, in both cases, the immediate reroll would be unwise - disadvantaged and expect bigger setbacks, and a change in approach much more desirable.

Narratively, uts still much the same, the failure still moves events and enables more progress, just likely in different directions than the original plan.

I myself font buy into the "either know or dont" at the roll stage. To ne that is at step 1 - auto-success/fail. By the time we get to rolling, its about recall here and now.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Does anyone in this thread see these two scenarios as being different and would one but not the other occur at your table?

Scenario 1
P1: I want to pick the lock.
GM: OK, give me a Lockpick roll.
P1: I got a 7.
GM: The lock doesn't budge.
P1: I try again. I got an 18.
GM: OK, now its open.

Scenario 2
P1: I want to know if his religion is tied to Tiamat.
GM: OK, give me a Religion roll.
P1: I got a 7
GM: You don't remember anything like that.
P1: I try again. I got an 18.
GM: Yes it is.

They're the same, but neither of them would happen at my table. Neither attempt would be given a re-try. If you don't know how to open a particular lock, then trying a second time will not miraculously teach you.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

In general you either know something or you don't. Picking a lock is a physical activity that takes a variable amount of time unless it's simply completely beyond your skill level.

If "Lock you can figure out" equals DC = Your skill+20+ongoing bonus
then
"Thing you can figure out" should also equal DC = Your skill+20+ongoing bonus

If the purpose of rolling something you are sure they are going to succeed at is just to establish time then you should apply that ruling to all skills, not just selective ones.

Also, as people are saying, it IS possible that even though a lock is rated at DC15 and your "Lock you can figure out" is DC30 there might be something about it that means you can't open that one specific lock until you change the circumstances of the check. You don't have to do something like this, but it is a tool in the GM toolbox.

This is the same thing as saying you "Don't know that answer at all." even if the player COULD have hit the DC had they rolled better.

Choosing to say some skill checks can be retried and some can't is entirely in the realm of GM decisions to move the narrative along. You can, and should, be adjusting the results of failing a skill check to fit whatever situation the story is sitting in.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

They're the same, but neither of them would happen at my table. Neither attempt would be given a re-try. If you don't know how to open a particular lock, then trying a second time will not miraculously teach you.

In my game...

IN ROUNDS
You roll the skill check and generally get to keep trying if you fail. You are using up actions as a cost of failure even if there is no other associated cost.

OUT OF ROUNDS
If failing a check has some game affecting penalty (you try to Persuade the guard to give you his key, if you fail you must spend an hour finding a different guard) then you still have to roll to see if the penalty is applied or not. If the penalty is repeatable you must keep rolling until we establish the cost of getting the skill check accomplished.

If there is no penalty for failing a check then you just succeed without rolling and we move on. UNLESS I have some reason to switch this up, in which case I might tell you to roll and if you fail I will create a penalty to be overcome before you can try again.

...I would have guessed every game ran this way but maybe not?

I switch up some out of rounds checks reinforce the idea that adventuring life is more than what you can do when fighting others. Making the occasional outside-of-combat-skill-check have higher stakes rewards players who have focused on abilities/spells/items that can be used outside of combat in creative ways. 5e rules as written don't do the best job at engaging the players outside of "encounters" or during downtime.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

True, but it's a stake. "How long are you going to try before you give up" "Oh, an hour" "Then what? If you don't succeed, what's next?" "Er, well, I, guess I'd try again?" "Then it's more than an hour, isn't it? How long, really?" "Fine! Just until I succeed, because there's nothing to do on this fine railroad until I get the fine door open! OK!?!"
::rattle::rattle:: "1 hr 42 minutes later, you're attacked by a wandering monster"

Can’t speak for others, but I rarely use wandering monsters. If there is a patrol, because they’re infiltrating a Castle or something, sure, but wandering monsters not so much.

If there is no stake, then I think about what would be represented by failure on a roll representing literally all available time, ask how long they spend on it before going and doing something else, and if it’s an “assured success eventually” scenario, let them know that if they roll poorly they’ll take that whole time to accomplish the thing.

So, the only way it’s gonna be an hour is if all they’re willing to spend is an hour, or if all that’s available is an hour.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In my game...

IN ROUNDS
You roll the skill check and generally get to keep trying if you fail. You are using up actions as a cost of failure even if there is no other associated cost.

OUT OF ROUNDS
If failing a check has some game affecting penalty (you try to Persuade the guard to give you his key, if you fail you must spend an hour finding a different guard) then you still have to roll to see if the penalty is applied or not. If the penalty is repeatable you must keep rolling until we establish the cost of getting the skill check accomplished.

If there is no penalty for failing a check then you just succeed without rolling and we move on.

...I would have guessed every game ran this way but maybe not?

Mostly, I do run fairly similarly. I use what some call “best effort” resolution in fairly limited circumstances. Primarily, it’s when I or the player need to know how long something takes, or if it’s realistically possible they just won’t ever get it without help, but that isn’t especially likely, or if I simply feel like the player just wants to make a roll for it, and I’ll establish some parameters and what we are actually measuring with the roll.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Can’t speak for others, but I rarely use wandering monsters. If there is a patrol, because they’re infiltrating a Castle or something, sure, but wandering monsters not so much.

But! They're a classic bit.

If there is no stake, then I think about what would be represented by failure on a roll representing literally all available time, ask how long they spend on it before going and doing something else, and if it’s an “assured success eventually” scenario, let them know that if they roll poorly they’ll take that whole time to accomplish the thing.

...sound good to me.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If there is no penalty for failing a check then you just succeed without rolling and we move on.

...I would have guessed every game ran this way but maybe not?

If every game ran that way, then there would be very little point in manacles existing, given that anyone with at least a 10 in Strength or Dexterity would escape within a few minutes.

This is one of those areas where the rules just make zero sense, and no explanation is given.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If every game ran that way, then there would be very little point in manacles existing, given that anyone with at least a 10 in Strength or Dexterity would escape within a few minutes.

This is one of those areas where the rules just make zero sense, and no explanation is given.

Can you extrapolate the reasoning here?

Because no, the rules don’t create that situation. At all.