D&D 5E Rolling Without a Chance of Failure (I love it)

[doctorbadwolf]

I disagree. Even if the consequences of rolling under the target number (which the system refers to as “failure”) are only ever no progress, that’s still going to lead to a pretty decent gameplay experience; certainly a better one than one where checks with no consequence (remember that I am using the literal meaning of consequence here, “1. a result or effect of an action or condition. 2. Importance or relevance”) are frequently called for. Obviously progress with a setback on a failure, and similar techniques like progress on a failure but progress with an additional upside on success, are also useful tools. All of these things are consequences of failure.

It is literally what I mean. Rolling under the target number is defined in the game mechanics as “failing” the check. I’ve earlier cited the definition of consequence. I believe that the former should always result in the latter. Doing otherwise leads to a pretty unsatisfying gameplay experience.

It literally is a consequence for failure.

Then, for the last time I hope, your definition of terms means that no check has a total lack of consequence. You’re drawing a line where you feel the consequences are meaningless, and declaring that they are not consequences. That is false. Even the rather bland “that lock frustrated you for much longer than it should have” is a consequence, but your very literal definition.

As I’ve said twice now, I’ve seen it often. Most often, from DMs who are simply uncritically calling for checks whenever action is declared, without thinking through what the outcomes for success and failure will be. When failure is rolled, such DMs tend to simply narrate the results of eventual success, with the addition of some inconsequential detail like it being “really hard” or the character “barely managing to succeed” or “taking a really long time” when there isn’t actually any time pressure making that relevant.

That is a failure of making those things inconsequential, not a failure of calling for a check when they shouldn’t do so.

Sure. I think “only call for rolls when failure has a meaningful consequence” is a more efficient way to render that same sentiment, but I take no issue with this rephrasing.

I’m just never going to agree that they are the same sentiment.

 

[Charlaquin]

Then, for the last time I hope, your definition of terms means that no check has a total lack of consequence. You’re drawing a line where you feel the consequences are meaningless, and declaring that they are not consequences. That is false. Even the rather bland “that lock frustrated you for much longer than it should have” is a consequence, but your very literal definition.

Definition 2 of consequence is “importance or relevance.” The lock frustrating you for longer than it should have is not important or relevant (unless there’s time pressure making it so).

That is a failure of making those things inconsequential, not a failure of calling for a check when they shouldn’t do so.

6 of one, half a dozen of the other. Either make failure consequential, or don’t call for a roll. Either way, the advice not to call for a roll when failure is inconsequential is being observed.

I’m just never going to agree that they are the same sentiment.

Ok, but now you know what I mean, so perhaps we can move on.

 

[jayoungr]

Do you ever do this? Rolling even without a chance of failure?

I sometimes ask for a roll to help me gauge the degree of success. For example a survival roll to find a plot-necessary location might actually determine how long it will take. Or a history roll might determine how many details a PC can remember about a certain event, but even a natural 1 will yield something.

 

[Oofta]

It’s not a railroad at all. The player either gets information that’s directly useful or they get information and it’s up to them to make use of it if they can. I don’t see any value in intentionally giving them false information.

You play a different game than ... well a lot of people. Red herrings can be part of a healthy diet.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If there’s no chance of failure when an approach that makes sense is taken, why would a check be made?

This has been answered by rather a lot of people, including the OP in the very first post. You disagree with the reasons, and that’s fine, but those reasons have been explained.

 

[iserith]

I sometimes ask for a roll to help me gauge the degree of success. For example a survival roll to find a plot-necessary location might actually determine how long it will take. Or a history roll might determine how many details a PC can remember about a certain event, but even a natural 1 will yield something.

In your example, does it matter to the plot how long it takes to get to the location? Or is it just color?

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

Rolling Without a Chance of Failure (I love it)​

I do this frequently. Because of how mediocre the d20 is for these types of rolls, I treat the d20 as a "roll to avoid bad things happening."

 

[jayoungr]

In your example, does it matter to the plot how long it takes to get to the location? Or is it just color?

Ideally it would matter, but sometimes I've done it just for color.

 

[iserith]

Ideally it would matter, but sometimes I've done it just for color.

Yes, I think some of us are doing it only when it actually matters and others are doing that plus sometimes for color. For me, I don't do it for color because it, in part, it lessens the impact of player resources spent to improve chances of success. Like if I know a roll is just for color, I'd rather not spend my Inspiration on it. I'll save that for when I'm two failed death saves in and about to make another!

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, that’s just a matter of preference, some people are more comfortable with it than others.

Good enough for what? It’s just a number devoid of context. I prefer the player tell me what they want to know about the monster and what experience they’re drawing on to try and recall it. Then as with any other action I’ll use that information to determine if a roll is needed and what DC.

Climbing doesn’t typically require an Athletics check in 5e.

“I look around the room” doesn’t tell me what they’re looking for, and it also doesn’t sound like an action that would have any reasonable chance of revealing anything that wasn’t in the initial description of the room.

I can generally understand from context what a player hopes to achieve, but not what their character is doing to try and achieve it. I can imagine something they might do to try and achieve it, but that’s not my job. It’s the player’s job to tell me what their character is doing to try and achieve their goals, and my job to decide if that could work, fail to work, and has a consequence for failing to work, and if so to set a DC for it to work.

Whereas to me, this all seems needlessly fiddly and nit-picky. "Tell me what you want to know" isn't what the player asked. The player just wants to know, based on his character attributes, what knowledge he has of a the monster. It's no different than a player, upon hearing some proper noun in the game, saying, "What do I know about (proper noun), History 21".

I mean, you later talk about how you don't need to know how the character attacks or picks a lock. I'm not sure why this is any different. It's just abstracted away, the same way as combat is.

I find your way often leads to mother may I situations where the DM starts saying things like, "Well, you didn't say you were looking at the ceiling when you said you search the room, so, you missed the monster waiting in the corner..." and pushes the players to start going down a shopping list of things "I look in each corner, the ceiling and the floor of the room. After that, I look on the bed, under the bed, in the bed and behind the bed. After that I look...."

Really, really not to my taste.