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

[doctorbadwolf]

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).

To you. If it informs characterization, inter party banter and trash talk, and how everyone at the table conceptualizes any element of the fiction at all, it’s relevant.

What’s more, stories are better off with moments that don’t matter than without them, as long as they aren’t constant and don’t individually take up large lengths of narrative.

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.

This very strongly comes across as redefining the position to force all things to fit within it.

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

I’m always willing to drop a subject if you don’t want to continue discussing it.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

No, I understand other people might call for a check when there’s no obvious consequence for failure and have their reasons for doing so. I was responding to your critique of the way I and others run the game: “If there is a chance of failure if a check is made, but not if an approach that makes sense is taken, the game/GM is punishing players when they want to make checks.”

My point was that this isn’t a coherent critique, because the way that I and others run the game, a check wouldn’t be made if an approach that makes sense wouldn’t have a chance of failure.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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!

This reminds me of a recent discussion about wizards and thier spell slots.

My games are not built in a way where not preparing and using utility resources will lead to good results. Combat simply isn’t the only place where resources must be spent in order to succeed. However, I also don’t push so hard that people aren’t willing to spend a luck point on a roll that doesn’t meaningfully impact success with a quest or important objective, like winning an arm wrestling contest with a party member with nothing but pride at stake, or successfully bluffing someone to pull of a prank, or whatever.

 

[iserith]

This reminds me of a recent discussion about wizards and thier spell slots.

My games are not built in a way where not preparing and using utility resources will lead to good results. Combat simply isn’t the only place where resources must be spent in order to succeed. However, I also don’t push so hard that people aren’t willing to spend a luck point on a roll that doesn’t meaningfully impact success with a quest or important objective, like winning an arm wrestling contest with a party member with nothing but pride at stake, or successfully bluffing someone to pull of a prank, or whatever.

Are you asserting that those who don't ask for rolls for color are mostly running games with combat? Plenty of resources are spent in exploration and social interaction challenges to mitigate the swing of the d20 in my games. It's just I'm never asking them roll just so I can narrate some color. I don't need a die roll to do that.

 

[jayoungr]

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!

Well first, I typically don't do inspiration because I hate it. And second, if it's a roll just for color, I tell the player it's a color roll, i.e. "Make a roll just to see how long it takes you to do this."

 

[iserith]

Well first, I typically don't do inspiration because I hate it. And second, if it's a roll just for color, I tell the player it's a color roll, i.e. "Make a roll just to see how long it takes you to do this."

I love Inspiration! It's a great mechanic to incentivize playing to established characterization in my experience. But it's good that you tell them it's just a roll for color in my view. No need to waste a good portent on that!

 

[Charlaquin]

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 don’t know what the character would know about (proper noun), because “History 21” doesn’t tell me where they might have learned about (proper noun).

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.

Well I need to know what weapon a character is attacking with and against what target. More than that is just descriptive flair and isn’t necessary for me to understand what’s going on in the fiction and determine it’s likely outcomes. I don’t remember what I we were contrasting that against, but I remember that your example only said what the player wanted to accomplish and not what the character was doing.

Let me put it this way. When declaring an action, a player might or might not include three pieces of information: what they hope to accomplish (e.g. “kill the goblin”), what their character is doing to accomplish it (e.g. “stab it with my sword”), and how their character is doing what they’re doing (e.g. “I feint to the right, then quickly try and slip past his defenses, aiming for the ribs.”) I need the first two to properly adjudicate the action, but I don’t care about the third. I gather you’re comfortable assuming the second from the context leading up to the declaration of the first, but I am not.

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..."

What’s on the ceiling should be part of the initial description of the environment. I am not setting up traps to pull “you didn’t say the magic word!” gotchas on my players. I am simply basing my assessment of the difficulty and consequences of an action on what they decide to do.

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...."

Again, most of that should already have been included in the description of the room. Looking the bed, however, is probably something the player should specify they’re doing.

Really, really not to my taste.

That’s fine. We’re allowed to have different tastes.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I find it really strange when this exact sentence from p237 of the 5e DMG is called "bad advice":
Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure.

 

[Oofta]

I find it really strange when this exact sentence from p237 of the 5e DMG is called "bad advice":
Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure.

I find it really strange that people take that line out of context and ignore the clarifications that they're talking about walking across an empty room or ordering a mug of ale.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I find it really strange that people take that line out of context and ignore the clarifications that they're talking about walking across an empty room or ordering a mug of ale.

Care to put it into context for us?