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

[Charlaquin]

I view not getting into the room, chest or whatever is locked to be a meaningful consequence for failure.

I agree. If failure for some reason prevents you from getting into the room or chest or whatever, that is indeed meaningful. Of course, if you’re talking about picking locks as I suspect you are, in order for failure to prevent you from opening the lock, there would need to be something preventing you from just trying again until you get it. Either an in-universe thing like your lock picks breaking, or a meta-game thing like a “one roll is all you get” rule. IIRC, you employ the latter, which is very much not to my liking, but is common enough, and does indeed work to create a meaningful consequence for failure in this and many similar situations.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In other words, it serves a specific and necessary purpose in the story. It is, by definition, not a superfluous element.

To quote one of the best episodes of The X-Files; Sure. Fine. Whatever. If we’re done picking nits, the point is that succinct is not better than not succinct. Things that don’t advance the plot don’t need to be cut, every scene in a story does not need to matter, Steinbeck is not a better storyteller than Dickens. Efficiency needs to serve a purpose just as much as anything else.

With regard to how this relates to the thread topic, the scene at the end of Avengers where they eat shawarma has no impact on literally any other element of the MCU franchise. It has no effect on the plot, it’s just a moment that someone had an idea for, and it felt good to include it. That’s all it needs to be. If the DND campaign equivalent of the similar scene has some element with multiple plausible outcomes that might be the result of how well someone does soemthing, then it’s fine to use dice to resolve that. For some people, it’s preferable to do so. Getting lost in the weeds about what counts as a consequence or as superfluous doesn’t get us any further in an examination of the questions raised by the OP.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

As a hypothetical. Players asking to make checks are asking for a chance of failure, because a chance of failure is an inherent property of checks. This is not meant to suggest that a DM ought to create a chance of failure where one would not otherwise exist because the player is “asking for it.” Rather, it is meant to illustrate the absurdity of seeking to make checks, rather than seeking to be successful (which may incidentally require a check, or may not).

It isn’t absurd. The player is telling you how they prefer to play the game. Insisting on the “in-fiction action declaration, DM review of consequences and uncertainty, DM determines result or asks for a check, in that order” format just because it’s the advice in the DMG isn’t better than ignoring that advice and trusting the basic model of play a group prefers.

 

[Lanefan]

I struggle to imagine a story that would be made worse by cutting superfluous elements.

Except in D&D those "superfluous elements" are otherwise known as colour, or flavour, and serve to make the setting and-or its inhabitants (appear) richer, deeper, and more fleshed-out.

 

[Hussar]

Except in D&D those "superfluous elements" are otherwise known as colour, or flavour, and serve to make the setting and-or its inhabitants (appear) richer, deeper, and more fleshed-out.

On the flip side they are boring, forgettable and largely a waste of time.

But yeah I think this does drive to the heart of the disagreement- pacing concerns.

 

[soviet]

The main issue with 'nothing happens' results is that they are disempowering. The player had an idea, tried to influence the narrative, and was simply ignored. At least 'bad stuff happens also' results mean that the player's input was acknowledged.

 

[Oofta]

As a hypothetical. Players asking to make checks are asking for a chance of failure, because a chance of failure is an inherent property of checks. This is not meant to suggest that a DM ought to create a chance of failure where one would not otherwise exist because the player is “asking for it.” Rather, it is meant to illustrate the absurdity of seeking to make checks, rather than seeking to be successful (which may incidentally require a check, or may not).

This is just foreign to me. Players asking to make checks are simply asking to interact with the fiction in a way that feels meaningful to them. If they ask to check for traps at the door, that declaration doesn't suddenly change the state of the door trap. It was either trapped or it wasn't.

Sometimes when the player asks to check a door for traps, the door is not trapped and never has been. The roll is not necessary but it would break the fiction of the world and tension of the moment if I say "Don't bother, it's not trapped". The roll reflects an action taken by the PC, even if it was not necessary. Sometimes the door was trapped and opening it without checking, so it will soon be followed by a "make a ___ save".

But making up a penalty because they asked for a check? That's just weird to me and seems like the DM using a cudgel to enforce a "correct" way of playing. If someone is wasting time checking for traps every 5 feet, it's time to have a discussion about pacing and not making repetitive checks. We discuss pacing and how we can just use passive checks but it will slow movement to a crawl; we discuss it openly as an approach to the game instead of punishing people for playing "wrong".

 

[Oofta]

The main issue with 'nothing happens' results is that they are disempowering. The player had an idea, tried to influence the narrative, and was simply ignored. At least 'bad stuff happens also' results mean that the player's input was acknowledged.

Who said their action was ignored? They interacted with the fiction of the world, that in and of itself can be meaningful. I can try to lift a box not knowing how heavy it is and if it's too heavy to lift nothing happens. I still tried to lift the box. Or maybe I just don't know what you're saying.

 

[Oofta]

So, if you believe "the best is that you need to make the game your own", then why the need to cast aspersions (i.e. "bad advice" or "really strange") on those that want to interpret the line "Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure" as something that goes beyond skipping checks for the simple and mundane?

So you're the only one who can say?

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 use the same phrase and suddenly it's an aspersion, but it was not for you?

All I'm saying is that people take one sentence at the end of a paragraph, ignore everything the paragraph was talking about leading up to that sentence and then we end up with threads like this. Only asking for a check if there's a chance of failure is not some edict from on high, it's a reminder to keep the game moving and not getting bogged down in excessive checks.

Which of course is just my ruling because this edition is all about rulings over rules.

 

[iserith]

As a hypothetical. Players asking to make checks are asking for a chance of failure, because a chance of failure is an inherent property of checks. This is not meant to suggest that a DM ought to create a chance of failure where one would not otherwise exist because the player is “asking for it.” Rather, it is meant to illustrate the absurdity of seeking to make checks, rather than seeking to be successful (which may incidentally require a check, or may not).

Agreed. One only need look at how the game is designed to see that trying to make ability checks is not a good strategy for success. There's nothing in the game that suggests support for this way of playing. Now, in D&D 4e, it was expected that players would ask to make checks and the DM should almost always say "Yes" - it said so in the rules - but there's nothing like that in D&D 5e. Rolls are meant to resolve uncertain and consequential matters and the best strategy, assuming success is a priority for the player, is to work at removing uncertainty as to the outcome and/or the meaningful consequence for failure by way of an effective statement of an approach to a goal. If that fails short, the player can then fall back on the character's proficiencies and other resources to improve their odds of success.

If I as DM call for ability checks to resolve inconsequential matters like narrating color, what I'm doing is making it potentially harder for players to understand when and how to use their resources. It also removes tension from checks in general since at least some of them don't really matter all that much. One would hope in these instances the DM is making the stakes clear prior to the roll. I really don't want to waste my Inspiration on testing whether the shawarma was dry. I may need it later when I'm doing something uncertain and meaningful.