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

[iserith]

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.

Yes, for me, that consequence will almost always be time wasted - 10 minutes pass, the countdown clock is closer to doom and/or now we're making another wandering monster check. Care to try that again or are you going to break down the door or smash the chest? Time's a-wastin'!

 

[Swarmkeeper]

So you're the only one who can say?
I use the same phrase and suddenly it's an aspersion, but it was not for you?

I'm sorry that my finding the phrase "bad advice" strange has possibly offended you. But again, someone telling someone else that they are giving "bad advice" is something which, yes, I do find strange (to put it lightly) - especially when it is advice quoted from the DMG. There are plenty of ways to disagree with someone without calling out how they play as, well, "bad".

Meanwhile, I see others explaining how they run their games - even those that run very differently from me or interpret the rules in different ways - without resorting to veiled (or not so veiled) denigrations of playstyle differences. It's up to the reader to decide what works for them at their table.

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.

I find it hard to discuss with you when you slide in (not so) subtle insults (that we are somehow ignorant and think we're following "edict(s) from on high"). Then you seemingly say everything is all good since "rulings over rules". Pretty uncharitable reading of people who run differently than you, IMO.

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

Certainly a valid interpretation.


Maybe a story would help. There is a DM, let's call them DM Swarmkeeper, who started running D&D 5e oh about 6 years ago after not playing D&D for several decades. It was fun to be back to imagining pretend elves but the gameplay was clunky at times and there were things about gameplay that annoyed them - things the players did and things they did themselves in running the game. Everyone was there to have fun and all were playing in good faith, so it wasn't a social issue. DM Swarmkeeper then started discovering various D&D discussion groups online and started learning how other DMs run their games and, indeed, how they don't run their games. ENWorld rose to the top as the most helpful site on the interwebs, in their opinion. Certain advice here was tried and immediately made gameplay smoother, more rewarding, more cohesive, more fun. Other advice was not as helpful for their table. So DM Swarmkeeper continued to come to ENWorld to garner new tips, drop their old assumptions, and learn new techniques from others. And, in an effort to pay if forward, DM Swarmkeeper has even shared what has worked really well for them at their table. Maybe that will help someone else try an effective technique that will make their table experience more enjoyable, too. Or maybe they will try it and find it doesn't work for them. Alas, DM Swarmkeeper is human and sometimes gets riled up or types the wrong thing or takes something personally when they shouldn't. But, they strive to do better, and that is important to them.

 

[soviet]

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.

Their action was ignored by the story. Literally nothing happened as a result.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Maybe a story would help. There is a DM, let's call them DM Swarmkeeper, who started running D&D 5e oh about 6 years ago after not playing D&D for several decades. It was fun to be back to imagining pretend elves but the gameplay was clunky at times and there were things about gameplay that annoyed them - things the players did and things they did themselves in running the game. Everyone was there to have fun and all were playing in good faith, so it wasn't a social issue. DM Swarmkeeper then started discovering various D&D discussion groups online and started learning how other DMs run their games and, indeed, how they don't run their games. ENWorld rose to the top as the most helpful site on the interwebs, in their opinion. Certain advice here was tried and immediately made gameplay smoother, more rewarding, more cohesive, more fun. Other advice was not as helpful for their table. So DM Swarmkeeper continued to come to ENWorld to garner new tips, drop their old assumptions, and learn new techniques from others. And, in an effort to pay if forward, DM Swarmkeeper has even shared what has worked really well for them at their table. Maybe that will help someone else try an effective technique that will make their table experience more enjoyable, too. Or maybe they will try it and find it doesn't work for them. Alas, DM Swarmkeeper is human and sometimes gets riled up or types the wrong thing or takes something personally when they shouldn't. But, they strive to do better, and that is important to them.

Good speech! But unfortunately, it looks like you fumbled your Diplomacy check despite impressive modifiers and your attempts to build a charismatic character with a leadership role. Now let's see how the internet will turn on you...

Seriously, though. This is a good reminder that posts on the internet are not disembodied voices. They are real people with different feelings, perspectives, and experiences. Present yourselves as the person you want to be, and speak to others like they are standing in front of you. Respect is the key. Thanks for presenting yourself well. Cheers!

 

[Lyxen]

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.

Honestly that debate is in itselt a bit superfluous ( ), because not only does it depend on the definitionn of superfluous, but it heavily depends on the type of game that you are running. Elements of cultural colour that might be totally superfluous in a mostly combat game would on the contrary be absolutely essential to a more storytelling type of game.

 

[el-remmen]

I’m sure you’ve heard the “kill your darlings” adage. That exists because stories are better when everything in them serves a specific and necessary purpose. Sometimes that purpose is to reveal something about the characters, sometimes it’s for a bit of breathing room from the action, or a spot of comic relief or what have you, but it’s still very purposeful and important to the story.

Not to further muddy the waters here, but I think there is also an element of people who want D&D to emulate "a story" and those of us who don't think of D&D as a story-telling game. It might be a story-making game, but that story isn't known until afterwards. Thus the pacing and inclusion of color that I might be concerned with when writing a fantasy novel are not the ones I am concerned with at the table - and even if you are emulating stories you might prefer picaresque fantasy (as I do) over action-packed high octane scene to high octane scene - so how long we sit outside the door to the Mines of Moria in the growing gloom while Gandalf tries to figure out the password (making various rolls/attempts) could just as easily be "that's one of my favorite parts" as it could be "that was boring, either know the password or not so we can get to the next stage of the adventure." In other words, what is "superfluous" varies.

To get back to the subject of rolling checks:
I can understand the desire to cut the fat a little bit or to get things moving when they feel like they are lagging - but I also, even as DM, don't always know what is going to be important in the short or long term. To use the above example, the history of dwarves and elves having once been friends and allies may not seem that important in the moment - but it could be important, esp. if we (both players and DM) spend some time engaging with something that calls on that history, but maybe without a roll we wouldn't know.

So while sure sometimes too many checks can slow things down, I find that asking for checks can also help to move things along and make them definite one way or another - or make something important

 

[Lyxen]

Not to further muddy the waters here, but I think there is also an element of people who want D&D to emulate "a story" and those of us who don't think of D&D as a story-telling game. It might be a story-making game, but that story isn't known until afterwards. Thus the pacing and inclusion of color that I might be concerned with when writing a fantasy novel are not the ones I am concerned with at the table - and even if you are emulating stories you might prefer picaresque fantasy (as I do) over action-packed high octane scene to high octane scene - so how long we sit outside the door to the Mines of Moria in the growing gloom while Gandalf tries to figure out the password (making various rolls/attempts) could just as easily be "that's one of my favorite parts" as it could be "that was boring, either know the password or not so we can get to the next stage of the adventure." In other words, what is "superfluous" varies.

Exactly, the superfluous of one is the mandatory of the other and the other way around.

So while sure sometimes too many checks can slow things down, I find that asking for checks can also help to move things along and make them definite one way or another - or make something important

The thing is that most people like to argue from absolute positions to try and make a point. As for myself, I agree with the above, we play a mostly "ignore the dice" game where dice rolls slow down the game and interrupt the roleplaying or storytelling (We use passives a lot), but sometimes when the elements above bog down (for example due to indecision), a dice roll can energise the game again, as well as provide the random element that will start imagination kicking again or force down one path instead of endless dithering.

 

[Oofta]

I'm sorry that my finding the phrase "bad advice" strange has possibly offended you. But again, someone telling someone else that they are giving "bad advice" is something which, yes, I do find strange (to put it lightly) - especially when it is advice quoted from the DMG. There are plenty of ways to disagree with someone without calling out how they play as, well, "bad".

Meanwhile, I see others explaining how they run their games - even those that run very differently from me or interpret the rules in different ways - without resorting to veiled (or not so veiled) denigrations of playstyle differences. It's up to the reader to decide what works for them at their table.


I find it hard to discuss with you when you slide in (not so) subtle insults (that we are somehow ignorant and think we're following "edict(s) from on high"). Then you seemingly say everything is all good since "rulings over rules". Pretty uncharitable reading of people who run differently than you, IMO.

I don't recall ever using the phrase "bad advice" or telling anyone they're playing wrong. I just disagree; there's a difference. All I did was use exactly the same phrase that you did, but somehow that makes my post insulting. Then when I make sure to clarify that every DM and group should do what works for them, that's somehow wrong as well.

Certainly a valid interpretation.


Maybe a story would help. There is a DM, let's call them DM Swarmkeeper, who started running D&D 5e oh about 6 years ago after not playing D&D for several decades. It was fun to be back to imagining pretend elves but the gameplay was clunky at times and there were things about gameplay that annoyed them - things the players did and things they did themselves in running the game. Everyone was there to have fun and all were playing in good faith, so it wasn't a social issue. DM Swarmkeeper then started discovering various D&D discussion groups online and started learning how other DMs run their games and, indeed, how they don't run their games. ENWorld rose to the top as the most helpful site on the interwebs, in their opinion. Certain advice here was tried and immediately made gameplay smoother, more rewarding, more cohesive, more fun. Other advice was not as helpful for their table. So DM Swarmkeeper continued to come to ENWorld to garner new tips, drop their old assumptions, and learn new techniques from others. And, in an effort to pay if forward, DM Swarmkeeper has even shared what has worked really well for them at their table. Maybe that will help someone else try an effective technique that will make their table experience more enjoyable, too. Or maybe they will try it and find it doesn't work for them. Alas, DM Swarmkeeper is human and sometimes gets riled up or types the wrong thing or takes something personally when they shouldn't. But, they strive to do better, and that is important to them.

So to clarify: I don't care how you run your game. I think the advice in the DMG is explicitly talking about mundane activities and is not broad overall advice on when and how to ask for checks. In other words if someone asks if they can tell if a chest is trapped, I'll call for a check no matter whether or not there's a penalty for failure.

So I don't see the point or understand what you're trying to say when you state the following unless you're saying that it's "strange" that I would ask for an investigation to check for traps on that chest while also implying that I'm somehow playing the game wrong.

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.

All I'm saying is that there's no one true way. The DMG is just advice, and like many texts throughout history people have taken a sentence here and there out of context to mean things that are not intended. This is one of those cases. IMHO.

 

[Lyxen]

All I'm saying is that there's no one true way. The DMG is just advice, and like many texts throughout history people have taken a sentence here and there out of context to mean things that are not intended. This is one of those cases. IMHO.

And actually, the DMG offers lots of advice from different perspectives and is just meant as guidelines like the rest of the ruleset anyway. For the dice, both extremes are presented with a note saying that most games will fall somewhere in between anyway. Nothing is presented as being better or superior.

 

[Oofta]

Their action was ignored by the story. Literally nothing happened as a result.

So I try to lift something that's too heavy for me to lift and I didn't attempt to lift it? Just because I was not successful and after I made the attempt realized it was impossible does not mean I didn't try. The attempt happened. Conversely if I go to pick up a big box and it's full of styrofoam and it's surprisingly light and I didn't need to be careful in how I picked it up I still positioned myself correctly and tensed my muscles with the assumption that it was heavy.

Sometimes the attempt itself is the only result.