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

[Oofta]

The questions you ask are answered by the text you quoted.

Which is open to interpretation. I've told you how I rule it and why.

So real simple real world scenario. The group comes across a chest. The rogue Sly's player says "I check it for traps". There's no particular hurry, so the few seconds to check for traps is not an issue. As a DM you know it's not trapped. Do you:

A) Ask for an investigation check even though there is no trap.​

B) Tell the player "Don't bother, it's not trapped."​

C) Ask for an investigation check and if it fails, make up a trap on the spot so there's a consequence to failure.​

D) ???​

I do A because it reflects the interaction of Sly engaging with the world. If Sly's player wants to check every 5 feet for traps or every door, we'll talk about pacing and using passive checks as a group.

What do you do and why?

 

[Oofta]

But they don’t need to make a check to do that. They could simply describe what their character is doing, which unlike making a check, does not by its very definition have a chance of failing.

Saying they check the door for traps is not the same thing as asking to make a perception check. It’s a bit vague as action declarations go; it tells me what the player wants to accomplish (find out if the door is trapped or not), but it doesn’t tell me what the character is doing to try and find out, so I would ask for a bit more specificity here. But this isn’t what I would call an example of a player asking for a chance to fail. It’s a player declaring a goal without a clear approach.

I wouldn’t say “don’t bother, it’s not trapped.” I would say what the player finds based on the approach they described. Which in this case would be nothing. I don’t need to call for a roll to know they find nothing if there’s nothing to be found, I can just narrate the results of their actions

This is not how I treat rolls. In my games, the player states the action taken by the PC, so there’s no need for a check to reflect the action. A check merely resolves uncertainty in the outcome of the action the players declared.

Will it? I don’t know without knowing what the character did to check for traps. If they’re prodding at it with a 10-foot poll, they might not need to make a save to avoid the trap. Or maybe they will, depends on the trap. But the point is, I need to know not just what the player wants to accomplish, but also what the character is doing to try and accomplish it in order to know what the results will be.

No one is suggesting making up a penalty because the player asked for a check. I literally say as much in the very post you’re quoting. The point of the adage “a player asking to make a check is asking for a chance to fail” is not meant to suggest you should invent a chance to fail that wouldn’t have otherwise existed if a player asks for a check. It’s just to illustrate the absurdity of asking to make a check (which has a chance to fail) instead of describing an action (which might or might not have a chance to fail).

I don’t punish people for being “wrong” either. I also don’t need to have the pacing discussion because I use level design and telegraphing to give players clues of when and where they might want to check for traps.

I just don't see how I, as a person who would have no clue how to pick a lock, would describe picking a lock other than to state that I'm picking the lock. I don't know how I would describe investigating a chest for a trap, or how my description could be meaningful other than I've learned how to play "say what the DM wants to hear". I don't know what I would say to gain insight into an NPC's emotional state other than to say "I pay attention".

Instead of repeating myself, take a look at this post. Because we always end up talking in vague generalities and I don't see how that helps. Obviously I don't understand what you do ... so give an example.

 

[Starfox]

Have only read the first page of the thread.

What I have found myself using is a fail-forward mechanism - and I ended up there without really meaning to.

The rogue picks the lock but fails - the door still opens, but it took a while and surprise is negated.

You fail a climb roll over the 200 ft. chasm - you are in trouble, but you don't fall. There is now a situation to act on.

 

[el-remmen]

Exploring the history of dwarves and elves is a meaningful purpose a scene might serve. I don’t see how failing a history check serves that purpose.

Forcing the party to find another way around the mountain or into the mines? My point is, you speak of purpose as if it is always clear - when "Let's see what happens" is just as common and even a default approach to the game.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

@Charlaquin can you give an example of a superfluous story element or scene?

 

[Charlaquin]

I just don't see how I, as a person who would have no clue how to pick a lock, would describe picking a lock other than to state that I'm picking the lock. I don't know how I would describe investigating a chest for a trap, or how my description could be meaningful other than I've learned how to play "say what the DM wants to hear". I don't know what I would say to gain insight into an NPC's emotional state other than to say "I pay attention".

Ok. Consider combat as an analogy. In order to properly resolve an attack in combat, one needs to know which target the character is attacking and with what weapon, which can be seen as analogous to the goal (kill the goblin) and approach (by attacking him with my sword). Any additional details describing the specifics of the attack may be an enjoyable bit of color, but are unnecessary to resolve the action. Outside of combat it’s the same. When picking a lock, presumably your goal is to open the door/chest/whatever, and your approach is to pick the lock with your thieves’ tools. Any additional description about you carefully testing the lock pins with your probe or whatever are an enjoyable bit of color, but are unnecessary to resolve the action. When checking an area for traps, finding out if there are any traps there is a goal, comparable to killing the goblin getting a locked door or chest open. In order to resolve the action, I need to know what your approach is, Are you just looking with your eyes? Are you touching stuff with your hands? Are you using a tool of some kind? I need to know these things to determine what the potential outcomes will be, just like I would need to know what weapon you’re using when attacking or if you’re using thieves’ tools vs. smashing the lock or whatever. Checking an NPC’s emotional state for signs of deception is similar to checking a physical object or area for traps, just in a social context. Specific details about how you’re doing it are a nice bit of color, but are unnecessary to resolve the action.

Instead of repeating myself, take a look at this post. Because we always end up talking in vague generalities and I don't see how that helps. Obviously I don't understand what you do ... so give an example.

From that example, I would go with option D. “I’m hearing that you want to find out if the chest is trapped. What does your character do to try and find that out?” If the player said they don’t know, I would offer some suggestions, like “you could try running your fingers or a tool of some sort over its surface to notice any irregularities, try and tilt it to check underneath, stand behind it and open it a crack to see if anything happens, or anything else you can think of, it’s up to you.”

 

[Charlaquin]

Forcing the party to find another way around the mountain or into the mines? My point is, you speak of purpose as if it is always clear - when "Let's see what happens" is just as common and even a default approach to the game.

Playing to find out what happens is always my purpose. But I don’t find that rolls with outcomes that don’t impact gameplay like “you succeeded, but it was really hard and took a long time and made you look like a real goofus” serves that purpose. It’s the same outcome, only we made a pointless dice roll and then embarrassed the player to get there. Now, if the long time it took had meant doomsday creeped a bit closer, or the next check for wandering monsters was triggered, that would be a different story.

 

[Charlaquin]

@Charlaquin can you give an example of a superfluous story element or scene?

Sure. In the animated movie All Dogs Go to Heaven there’s a scene with a singing alligator that comes out of nowhere, has no bearing on the plot, teaches us nothing about the characters, and is never brought up again. You may like the scene, but the film would unquestionably be better without it.

Or, to relate this back to D&D, when playing Dragon Heist with a friend of mine who was trying his hand at DMing for the first time, we were in candle lane, looking for a door with a snake symbol on it, which we knew to be a Zhentarim hideout. It was dark, so the DM asked us to make perception checks to see if we could spot the symbol. Everyone failed, and the DM realized the game couldn’t actually go anywhere from there if we didn’t find it, so he said “Uhh… Well I guess you’d eventually find it… But it’s really hard and it takes a long time,” and then proceeded to move on with the adventure, exactly as he would have done if we had succeeded on the perception check. That was completely unnecessary and added nothing of value to the game. In fact, it revealed the artifice behind the adventure, taking us all out of the moment.

As I’ve told you multiple times, this is a problem I see all the time especially with new DMs, and one of the reasons I advise people not to call for checks if the outcome of the check isn’t consequential.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

As I’ve told you multiple times, this is a problem I see all the time especially with new DMs, and one of the reasons I advise people not to call for checks if the outcome of the check isn’t consequential.

Perhaps a corollary to what you say here: as DM, I prefer to avoid calling for rolls in which the failure state is "nothing happens".

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.

This is also an interesting way to think of it.

 

[soviet]

Which is open to interpretation. I've told you how I rule it and why.

So real simple real world scenario. The group comes across a chest. The rogue Sly's player says "I check it for traps". There's no particular hurry, so the few seconds to check for traps is not an issue. As a DM you know it's not trapped. Do you:

A) Ask for an investigation check even though there is no trap.​

B) Tell the player "Don't bother, it's not trapped."​

C) Ask for an investigation check and if it fails, make up a trap on the spot so there's a consequence to failure.​

D) ???​

I do A because it reflects the interaction of Sly engaging with the world. If Sly's player wants to check every 5 feet for traps or every door, we'll talk about pacing and using passive checks as a group.

What do you do and why?

I don't allow action declarations like that, they're too abstract and mechanical. I would ask the player 'OK, but what do you actually do?'. Doesn't have to be super detailed, or even realistic, I'm just trying to build a sense of the character's approach. Once they've done this, I would just say that they don't find any.

If there was a trap, I would follow the same process. If the player described an approach that would logically find the trap, I would say they found it. If they describe something inadequate, I would say they didn't. Then, when they commit to opening the chest, I would let them make their check to try to spot the trap at the last minute and avoid setting it off. So for the most part simple description is the resolution method and the check itself is basically a saving throw.