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

[Crimson Longinus]

Checking for traps is again not an approach but a goal - to learn if there are traps or not. The thing that’s missing, for me, is what they’re doing to try and learn that.

How the hell I would know that? I haven't the foggiest how one detects traps. But if my character has skill for that, they presumably would know!

 

[Charlaquin]

How the hell I would know that? I haven't the foggiest how one detects traps. But if my character has skill for that, they presumably would know!

Like I said, neither do I. We’re all working off of imagination, abstraction, and good faith. Try something; if it seems reasonable to you, it will probably seem reasonable to me too, and I will again interpret in good faith. If you want some suggestions, I’ll offer some. Maybe run your hands over the surface to feel for irregularities. Maybe stand behind the chest and open the lid a tiny crack. Maybe pry it open from a distance with a long poll. Maybe lift it up to look at the bottom. Or anything else you can think of, it’s up to you. Worst case scenario, you might have to make a check with that Investigation skill you invested in specifically for scenarios like this.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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?

A. I would probably ask for an investigation check. If they roll low, I would say something like "You do not notice any obvious traps," if they roll well, I'd say something like "You're virtually certain that the chest is not trapped," and as bonus I might tell something else about the chest that an observant person might notice if there is anything to tell. For example: "While examining the chest for traps, you also notice small scratches, like someone had tried to break it open but failed."

 

[iserith]

How the hell I would know that? I haven't the foggiest how one detects traps. But if my character has skill for that, they presumably would know!

This has been explained several times now in detail.

 

[Lyxen]

Reminds me of how I handle Stealth. Most other DMs I’ve observed call for a Stealth check right away when a player says their character is sneaking somewhere, even if there’s no one to observe them at that moment, and then refer to that number when/if they pass by an enemy that might spot them. I instead wait until there’s an actual chance the character will be spotted before calling for a Stealth check. Call for the rolls when they’re relevant, I find it’s much more exciting that way.

For us it's not, because it then reveals that there is someone that could spot the hidden character, and the almost inevitable metagaming.

For us we apply the rules, which is roll when you start being stealthy, but the player rolls blindly so that he does not know whether he is being good or not. That way no metagaming at all at any time and I can guarantee you that it makes it really exciting because the player never knows when he might be observed, and how good he is being...

 

[Charlaquin]

Misclick

 

[soviet]

For us it's not, because it then reveals that there is someone that could spot the hidden character, and the almost inevitable metagaming.

For us we apply the rules, which is roll when you start being stealthy, but the player rolls blindly so that he does not know whether he is being good or not. That way no metagaming at all at any time and I can guarantee you that it makes it really exciting because the player never knows when he might be observed, and how good he is being...

Surely the player knows exactly what they rolled?

 

[Charlaquin]

For us it's not, because it then reveals that there is someone that could spot the hidden character, and the almost inevitable metagaming.

I don’t care about metagaming, so that’s not a problem for me.

For us we apply the rules, which is roll when you start being stealthy,

Where do the rules say that?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Like I said, neither do I. We’re all working off if imagination, abstraction, and good faith. Try something; if it seems reasonable to you, it will probably seem reasonable to me too, and I will again interpret in good faith. If you want some suggestions, I’ll offer some. Maybe run your hands over the surface to feel for irregularities. Maybe stand behind the chest and open the lid a tiny crack. Maybe pry it open from a distance with a long poll. Maybe lift it up to look at the bottom. Or anything else you can think of, it’s up to you. Worst case scenario, you might have to make a check.

Unless this is just flavour and good roll will retroactively make the trap (if there is one) to be of such type that it would be detected by the method player described, this becomes just a game of 'guess what the GM is thinking.'

 

[Lyxen]

This has been explained several times now in detail.

Only very unconvincingly. We try to run really equal opportunity tables, where people who are not charismatic in real life can play characters with much more leadership than other characters at the table, and where people who try to explain in detail how a trap works in real life get zero bonus over a player who knows nothing about those but whose character is a specialist of.

It's one way to play the game, for sure, but for us it's important to allow everyone to play anything if they want to, and not penalise them for this.