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

[Crimson Longinus]

Here's a trapped chest from one of my adventures:

View attachment 145917
"Rubble chokes the way in. A large, skeletal hand appears to be erupting from the stone floor ahead, an overlarge iron-banded chest in its death grip emblazoned with a cycloptic eye. On each of the phalanges is engraved a single Common letter which, from left to right, are T, R, U, T, and H, twisting and writhing as if composed of roiling shadows."

Still not interesting?

At a glance, my first thought was "Who's Ruth and what she has to do with giant skeletons?" But reading the description what I would be interested in is how this situation came about, and is there actually a whole skeletal giant buried under the ground. If the effect of the trap was that it would awake a skeletal giant (called Ruth) that would be kinda cool. However, the letters make me suspect that this is some sort of letter counting puzzle, and those I find extremely tedious. I'm not here to play crosswords.

 

[el-remmen]

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.

I like this and sometimes do it. I need to remember to do it this way more.

 

[iserith]

At a glance, my first thought was "Who's Ruth and what she has to do with giant skeletons?" But reading the description what I would be interested in is how this situation came about, and is there actually a whole skeletal giant buried under the ground. If the effect of the trap was that it would awake a skeletal giant (called Ruth) that would be kinda cool. However, the letters make me suspect that this is some sort of letter counting puzzle, and those I find extremely tedious. I'm not here to play crosswords.

It's definitely not a letter counting puzzle and the "T" is on the left digit facing left so you can only see part of the top of the "T." So there's no Ruth involved. There's quite a bit of lore to be discovered in this exploration challenge which can be used to gain access to the chest, but that does not involve the players solving puzzles. Plus I'm sure the players could come up with other ways to access the chest as well.

Point being, things are as interesting as we want to make them. Create a boring exploration challenge, get a boring result.

 

[Oofta]

Sounds tedious. Empty, purely mechanical.

You examine the chest - make an Investigation roll. OK, nothing happens.

You try to persuade the guard - make a Diplomacy check. OK, nothing happens.

You try to sneak into the castle - make a Stealth check. OK, nothing happens.

Meanwhile to myself and a few others if there is no roll, it sounds an awful lot like the player is playing the DM, not the game.

But that's an extreme take on it and obviously you don't interpret it that way. Same way with diplomacy and how I run it. I try to pay attention to the content of what is said, but if the player isn't compatible with RP they can just list out what they are trying to say, I'll even prompt them.

On the other hand for some people it would just be a roll. If that works for them, I'm not going to criticize. That, and I really can't imagine how you describe how you sneak past someone other than some variation on "I sneak past".

Is it mechanical at times? Maybe. It can also be fun because there is no one true way. For that matter if the players believe there are hidden guards, I'm not going to broadcast that the fort is unoccupied by telling them no check is necessary.

 

[el-remmen]

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 with that Investigation skill you invested in specifically for scenarios like this.

On this subject we're in agreement. I don't need to be a dungeon-delving adventurer to have a good faith general sense of how you might look for traps or what the difference is if you use your hands vs. just your eyes vs. blowing to see if there is dust or whatever. And even when someone is unfamiliar, I am certain most anyone I have ever played D&D with would get it after a suggestion or pointing out a popular example. (For example, I have pointed to Aragorn re-tracing what happened to Merry & Pippin when the Rohirrim attacked their orcish captors when someone is not sure how one goes about tracking). And how something is done can matter to what is accomplished with that rolel. Honestly, I see those kinds of rolls as a kind of DM/Player imaginative collaboration and I find them fun!

 

[Oofta]

At a glance, my first thought was "Who's Ruth and what she has to do with giant skeletons?" But reading the description what I would be interested in is how this situation came about, and is there actually a whole skeletal giant buried under the ground. If the effect of the trap was that it would awake a skeletal giant (called Ruth) that would be kinda cool. However, the letters make me suspect that this is some sort of letter counting puzzle, and those I find extremely tedious. I'm not here to play crosswords.

I've got to say : I kinda hate the majority of logic puzzles I've seen in games. I know there's a long tradition of such things in D&D, but most people designing them are not nearly as clever as they think they are and if I'm playing Grog the dumbass barbarian I don't want to solve it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I've got to say : I kinda hate the majority of logic puzzles I've seen in games. I know there's a long tradition of such things in D&D, but most people designing them are not nearly as clever as they think they are and if I'm playing Grog the dumbass barbarian I don't want to solve it.

I specifically hate ones which rely on assumption that Common is literally English. In one of the recent WoTC books (I don't remember which) basically all the puzzles were like that. And that simply is not an assumption I'd make.

 

[Lyxen]

Surely the player knows exactly what they rolled?

No, they don't it's a blind roll. VTTs have an option for this, and when face to face, they roll in a bowl or glass, and only the DM looks at the result.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don’t know why the assumption is that @iserith ’s scenario is a logic puzzle. Just because there are letters?

 

[iserith]

I don’t know why the assumption is that @iserith ’s scenario is a logic puzzle. Just because there are letters?

Sounds like metagaming to me.