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

[Lyxen]

You've just applied the same old erroneous argument that gets trotted out in all these discussions, usually by the same old people.

And this is extremely insulting (not to mention ageist) as a reply, please apologise immediately.

A player need only state a goal and approach - "I give a stirring speech to rally the troops, mentioning duty, honor, and loyalty to the king..." or "I pick the lock with my lockpicks." Nothing more. Anything beyond that like flowery, inspiring speeches or discussion about complex engineering is just color and is not applied to the adjudication process. It might be worth Inspiration though if it plays to a character's personality traits, ideal, bond, or flaw.

Then why, when checking for traps, does the player need to describe how they are doing it ? Because this is what I've been replying to...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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

Yes, the letters. I mean if that was in WotC book it certainly would be that. But @iserith said it wasn't. And I am actually a bit intrigued, it certainly is an interesting setup and a several steps above your standard chest with a spike trap. Granted, it is also outlandish in extreme, so it's not exactly like you can put something like that in many locations. It probably wasn't in some random merchant's storeroom.

 

[Maxperson]

Conversely, if nothing is exciting, then nothing is exciting.

Nobody is suggesting that nothing be exciting, though, so this is just a big ole Red Herring response.

I agree there is a place for mundane diversions and quiet moments etc, I just think that 'picking up the dice' should be reserved for the exciting bits.

And that's fair if it's what your group is into. A lot of groups like the option for nothing to happen on a failed roll, rather than bad stuff. I've played in and run a lot of groups like that.

 

[Lyxen]

Those rules cannot be divorced from the other rules about ability checks which is that you call for a roll only when there's uncertainty as to the outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure.

Neither can it be divorced from the fact that specific beats general, and if the rules tell you to roll at some point in time for a specific use of one skill, it superseded general rules about rolling.

Which aren't present if there's nobody to hide from right now.

First, the rules don't tell you that you are hiding from someone, you might just be hiding as a general precaution. You might not even know that there is someone, you are just trying to be stealthy. Read the sentence again, it is very clear on this subject.

So you make the roll later when there is and - hey what do you know - no issues about "metagaming" arise. No super secret double-blind rolls needed.

Yes, because when you make the roll, you know that there is someone watching, and it will modify the way you behave (you will probably be more curious, and probably stop looking for the watcher instead of continue what you were doing). Clear, obvious case of metagaming.

 

[iserith]

And this is extremely insulting (not to mention ageist) as a reply, please apologise immediately.


Then why, when checking for traps, does the player need to describe how they are doing it ? Because this is what I've been replying to...

1. No. And "old" isn't being used to describe age there. Rather it's being used in place of "usual."

2. They need to be reasonably specific so that the DM knows how to adjudicate and doesn't have to assume what the character is doing. @Charlaquin has explained this several times now.

 

[Maxperson]

It stands out from the mundanity of real life which is what we're escaping from for a few hours when we enter these worlds of swords and sorcery full of deadly perils.

But again, this is very subjective. A game where nothing but "excitement" happens would not appeal to me, because it wouldn't really make sense. I like the game to ebb and flow, filled with both exciting and mundane moments.

 

[Lyxen]

Moving quietly through an empty corridor is not trying to hide. When the enemy guard barks “what was that?” and you dart behind the nearest crate, that’s trying to hide.

That is your interpretation, but it's not that of the rules. The rules don't say "hide from someone" otherwise they would straight away go into the oppose check. No, it's a roll when you are trying to be stealthy, whether someone is watching at that instant moment or not.

And from personal experience, it's exactly what people fo in LARPs. They try to be discrete on general principle, not specifically when someone is watching. When someone already suspects that there is an intruder, it's already too late.

 

[iserith]

Neither can it be divorced from the fact that specific beats general, and if the rules tell you to roll at some point in time for a specific use of one skill, it superseded general rules about rolling.



First, the rules don't tell you that you are hiding from someone, you might just be hiding as a general precaution. You might not even know that there is someone, you are just trying to be stealthy. Read the sentence again, it is very clear on this subject.



Yes, because when you make the roll, you know that there is someone watching, and it will modify the way you behave (you will probably be more curious, and probably stop looking for the watcher instead of continue what you were doing). Clear, obvious case of metagaming.

Specific does indeed beat general, but if interpreting the rules that way leads you creating an opportunity for "metagaming" such that you then have to make private rolls for players to combat the situation you created, then why are you doing this to yourself?

 

[Charlaquin]

Then why, when checking for traps, does the player need to describe how they are doing it ? Because this is what I've been replying to...

Because “check for traps” doesn’t communicate what action is taking place in the narrative. “Pick the lock with my lock picks” does.

 

[Lyxen]

1. No. And "old" isn't being used to describe age there. Rather it's being used in place of "usual."

I would agree with that if it had been "old argument", not "old people", sorry, it's still extremely insulting.

2. They need to be reasonably specific so that the DM knows how to adjudicate and doesn't have to assume what the character is doing. @Charlaquin has explained this several times now.

And again, as I've said, not very convincingly. "I check the chest for traps" should be sufficient for a standard player. Requiring further details is usually the mark of a DM trying to "gotcha" a player ("you did not check the sides/bottom/whatever").