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

[Charlaquin]

Yes. Such as: "I examine the chest for traps!" Frankly, at least in this specific instance not accepting that would be being an antagonistic GM.

Frankly, no it wouldn’t.

 

[Charlaquin]

Which is the big disconnect. First, it's all about the player reading the DM. Second it rewards long term players. Being a newbie to a specific DM should not come with built in penalty for not being able to read the DM. IMHO.

It’s not about the player reading the DM, it’s about the player paying attention to the details of the environment, and using those details to inform their decisions. And players can do that regardless of their familiarity with any given DM.

 

[Charlaquin]

I did misspeak about finding the trap. I usually use investigation because you're examining small details and have an understanding of how traps work. But that's a different topic, just something I discuss in session 0 if someone wants to run a rogue.

But let's say Olaf with his 8 dexterity (and let's say 8 intelligence because BDF) with a -1 to checks has the same odds of finding and disabling a trap as Sly who has a +15 to both and is a 10th level rogue so has reliable talent and can't get below a 10?

How do they have the same odds?

Because of how the player describes what they're doing?

Oh, I see what you’re saying. So, either player can succeed without having to make a check, based not on how they describe what they’re doing, but what they decide to do.

What if Olaf's player had a rogue last time and knows how he always described it back in that campaign so they just say the same things?

I’d say the DM is being too predictable. But, also, if what Olaf does would have no chance of failing to detect/disarm the trap, then yes, it should succeed. That’s just part of running a logically consistent world.

Or let's say the DM has never seen a horse in their life. So Bob describes how they calm a horse by flapping their arms and squawking because birds are harmless. Kim who actually has a horse in real life, realizes this would spook the horse*. Should player knowledge make Kim better at calming a horse? How does the DM who's closest encounter with a horse was on a Merry-Go-Round make the call?

*I assume. No clue, I don't have a horse.

Well, fortunately this scenario is absurd and would literally never happen.

 

[Oofta]

It’s not about the player reading the DM, it’s about the player paying attention to the details of the environment, and using those details to inform their decisions. And players can do that regardless of their familiarity with any given DM.

I disagree, my wife can read me far better than most people. In any case, it's still relying on A) the DM giving clues that make sense and B) player skill, not PC skill.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That doesn’t tell me anything about what’s actually happening in the fiction!

Yes it does. And You can embellish it as much as you want.

That’s a decision I would leave up to the player to make.

You're again expecting unreasonable level of granularity. They player already decided they examine the chest for traps. We don't require players to describe whether they're aiming the gnoll's legs with a swing, stabbing their chest or aiming for their head either.

Yes, if a player’s approach to checking for/disarming the trap requires a check to resolve, that’s what the DCs for those checks would be, if I was using that particular sample trap.

Nor do I expect them to specify the exact method. Just to provide enough specificity that I can proceed with action resolution without having to make assumptions about their intent or narrate for them what their characters do.

"I examine the chest for traps."
"Roll investigation, DC 20."

What is so difficult about this? And I am certain that this is RAI. That is how this is supposed to work. If some specific method would be required, it would be listed in the rules of this trap. The whole "guess how GM imagines traps are detected and disarmed" thing is purely your invention.

 

[Oofta]

How do they have the same odds?

Oh, I see what you’re saying. So, either player can succeed without having to make a check, based not on how they describe what they’re doing, but what they decide to do.

I’d say the DM is being too predictable. But, also, if what Olaf does would have no chance of failing to detect/disarm the trap, then yes, it should succeed. That’s just part of running a logically consistent world.

If Olaf and Sly describe exactly the same actions, why would they not have the same odds of success? After all you're the one saying the players should avoid rolling dice at all costs. If dice are never rolled, the -1 or the +15 never comes into play.

Well, fortunately this scenario is absurd and would literally never happen.

Really? I admit Animal Handling is a rarely used skill, and my example was an (apparently failed) attempt at humor but my point is that I would have no clue how to calm a frightened horse or approach, say, a wounded wolf than I would know how to cast a fireball. That's where the abstraction of the game and proficiency scores come into play. I assume you would approach a horse differently than a wolf, but honestly I don't know. Same way I would have no idea how to pick a lock.

I don't assume I'm a so impartial and knowledgeable that I can fairly adjudicate descriptions of actions. I'm going to be biased; if someone is really good at descriptions I'm likely to say they succeed at something than someone who is not. I doubt many DMs could be truly impartial.

 

[iserith]

You're again expecting unreasonable level of granularity. They player already decided they examine the chest for traps. We don't require players to describe whether they're aiming the gnoll's legs with a swing, stabbing their chest or aiming for their head either.

1. Why do you think saying whether you, say, touch a shiny chest or not is an "unreasonable level of granularity?" What makes it unreasonable in your view?

2. Why do you think, despite rules evidence to the contrary, that there should be some parity between the specificity of finding a hidden object and attacking a monster? There's nothing that necessitates there must be as far as I know, so where are you getting this presupposition?

 

[Charlaquin]

I disagree, my wife can read me far better than most people.

Right, what I’m saying is, being able to read the DM or not isn’t what’s relevant here.

In any case, it's still relying on A) the DM giving clues that make sense and B) player skill, not PC skill.

Yes, it does rely on the DM’s ability to telegraph effectively, and the player’s ability to pay attention to the description, notice details in it, and use what they notice to inform their decision-making. Is that a player skill? Sure. So is resource management, and tactical decision-making in combat. D&D is a game that is fundamentally about making decisions. Deciding how to build your character, deciding what equipment to buy, deciding when to use your resources and when to save them, where to explore, what quests to undertake, when to fight, when to retreat, when to parley, and yes, deciding what to do when you find a chest that might be trapped. My primary goal in DMing is to insure that players’ decisions matter. This is one of the ways I achieve that goal.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

1. Why do you think saying whether you, say, touch a shiny chest or not is an "unreasonable level of granularity?" What makes it unreasonable in your view?

I already explained this. In the context of that being determining factor of triggering the trap it is unreasonable, as ability to skilfully detect and disarm traps is already covered by the proficiencies. And as I also already said, it is not just that one thing. There are potentially countless things that theoretically could trigger trap and countless things one might need to do to disarm it. It is unreasonable to expect player to take account all of them, especially as many of them can be completely unintuitive D&D nonsense the player couldn't reasonably know of. Again, skills measure characters capability notice and deal with these things.

2. Why do you think, despite rules evidence to the contrary, that there should be some parity between the specificity of a finding a hidden object and attacking a monster? There's nothing that necessitates there must be as far as I know, so where are you getting this presupposition?

There is no rules evidence for your 'guess the GM's thoughts' approach to the action resolution. Rules and modules often list generic DCs with no explicit instructions for specific action declarations. There are some exceptions, but broad action declarations are what the writers of the game assumed to be the norm.

 

[Oofta]

Right, what I’m saying is, being able to read the DM or not isn’r what’s relevant here.

Yes, it does rely on the DM’s ability to telegraph effectively, and the player’s ability to pay attention to the description, notice details in it, and use what they notice to inform their decision-making. Is that a player skill? Sure. So is resource management, and tactical decision-making in combat. D&D is a game that is fundamentally about making decisions. Deciding how to build your character, deciding what equipment to buy, deciding when to use your resources and when to save them, where to explore, what quests to undertake, when to fight, when to retreat, when to parley, and yes, deciding what to do when you find a chest that might be trapped. My primary goal in DMing is to insure that players’ decisions matter. This is one of the ways I achieve that goal.

Obviously player skill can make a big difference, I've noticed it in different games I've run.

It's my preference to minimize that tactical acumen outside of combat.