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

[Charlaquin]

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

If that was the case, then we wouldn’t need to rely on the dice roll to determine whether or not they touched the chest with their hands.

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.

But we do require the players to make clear what enemy they are attacking and with what weapon. This is analogous to the chest situation - I know the player wants to find out if the chest is trapped, just like I know the player wants to kill the gnoll. I don’t know what the character is doing to try and find out if the chest is trapped, whereas I do know what the character is doing to try and kill the Gnoll. “Attack with my sword” conveys information that “check it” does not.

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

What is so difficult about this?

Nothing is difficult about it, but it does take the decision of what the character is doing out of the player’s hands. It requires either the DM to make the decision, perhaps based on the result of a die roll. This is a circumstance I wish to avoid.

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.

The player doesn’t have to guess how I imagine traps are detected or disarmed, they simply have to listen to my description and make decisions. But no, this technique is not purely my invention. It’s something I first picked up from the D&D Next playtest, which had specific verbiage about how to resolve actions, most of which is also found in the 5e PHB and DMG, slightly rephrased in some cases. It’s a technique I did not use when running 4e, because its language around resolving actions was different. I found, upon running some games during the D&D Next playtest, that the game was much more enjoyable for me and everyone I played with when I used these techniques than we had done with 4e (which is a big part of why 5e is my favorite edition, despite still loving 4e and wishing a lot more of its ideas had been adopted by 5e).

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

It’s funny, usually I’m the one being accused of running combat differently than everything else, because I don’t expect players to describe their attacks in detail. But here we come to the truth of the matter.

 

[iserith]

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.

So if an action declaration of "examining a chest for traps" assumes the character touches the chest (I don't believe you objected to this as being true at your table) and the chest is covered in a contact poison, what happens? That's a Con save if you're honoring the player's action declaration, right?

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.

The shorthand DC + ability check (skill proficiency) format provided in rules and modules do not exclude all the other rules that apply and underpin the shorthand. Often they actually say what the specific task being performed is, particularly in the case of modules. I will again point you to the rules for Finding a Hidden Object in the PHB so you can see how "granular" the game expects a player to be with action declarations. That sets the standard for reasonable specificity for the game, though you are free to consider it to be unreasonable at your own table.

There is no "guessing the GM's thoughts" at my table. You listen to the description of the environment and you engage with what you find important and interesting. That's the game.

 

[Oofta]

It’s funny, usually I’m the one being accused of running combat differently than everything else, because I don’t expect players to describe their attacks in detail. But here we come to the truth of the matter.

Huh? Making good decisions during combat can make a difference, describing how they achieve those goals does not. I have no idea what you're getting at.

P.S. You've also never explained how you resolve a core issue to this discussion. Two players, 1 with a -1 to appropriate proficiencies versus a player with +15 and reliable talent. Both describe how to find and disable a trap using exactly the same words for identical scenarios. Do both have the same chance of success?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If that was the case, then we wouldn’t need to rely on the dice roll to determine whether or not they touched the chest with their hands.

You embellish it after the roll. Just like with attack rolls.

But we do require the players to make clear what enemy they are attacking and with what weapon. This is analogous to the chest situation - I know the player wants to find out if the chest is trapped, just like I know the player wants to kill the gnoll. I don’t know what the character is doing to try and find out if the chest is trapped, whereas I do know what the character is doing to try and kill the Gnoll. “Attack with my sword” conveys information that “check it” does not.

You really have no basis for this. I see you feel this way, but it simply is not true. That the attack specifies the sword (and often doesn't, it is just assumed) really doesn't make these things substantially different. It merely happens that D&D combat rules are more detailed than skill rules, so they have mechanical widgets for different weapons and such.

Nothing is difficult about it, but it does take the decision of what the character is doing out of the player’s hands. It requires either the DM to make the decision, perhaps based on the result of a die roll. This is a circumstance I wish to avoid.

Just like combat rules take it out of players hands whether they hit the gnoll or not.

The player doesn’t have to guess how I imagine traps are detected or disarmed, they simply have to listen to my description and make decisions. But no, this technique is not purely my invention. It’s something I first picked up from the D&D Next playtest, which had specific verbiage about how to resolve actions, most of which is also found in the 5e PHB and DMG, slightly rephrased in some cases. It’s a technique I did not use when running 4e, because its language around resolving actions was different. I found, upon running some games during the D&D Next playtest, that the game was much more enjoyable for me and everyone I played with when I used these techniques than we had done with 4e (which is a big part of why 5e is my favorite edition, despite still loving 4e and wishing a lot more of its ideas had been adopted by 5e).

The rules of this trap would say if some specific action declaration was required.

 

[iserith]

I can't shake the feeling that @Crimson Longinus is one of these DMs that describes what the characters do for their players.

 

[Charlaquin]

Huh? Making good decisions during combat can make a difference, describing how they achieve those goals does not. I have no idea what you're getting at.

Sorry, my phrasing was a bit unclear. People frequently mischaracterize my style as requiring detailed descriptions of actions, and point to combat to try and indicate an inconsistency in my technique. I’ve addressed this many times now in this thread. However, what your post revealed was that I am treating combat and non-combat actions consistently, and it is others who are treating them differently, adjudicating actions so as to remove the influence of tactical acumen from out of combat play but not doing the same with combat.

P.S. You've also never explained how you resolve a core issue to this discussion. Two players, 1 with a -1 to appropriate proficiencies versus a player with +15 and reliable talent. Both describe how to find and disable a trap using exactly the same words for identical scenarios. Do both have the same chance of success?

Again, sorry, I thought I had addressed this, but I suppose my phrasing was a bit unclear. If the action they both describe logically could not fail to achieve the goal they both state, then they would both succeed. If it could not logically succeed, they would both fail. If there was a chance the action might succeed in accomplishing the goal and a chance it might fail to do so, and the results of that failure would be meaningful, then they would both have to make checks, and obviously the player with a -1 would be less likely to succeed in that case than the one with all the bonuses.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So if an action declaration of "examining a chest for traps" assumes the character touches the chest (I don't believe you objected to this as being true at your table) and the chest is covered in a contact poison, what happens? That's a Con save if you're honoring the player's action declaration, right?

I already said this. They make an investigation check, on good result they notice the poison on time, and don't touch it.* On bad result they don't notice it, continue examining the chest resulting them touching it. Con save next.

(*I mean they can, if they want to intentionally poison themselves, but I doubt that they do.)

The shorthand DC + ability check (skill proficiency) format provided in rules and modules do not exclude all the other rules that apply and underpin the shorthand. Often they actually say what the specific task being performed is, particularly in the case of modules. I will again point you to the rules for Finding a Hidden Object in the PHB so you can see how "granular" the game expects a player to be with action declarations. That sets the standard for reasonable specificity for the game, though you are free to consider it to be unreasonable at your own table.

Yes. Like examining the correct piece of furniture. Like 'I open the drawers (of the bureau)' or 'I search the bureau' resulting finding the keys on a successful check. The latter is pretty much same thing than 'I examine the chest for traps' resulting finding the trap on a success. Notice how the key is under folded clothes in the top drawer of the bureau, yet it is not required that the player describes their character lifting the clothes or rifling through them, or specify which drawer they're examining. Hell, it doesn't even need the player to specify what they're looking for, whilst in the case of looking for traps that is specified.

There is no "guessing the GM's thoughts" at my table. You listen to the description of the environment and you engage with what you find important and interesting. That's the game.

So how would you describe the DMG needle chest, and what the players need to say to get to roll?

I can't shake the feeling that @Crimson Longinus is one of these DMs that describes what the characters do for their players.

I mean, in the amount that is required to relay the outcomes of actions. "You slice open the gnoll's throat, it gurgles miserably and collapses at your feet." I think this is pretty normal. You don't?

 

[Charlaquin]

You embellish it after the roll. Just like with attack rolls.

Maybe that’s what you do, but it is not what I do.

You really have no basis for this. I see you feel this way, but it simply is not true. That the attack specifies the sword (and often doesn't, it is just assumed) really doesn't make these things substantially different. It merely happens that D&D combat rules are more detailed than skill rules, so they have mechanical widgets for different weapons and such.

Sorry, but this is just incorrect. “I attack that monster with this weapon” conveys more information about the events in the fiction than “I check for traps” does. This is just a fact. We won’t get anywhere if we can’t agree on basic epistemology.

Just like combat rules take it out of players hands whether they hit the gnoll or not.

That’s dis-analogous. The combat rules take out of the players’ hands whether or not their approach (swing my sword at the gnoll) successfully achieves or makes progress towards their goal (kill the gnoll), but it does not take their approach out of their hands. You don’t accidentally punch the gnoll instead if you fail your attack roll. On the other hand, in the case of the chest, we have a clear goal (find out if it’s trapped) and an unclear approach (check it). This action can’t be resolved without taking the approach out of the player’s hands. You might accidentally touch the chest with your hands if you fail the investigation check. This is a situation I seek to avoid, by asking the player to state their action with reasonable specificity. What is your character actually doing in the fictional world? That’s up to you, not me or the dice.

The rules of this trap would say if some specific action declaration was required.

That would truly be pixel moaning. No specific approach is or ought to be required. Infinitely many approaches may require an Investigation check to resolve, which is why a DM is needed to make the determination of whether any given approach a player describes does or not. If a player describes an approach that the DM determines requires an Investigation check to resolve, the rules inform us what an appropriate DC would be for that check.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Maybe that’s what you do, but it is not what I do.

Sorry, but this is just incorrect. “I attack that monster with this weapon” conveys more information about the events in the fiction than “I check for traps” does. This is just a fact. We won’t get anywhere if we can’t agree on basic epistemology.

Only in a sense that everything in D&D combat has more detail! This is hardly an revelation. Also, it is not just 'search for traps, it is 'search this chest for traps.'

That’s dis-analogous. The combat rules take out of the players’ hands whether or not their approach (swing my sword at the gnoll) successfully achieves or makes progress towards their goal (kill the gnoll), but it does not take their approach out of their hands. You don’t accidentally punch the gnoll instead if you fail your attack roll. On the other hand, in the case of the chest, we have a clear goal (find out if it’s trapped) and an unclear approach (check it). This action can’t be resolved without taking the approach out of the player’s hands.

Again, we might demand the player to describe their specific way of swinging their sword at the gnoll and adjust the gnoll's AC based on that, but we don't.

You might accidentally touch the chest with your hands if you fail the investigation check.

Yes. Because the investigation check represents how skilfully the character examines the check for traps. Just like the attack roll represents how skilfully the character hits the gnoll.

This is a situation I seek to avoid, by asking the player to state their action with reasonable specificity. What is your character actually doing in the fictional world? That’s up to you, not me or the dice.

And because neither you or the player actually knows how to search for traps, the player is unable to make informed decisions of what steps are reasonable. At the best, they can try to guess what you think is reasonable.

That would truly be pixel moaning. No specific approach is or ought to be required. Infinitely many approaches may require an Investigation check to resolve, which is why a DM is needed to make the determination of whether any given approach a player describes does or not. If a player describes an approach that the DM determines requires an Investigation check to resolve, the rules inform us what an appropriate DC would be for that check.

Do you know of fantasy traps work? How you determine which approach is reasonable? This is just very 'mother may I.' The player needs to use specific words even to get to use their character's capabilities. This is like if in combat they would need to describe the attack in specific way to even get to roll for an attack.