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

[Charlaquin]

Let's let @Charlaquin answer the question. If there's a trapped drawer and I describe to you how I slide my knife through the space under the drawer(and that's all I describe to you), and the trap is not there, do I get a roll to find the trap anyway?

It’s difficult to answer without knowing more about the trap. The handle is trapped, but there’s nothing under the drawer that could indicate the trap’s presence? Then, no, I guess running a knife under the drawer wouldn’t have a chance of success.

 

[iserith]

A big issue, especially with mixed new and old players (of that DM not nesasarly the game or edition)

I can tell you my friend ross LOVES over the top almost satirical 80's action films/tv shows. If I follow those tropes I am WAY more likely to get things by him.

on the other hand my friend kurt is MUCH more a fan of Grimdark (what he calls) realistic stories, if I follow those tropes I am WAY more likely to get things by him.

on the other hand my old DM Becky was a huge drama back story almost soap opera DM...

If i tried the exact same thing, say an over the top action trick Ross would be like "No roll baddd *** you got it" and might even reward me with MORE then what I asked for... if I did to Kurt he would also not give me a roll but just say "No we don't do that kinda bull puckey here" and Becky would set a DC, and depending on how it fit the story set it higher or lower...

If i tried another the exact same thing, say a quick dramatic reveal about my character Ross would be like "No " and be upset I tried to just add something mid ggame without asking ... if I did to Kurt he would look at me weird, but may or may not go for it... and Becky woullove it pause, add to it we would go back and forth then I would succssed now but later she would use this new plot seed...

If i tried yet another the exact same thing, say a dark almost noir trope that is gritty and dirty Ross would be like "ugh, boreing, but here is your DC " ... if I did to Kurt he would smile and go with it ... and Becky would imost likely be grossed out and ask me to try the same thing a little less graphic or a little more light hearted and call a do over.

3 DMs 3 really different play styles, all thinking (and would argue and in Becky's case argue alot and violantly) that they are useing the rules as written. All 3 have been playing as long or longer then I have (Becky and I started playing same year but not sure on months, Kurt was starting with me and Ross was playing before any of us)

This argues for the DM to... not do that, to instead be a neutral arbiter and referee to mitigate influence by such things, which is easy enough. Unless that's what the group enjoys, of course, and if so then carry on! Leaning hard into tropes can be a great time. I love D&D tropes because they are silly and frequently lean into them, but I don't allow this to influence my adjudication.

 

[Maxperson]

Do you imagine that the creator of this poison needle trap made the lock oversized because they wanted to provide a clue that the lock is trapped? That doesn't make a lot of sense if your goal is to hide the trap, right? Or could we instead choose to imagine that's just what they had to build because of the technology being used at the time and it just so happens to be a clue that it's trapped to anyone looking at it now? Might we also imagine a scenario where players acting with imperfect knowledge don't even bother searching for traps despite that clue being embedded in the description of the environment? Because that happens too.

Can I imagine exceptions to the rule, sure. Exceptions like a really, really old lock having to be made differently don't change that the vast majority of the time the needle trapped locks would look the same as an untrapped lock. I also don't really see how players missing clues or acting recklessly is relevant to whether or not clues would be present in the first place.

 

[Maxperson]

It’s difficult to answer without knowing more about the trap. The handle is trapped, but there’s nothing under the door that could indicate the trap’s presence? Then, no, I guess running a knife under the drawer wouldn’t have a chance of success.

Then you are in effect requiring trap expertise and/or pixel hunting. Were I in your game I'd have to piece by piece examine every aspect of the drawer that I could possibly think of, or risk missing the trap entirely and just auto-failing.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It’s difficult to answer without knowing more about the trap. The handle is trapped, but there’s nothing under the door that could indicate the trap’s presence? Then, no, I guess running a knife under the drawer wouldn’t have a chance of success.

Right. And that's pixel hunting.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Let's let @Charlaquin answer the question. If there's a trapped drawer and I describe to you how I slide my knife through the space under the drawer(and that's all I describe to you), and the trap is not there, do I get a roll to find the trap anyway?

Right, I'm not @Charlaquin, but it's really situation dependent. If the trap was contact poison on the shiny handle then, no, I would not call for a roll yet. There's no possible danger at this point. The PC would automatically succeed to know the space under the draw was safe. The PC also might gain a clue since they are up close to the drawer at this point. Maybe the shiny handle shimmers in a strange way when so close to it, or emits a slight sour odor, or whatever, dropping the DC or even granting advantage on the next thing the PC tries, if a roll is even needed.

The phrasing "do I get a roll" is standing out to me and might be the key to coming to an understanding. In this playstyle, you really don't want to resort to the dice to decide your PC's fate because every time the dice come out you, as player, know there is a meaningful consequence of failure that could cost your PC dearly. To mitigate this, coming up with an approach that favors auto-success is ideal. Short of that, the player would try to come up with an approach that will favor their PC's best abilities to get the lowest DC possible and best modifiers (perhaps also using, as appropriate, buffs and/or inspiration and/or help) to favor success.

Yes and no.


It doesn't make sense that trap makers always have signs/clues pointing to where the traps are. Traps are made to be hidden and hard to figure out. Otherwise they are useless as traps and are just hazards. So making an oddly shaped lock to indicate that the lock is trapped does not make sense. The occasional trap where there's a scorch mark or whatever clue caused by a previous trigger is fine.

The trap is hidden, I was just pointing out one potential environmental context clue. It's easy to solve in an obvious example on a forum when you know what's coming. There's more to a room description than the chest and there's many, many other ways to telegraph danger that may or may not be immediately obvious to the players. "There's a chest in the corner of the room. And a dead body next to the chest" (or a blood stain on the lock or next to the chest is an empty bottle labeled in elven script 'antivenom' or something else as obvious or not obvious as you want...) The idea is to give the player something to gnaw on so they can make an informed decision. Sometimes, the bad thing happens anyway because of a failed roll but, if I've done my job as DM, the players realize they missed a clue that might have helped them change up their approach.

It does make sense that a player can say, "I look into the keyhole to see if I can see a needle." or something similar, and have a much better or even automatic success, depending on how the needle trap is constructed.

Yes!

Sure. I'm not saying that it's big bad wrong fun or anything.

Oh, good. With all your talk of pixels and gotchas and mind reading, I honestly wasn't sure where you were going with the discussion.

The DM can put neon signs and arrows showing exactly where all the traps are and what they do, and if everyone in the game is having fun, it's all good.

Sure. Not a game I'd find fun but who am I to say it wouldn't be fun for someone else.

 

[HammerMan]

This argues for the DM to... not do that, to instead be a neutral arbiter and referee to mitigate influence by such things,

Yeah asking a human not to be influenced by there history there likes and dislikes is not only hard, but boarder line impossible.

All three (and with the exception of Ross I would support them) believe they ARE being a neutral arbiter and refree. It is just that the way they think is shaped by past experiences.

Just a simple Question of "Can I intimadate the orc if I XXX" will more likely then not generate multi answers on this very thread.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Yeah asking a human not to be influenced by there history there likes and dislikes is not only hard, but boarder line impossible.

All three (and with the exception of Ross I would support them) believe they ARE being a neutral arbiter and refree. It is just that the way they think is shaped by past experiences.

Just a simple Question of "Can I intimadate the orc if I XXX" will more likely then not generate multi answers on this very thread.

I mean, yes, the triple X maneuver is very intimidating at our table.

 

[iserith]

Can I imagine exceptions to the rule, sure. Exceptions like a really, really old lock having to be made differently don't change that the vast majority of the time the needle trapped locks would look the same as an untrapped lock. I also don't really see how players missing clues or acting recklessly is relevant to whether or not clues would be present in the first place.

Telegraphing by way of clues is how you avoid "gotchas." If you're capable of imagining a trap existing, you're also capable of imagining a clue pointing to it in the environment. You just choose not to and justify it by saying there "would" be no clue, but there's really no basis for that other than preference.

I choose otherwise because it creates an incentive for paying attention and for meaningful engagement with the environment and sets the stage for fair resolution without "gotchas." Even so, players will frequently focus on one detail rather than another or, despite their best efforts, fail at engaging with a trap in a way that avoids the danger and suffer the consequences. Just because there is a clue to telegraph the trap doesn't mean it must be illogical in the context of the setting or that players will always find the trap. (And even if they did, so what? The trap is still there to be dealt with.) What it does do is when the trap blows up in their face, they can think back and go, "Oh, right, that explains the scorch mark on the wall... oops, my bad!" instead of "WTF? I had no chance of avoiding that hit point tax!"

 

[Charlaquin]

This is stated in the abstract. That seems to be failing you. And I can see why - the abstract statement you give doesn't differentiate what you claim to do from, say, Gygaxian searching methods of guessing exactly the right thing.

So, I suggest you please give us a description of a trapped chest as you'd give it to players, and then give us two examples of how players would state actions that successfully engage with that description, neither of which is the player guessing exactly how you personally think the trap works.

Concrete examples may elucidate where broad statements do not.

This feels like a setup to poke holes in any specific example I give, but sure.

Let’s assume a poison needle trap. If I planned to use poison needle traps in a dungeon, I would probably first introduce the concept early on by describing an open, empty chest with a needle jutting out of the lock and a skeleton (the regular, dead kind, not an undead creature) next to it. I would also have some descriptive detail that differentiate chests with needle traps from un-trapped chests. Maybe trapped chests are iron-banded and un-trapped ones or not. Let’s go with that.

I don’t plan out solutions, just challenges, so there are infinitely many approaches players might take that could detect the presence of a needle trap in the lock of an iron-banded chest. Earlier @iserith described their players shining a light through the keyhole and looking inside for anything unusual. That would certainly work in my game as well. Another approach might be to use a tool of some sort to carefully probe for a mechanism inside the lock - that would probably require a Dexterity check, with failure resulting in setting it off. Feel free to suggest an approach you might take, after having seen an iron-banded chest with a sprung needle trap in a dungeon and later coming across another iron-banded chest in the same dungeon, and I’ll let you know how I would adjudicate it.