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

[iserith]

Player: "Can I look for a secret door?"
Dad: "I don't know, CAN YOU?"

I can't actually adjudicate a question. By narrating "You look there is no secret door" I have taken from the player their ability to declare for themselves what their character is doing. That is not the role of the DM. Further, I don't know anything about how they are looking for secret doors, so I can't decide if the action succeeds, fails, or has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure (and therefore an ability check is needed).

If the character declares a goal and approach sufficient to search the area thoroughly, I can tell them they find no secret doors if no secret doors are to be found, no roll.

 

[Mordhau]

Too much information for what?

Why are you trying to hide this information in the first place?

Not asking for a roll at all could also reveal that to the players.

Hmmm... I was basically agreeing with you there. But whatever.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In any case, if you require that I examine the spot of the trap(specific pixel), however I get there, and auto fail me if I examine all the other pixels and miss that one, then your method involves pixel hunting.

That isn’t what they’re describing. They’re saying that you don’t find anything by declaring an approach with no chance of success. You don’t have to go step by step, though. You could just say, and @Charlaquin can correct me if I’m wrong, “I use my tools to test potential hidden catches or other mechanism while carefully examining the drawer for visual signs of traps or other devices.”

It’s really not complicated to come up with a simple goal and approach, but that’s also why I advise using “I try to __ by __” when in doubt.

Obviously.

Sure it is. It includes both a goal (get potions) and an approach (buy them at a shop).

None of that is necessary, as long as goal and approach are clear, which they are in the potion shop example.

Would they? News to me.

No need to play out a conversation if you don’t want to. Just say what you want out of the guards and what you do to try and get it.

Yeah I definitely don’t do this nearly as much as it sounds like you do, but I definitely also want a goal and approach, even in combat most of the time. I’d rather the fight take most of the session because players are describing how they fight than have efficient fights.

 

[Charlaquin]

Hmmm... I was basically agreeing with you there. But whatever.

Were you? Sorry, didn’t mean to come off as terse. Seemed like you were coming from a place of trying to prevent metagaming, which is not something I care about, but maybe I misunderstood you.

 

[Maxperson]

You could just say, and @Charlaquin can correct me if I’m wrong, “I use my tools to test potential hidden catches or other mechanism while carefully examining the drawer for visual signs of traps or other devices.”

That's just flowery language for, "I search the dresser for traps." There's no difference other than word count.

 

[Charlaquin]

That isn’t what they’re describing. They’re saying that you don’t find anything by declaring an approach with no chance of success. You don’t have to go step by step, though. You could just say, and @Charlaquin can correct me if I’m wrong, “I use my tools to test potential hidden catches or other mechanism while carefully examining the drawer for visual signs of traps or other devices.”

Yeah, that would absolutely be a valid approach to take. As a very general approach it would be very unlikely to eliminate the possibility of failure, but by the same token it will pretty much always have a chance of success as long as there’s something to be found. So this might be a good way to go if you can’t think of anything that you think would eliminate the chance of failure but you still want to try and rely on your stats to get you there. Though it would also take time to do thoroughly, which would mean moving closer to the next check for random encounters, whereas a more specific approach might be able to be done faster.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's just flowery language for, "I search the dresser for traps." There's no difference other than word count.

There is a difference. Unlike “I search the dresser for traps,” it allows me to know what your character is actually doing in the fiction without having to make assumptions.

 

[Maxperson]

There is a difference. Unlike “I search the dresser for traps,” it allows me to know what your character is actually doing in the fiction without having to make assumptions.

Assume what? That the PC is using the tools he has for that job? Of course he is. Searching for traps with his eyes open? Of course he is. The only difference is word count.

 

[Charlaquin]

Assume what?

Whether the character is only inspecting visually, or making contact. Whether they’re touching it with their hands, or a knife, or a set of thieves’ tools, or a 10-foot pole, or anything else they may have with them. What the character is actually doing in the fiction, like I keep telling you.

That the PC is using the tools he has for that job? Of course he is.

That’s an assumption you’re making. Two, actually - what tools the player may think are appropriate for the job, and that the character is using them. Maybe you’re comfortable making those assumptions and your players are fine with it, and that’s great. I am not.

Searching for traps with his eyes open? Of course he is.

Generally unless a character’s perception is hindered in some way, such as the blinded condition, the game assumes they are aware of their surroundings, so this is a non-issue.

The only difference is word count.

That’s not the only difference, the two declarations convey different information.

 

[Lanefan]

I guess I just trust my players to do the math right unless it's really out in left field. If the group don't all have magic weapons or occasionally use nonmagical ones I may clarify. That's where my 1% of the time I care comes from.

I'm thinking more of situations where an enchanted weapon - or a certain degree of enchantment - is required to hit the foe at all; and-or where a certain type of weapon is materially better or worse than it usually is.

I don't remember all the various tinker toys the characters have; nor what they might recently have lost or sold or traded. That's what character sheets, with players attached, are for.