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

[Maxperson]

That may be how you run the game, but it is not a rule. I allow players to search however they like.

Nothing about what I said implied that players could not search how they like. There's just a default to the competence of the PC unless they tell me otherwise.

The decision of whether or not to use any given tool depends on a lot of factors that have nothing to do with IQ. If the player is concerned that contact with a trap’s mechanism might set it off, for example, they may opt not to touch it with anything, including thieves’ tools.

Again, competent default. The PC knows better than you, me or the player whether the tools should be used in a given situation. I don't assume incompetence and default to the player to guess at it.

That is an assumption. Maybe it’s an assumption that’s a built-in part of your table rules - at your table, it’s understood that an attempt to search for something always involves whatever contact and tool use may be necessary to find it, unless the player specifically states otherwise. That’s a perfectly fine expectation to set, but it is not the expectation at my table.

It's not an assumption. It's defaulting to the competence of the PC, rather than requiring that the player guess at whether it's safe to touch or not. If the player wants to override the default, he's welcome to do so.

 

[Charlaquin]

Unless the PC is insane, why would they attempt to do this?

I don’t know, and I don’t really care. My job is to adjudicate actions, not judge why the player is doing them.

It's one thing to have a preference, that's fine. It's your game and if works for you and yours more power to you. But you don't have to reduce it to a ridiculous extreme, I think it actually hurts your argument.

I feel that comparing my adjudication method to pixel-hunting in point and click adventure games is reducing it to a ridiculous extreme. The purpose of the comparison here is to illustrate that fact. Some approaches cannot possibly achieve their goals. Trying to pick a lock with a sandwich, trying to kill a goblin by sticking your tongue out at it, and trying to find a trap that Maxperson decided can’t be found by sliding a knife under the drawer, by sliding a knife under the drawer all have this fact in common. I don’t understand why this would be a controversial statement in the slightest. All three of those things quite obviously couldn’t possibly work.

In my game I assume when they find/remove a trap they're using training and experience, you want the specifics spelled out and I don't care. But I will never assume they're idiots who have no clue how something they're attempting could be accomplished.

I don’t assume that either. I allow the player to describe whatever goal and approach they wish, and adjudicate that action based on my best judgment of if that approach could succeed in accomplishing that goal, if it could fail to do so, and of failing to do so would be of consequence (and if so, how hard it would be to succeed without incurring that consequence). If the character’s intelligence is relevant, there’s an ability for that, which I can call for a check with if one is necessary.

P.S. Would the sandwich idea work if the locked chest was really a mimic?

I think that would succeed without needing to make a check.

 

[Charlaquin]

Nothing about what I said implied that players could not search how they like. There's just a default to the competence of the PC unless they tell me otherwise.

Again, competent default. The PC knows better than you, me or the player whether the tools should be used in a given situation. I don't assume incompetence and default to the player to guess at it.

It's not an assumption. It's defaulting to the competence of the PC, rather than requiring that the player guess at whether it's safe to touch or not. If the player wants to override the default, he's welcome to do so.

Default, assumption; tomato, tomahto. You rule that the character uses whatever contact and tools are necessary to find what they’re searching for unless the player states otherwise, which is perfectly fine and reasonable, but not to my preference. I rule that the character does only what the player declares they do. If you want to take your time carefully probing the dresser with your thieves tools for catches or other mechanisms while looking for signs of possible traps, just say so. If you just want to slide your knife under the drawer, just say so. Tell me what you want to accomplish and what your character does to try and accomplish it, and I will resolve that action.

 

[Charlaquin]

If my PC knows that touching a chest could potentially kill them, they won't touch the chest when checking for traps because they're trained in how to check for traps. What techniques do they use? Heck if I know.

See, that’s a problem for me, because it makes the action in the fiction too vague. I want to be able to understand and visualize what’s actually happening in the fictional world. Obviously a certain degree of abstraction is necessary, but I don’t want the action to be a totally nebulous “whatever it needs to be,” because that makes it impossible for me to determine what happens next without establishing that the character has done something that I don’t necessarily know if the player would have wanted their character to do,

 

[Charlaquin]

It this point I'm having to defend MY way of doing things. @Charlaquin is trying to tell me that one sentence conveys more information than the other when it doesn't. Both convey the exact same information to me. I don't need the extra word count.

Friend, I’ve repeatedly said that your way of running it is perfectly fine and reasonable. And I stand by that. If you don’t need more than that one sentence to comfortably resolve an action, fantastic! Go forth and enjoy the game as you see fit. But it’s just factually inaccurate that “I check for traps” and the lengthier action declaration convey exactly the same information.

 

[Oofta]

I don’t know, and I don’t really care. My job is to adjudicate actions, not judge why the player is doing them.

Well, it's not my job to police my players and I make the assumption that their PC is not insane. I may prompt a newbie to verify that they have and are using the proper technique. I may double check expensive spell components, but otherwise I assume the wizard PC has the proper component(s). I assume the fighter is using a weapon to attack and applying correct bonuses and damage.

First, I don't think it's worth spending game time on. Second I don't think you realize that by taking it to the extreme it sounds like if DMs doesn't do that, that they're playing it wrong because the PC may actually be attacking with a kielbasa.

At a certain point it comes down to preference on how to run the game and trust in the player and that the PC is competent as reflected in their proficiency.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'd need some of that Critical Role money to make it worthwhile to stream my games.

But otherwise, it looks like any attempt at understanding these things went out the window years ago. It's just the same old conversation with the same old posters that make the same spurious claims that goes nowhere. Time to get out and flog myself for falling into the trap yet again. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 16 or more times over the span of several years, shame on me.

Perhaps the trap wasn't telegraphed clearly enough?

In any case, have you considered that how you express yourself might as well be prone to cause conflict? You tend to have pretty stark tone and often form your opinion in a manner that implies that your way is the 'correct' way to play. And I don't think labelling apposing views as 'spurious' is terribly helpful either.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well, it's not my job to police my players and I make the assumption that their PC is not insane.

Right, I agree that it’s not the DM’s job to police their players, and personally U prefer not to make any assumptions about the PCs.

I may prompt a newbie to verify that they have and are using the proper technique. I may double check expensive spell components, but otherwise I assume the wizard PC has the proper component(s).

Yeah, I might as well.

I assume the fighter is using a weapon to attack and applying correct bonuses and damage.

I prefer the fighter’s player state what weapon they’re using to attack, at least the first time. Afterwards if they keep using the same weapon they don’t need to keep reiterating it, but if they swap weapons I would prefer they say so. Likewise, if there are multiple valid targets they can attack, I prefer they say which one they’re attacking.

First, I don't think it's worth spending game time on. Second I don't think you realize that by taking it to the extreme it sounds like if DMs doesn't do that, that they're playing it wrong because the PC may actually be attacking with a kielbasa.

I don’t know why it would sound like that. I’ve repeatedly said that this is my preference and that other DM’s approaches are perfectly fine and reasonable. That’s what’s so bizarre to me about these conversations, people seem so threatened by me simply explaining how I prefer to run the game and why. If you run it a different way, great! Have a blast! No skin off my nose.

At a certain point it comes down to preference on how to run the game and trust in the player and that the PC is competent as reflected in their proficiency.

It definitely comes down to preference on how to run the game. I also trust my players. Competency in areas reflected by proficiencies are expressed through proficiency bonus, which in my games serves as insurance against failure when an action requires a check to be successful.

 

[Oofta]

See, that’s a problem for me, because it makes the action in the fiction too vague. I want to be able to understand and visualize what’s actually happening in the fictional world. Obviously a certain degree of abstraction is necessary, but I don’t want the action to be a totally nebulous “whatever it needs to be,” because that makes it impossible for me to determine what happens next without establishing that the character has done something that I don’t necessarily know if the player would have wanted their character to do,

I sometimes write backstories for my PCs and one was the grandson of a rogue (a retired PC). One of the stories was his grandfather training him on how to find and disable traps, including a lock that sprayed stink bug infused water into his face when he didn't take the time to check for traps first.

So I assume competence in the PC because they were trained to do this, unlike the player. I'm not objecting because I feel "threatened", it's because of the hyperbole that someone could make an attack with their tongue. That, and I still think it diminishes any need to actually invest significantly in non-combat skills if you're good enough to talk your way out of needing to actually make a roll.

 

[Charlaquin]

Perhaps the trap wasn't telegraphed clearly enough?

In any case, have you considered that how you express yourself might as well be prone to cause conflict? You tend to have pretty stark tone and often form your opinion in a manner that implies that your way is the 'correct' way to play. And I don't think labelling apposing views as 'spurious' is terribly helpful either.

Have you consider that comparing the way someone else enjoys the game to the worst-designed examples of point-and-click adventure games I might be prone to cause conflict?