Player skill vs character skill?

[Voadam]

I'm a believer that dice should not be rolled unless there is a consequence for failure. (5e even explicitly says this, although everybody ignores it.). And while those consequences aren't necessarily a disaster, they should at least be undesireable.

And, no, failing to find a secret door, or not recalling a bit of lore, or having that door continue to be locked, are not consequences of failure because those conditions existed before they rolled.

When players get used to the idea that dice rolling is risky, they tend to rely less on "using" a character skill, and they tend to use, well, player skill. Asking questions, trying things that don't require rolls, etc.

Which, among all the possible playstyles, is what I'm trying encourage at my table, and is also the kind of table at which I want to play.

I read this 5e advice completely differently. The 5e advice seems to be don't call for a check if there is nothing really to check about, if it is going to succeed (like walking across a room) or it is just not going to work (shooting the moon with an arrow).

14 DMG page 237:

USING ABILITY SCORES
When a player wants to do something, it's often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character's ability scores. For example, a character doesn't normally need to make a Dexterity check to walk across an empty room or a Charisma check to order a mug of ale. Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure.
When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions:
Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure?
Is a task so inappropriate or impossible- such as hitting the moon with an arrow-that it can't work?
If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate. The following sections provide guidance on determining whether to call for an ability check, attack roll, or saving throw; how to assign DCs; when to use advantage and disadvantage; and other related topics.

Searching for a secret door is not so easy there is no chance of failure or so impossible it can't work.
Searching for a secret door is therefore something where a roll is appropriate if the DM wants one.
Not spotting a secret door completely seems a consequence of failing a check in this context.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I read this 5e advice completely differently.
...
Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure.

...
Not spotting a secret door completely seems a consequence of failing a check in this context.

I'm confused. You bolded the part I was referring to: "Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence of failure." Why do you read it "completely differently"?

EDIT:
Oh, I see. I bolded the part you wrote at the end. Yeah, I very much disagree that failing to find a door is a consequence of failing a check. You don't know the door is there before you roll. You don't know the door is there after the roll. Nothing has changed for your character, therefore there is no consequence of failure.

The problem with defining "meaningful consequence" as "failure to succeed" is that it's always true, and therefore the condition itself is meaningless. There has to be a trade-off that results in a meaningful decision. If the player (or players) ever think, "Well, I may as well try. Can't hurt." then you don't have a meaningful consequence. (A chorus of "Can I try, too?" is a good sign that you don't have a meaningful consequence.)

A consequence can also be that you pay a cost for the attempt, whether or not you succeed, therefore if you fail you've paid the cost but not reaped the benefit.

In general I don't think there are a lot of meaningful consequences for failing to find secret doors. The only ones I can think of are different versions of time costs:

• You are playing a game (like Shadowdark) in which actions like searching consume turns, and turns generate wandering monster rolls.
• You are under some scenario-specific time pressure, such as being pursued.
• You are in combat and searching consumes your action.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm confused. You bolded the part I was referring to: "Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence of failure." Why do you read it "completely differently"?

EDIT:
Oh, I see. I bolded the part you wrote at the end. Yeah, I very much disagree that failing to find a door is a consequence of failing a check. You don't know the door is there before you roll. You don't know the door is there after the roll. Nothing has changed for your character, therefore there is no consequence of failure.

The problem with defining "meaningful consequence" as "failure to succeed" is that it's always true, and therefore the condition itself is meaningless. There has to be a trade-off that results in a meaningful decision. If the player (or players) ever think, "Well, I may as well try. Can't hurt." then you don't have a meaningful consequence. (A chorus of "Can I try, too?" is a good sign that you don't have a meaningful consequence.)

A consequence can also be that you pay a cost for the attempt, whether or not you succeed, therefore if you fail you've paid the cost but not reaped the benefit.

In general I don't think there are a lot of meaningful consequences for failing to find secret doors. The only ones I can think of are different versions of time costs:

• You are playing a game (like Shadowdark) in which actions like searching consume turns, and turns generate wandering monster rolls.
• You are under some scenario-specific time pressure, such as being pursued.
• You are in combat and searching consumes your action.

Those all sound like meaningful consequences to me, and one of them is likely to apply to some degree nearly all the time, so to me to rolling still makes sense (beyond my general belief that any action for which the outcome is in doubt should be rolled).

 

[Bill Zebub]

Those all sound like meaningful consequences to me, and one of them is likely to apply to some degree nearly all the time, so to me to rolling still makes sense (beyond my general belief that any action for which the outcome is in doubt should be rolled).

Meaning those three examples I offered?

I agree they are all meaningful consequences, which is why I listed them, but when you say that "one of them is likely to apply to some degree nearly all the time" I disagree. It's the "some degree" that may be in conflict with "meaningful." I certainly have played in many sessions where the only cost to spending time searching for things is the cost in real life game session time. I don't consider that a "meaningful consequence". (And I would address it by skipping the roll to save time!)

If the player doesn't pause to weigh whether the (potential) cost is worth the attempt, the consequence isn't meaningful.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Meaning those three examples I offered?

I agree they are all meaningful consequences, which is why I listed them, but when you say that "one of them is likely to apply to some degree nearly all the time" it's the "some degree" that may be in conflict with "meaningful." I certainly have played in many sessions where the only cost to spending time searching for things is the cost in real life game session time. I don't consider that a "meaningful consequence". (And I would address it by skipping the roll to save time!)

There's always a game time consequence; actions don't occur instantly in the setting after all, and whatever time it did take is a consequence. Things might happen during that time.

 

[Bill Zebub]

There's always a game time consequence; actions don't occur instantly in the setting after all, and whatever time it did take is a consequence. Things might happen during that time.

Again, if that is the case, then yes. But what if nothing might happen during that time? I have played in LOTS of games where wasting a bunch of time does not have any impact on the probability of other events. Have you not?

Or, more importantly, the players need to understand/believe that using the time to search could lead to something like a wandering monster. While in theory a GM could suddenly decide to change things up by throwing a wandering monster at them while they're searching, it doesn't count if they have never done such a thing before. Players need to understand the meaningful consequences for them to be...well, meaningful.

(However, if the GM did do such a thing, in the future the players might understand that searching has a meaningful consequence...)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Again, if that is the case, then yes. But what if nothing might happen during that time? I have played in LOTS of games where wasting a bunch of time does not have any impact on the probability of other events. Have you not?

Or, more importantly, the players need to understand/believe that using the time to search could lead to something like a wandering monster. While in theory a GM could suddenly decide to change things up by throwing a wandering monster at them while they're searching, it doesn't count if they have never done such a thing before. Players need to understand the meaningful consequences for them to be...well, meaningful.

(However, if the GM did do such a thing, in the future the players might understand that searching has a meaningful consequence...)

An unexpected encounter (the old "wandering monster" idea) is always a possibility. If I have reason to think the players might not know that I would tell them.

 

[Bill Zebub]

An unexpected encounter (the old "wandering monster" idea) is always a possibility. If I have reason to think the players might not know that I would tell them.

Then if that's how your table runs that's great. If the players know that spending time searching increases the chances of a wandering monster, then that's an incentive to only search if you think the risk:reward is worth it. That's what I've been saying all along.

But are you seriously arguing that all tables run that way? That you've never seen, or heard of, a form of RPGing in which wandering monsters aren't a thing? Or, not a time-based thing?

Also, I'll suggest again that if the risk (risk = threat x probability) of wandering monsters is insufficient to give the players pause, then the consequence is still not meaningful.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then if that's how your table runs that's great. That's an incentive to only search if you think the risk:reward is worth it. That's what I've been saying all along.

But are you seriously arguing that all tables run that way? That you've never seen, or heard of, a form of RPGing in which wandering monsters aren't a thing? Or, not a time-based thing?

Also, I'll suggest again that if the risk (risk = threat x probability) of wandering monsters is insufficient to give the players pause, then the consequence is still not meaningful.

No, of course not all tables run that way. It's just my personal preference. Abstracting away the possibility of failure hurts my brain.

 

[Bill Zebub]

No, of course not all tables run that way. It's just my personal preference. Abstracting away the possibility of failure hurts my brain.

THEN WHY HAVE YOU BEEN ARGUING WITH ME!?!?!?!?!?!