Player skill vs character skill?

[Lanefan]

Sorry. That's one I completely agree with. I'm so tired of rolling dice just to hear the sound they make when they hit the table. If the situation isn't going to change regardless of the result, don't bother rolling.

You misread me.

The situation doesn't have to change on both results but it does have to change on one, where "nothing happens" can be the other.

What's being promoted is that the situation always has to change on any result, and I think that's a misreading of what 5e is trying to say with said misreading being driven by a narrative-game style bias.

 

[Lanefan]

Ok, why should those situations be resolved by a roll?

Let's pick a simple scenario: there's a locked door, and no time pressure. The thief has a 60% chance to pick the lock. If he succeeds he opens the door and the party finds a treasure room and gets loot. (Yay!) If he fails, there's no change to the status quo.

Why (other than history/tradition) should this be resolved by a roll, rather than just letting the thief succeed?

Because it's uncertain whether the Thief can open the door. He only has a 60% chance, remember?

Oh, and I should point out there's no such thing as re-rolls. Your roll represents the best you can do in however long you have, as do your initial odds.

I think the answer might be, "Because it creates a branch in the narrative: if he succeeds the story goes one way, if he fails the story goes the other." That's true, but why it important to leave that to RNG? You have a GM and a bunch of players all contributing to the story, which creates lots of branches.

Here it's because the players don't know what to contribute on a success (i.e. they've no idea what's behind the door) and the DM doesn't know what to contribute until the roll tells her what happens with the task resolution.

 

[Lanefan]

What do you mean by that?

The PCs search the west wall for a secret door.

On success the DM narrates they find a secret door, and where it is, and maybe some details about it.
On failure the DM narrates nothing happens.

 

[overgeeked]

You misread me.

The situation doesn't have to change on both results but it does have to change on one, where "nothing happens" can be the other.

What's being promoted is that the situation always has to change on any result, and I think that's a misreading of what 5e is trying to say with said misreading being driven by a narrative-game style bias.

I didn't misread you. But I did mistype.

If the dice are rolled, the situation should change regardless of the result. The null result is a boring waste of time. Even if it's only one of several possible results.

Your person on the rope example. To me, it should be either the person falls or slides down the rope on a failure or they climb up the rope on a success. Or whatever else the possible options are. Move forward or move back. I honestly don't care. But move. Rolling to stand still is dull and boring.

 

[Lanefan]

I didn't misread you. But I did mistype.

If the dice are rolled, the situation should change regardless of the result. The null result is a boring waste of time. Even if it's only one of several possible results.

Your person on the rope example. To me, it should be either the person falls or slides down the rope on a failure or they climb up the rope on a success. Or whatever else the possible options are. Move forward or move back. I honestly don't care. But move. Rolling to stand still is dull and boring.

Yeah, that's the difference in how we view this.

You roll the dice to change the situation. I roll the dice to see if the situation changes.

That, and if "nothing happens" can be a legitiamte result then I can also throw in dummy rolls, in order to disguise rolls that matter and not give away meta-info the characters wouldn't have in the fiction.