D&D 5E A case where the 'can try everything' dogma could be a problem

[delericho]

So, in this case, there are consequences to failure. And it's important. So yeah, in this case, rolling is a good idea. Nobody is arguing against that.

Thanks - I was starting to think I'd gone mad for a while there.

 

[Ristamar]

Instead of envisaging a railroad with a sidequest, imagine instead an entire rail network with lots of different paths. Some of which are gated off because specific rolls went against the PCs.



It rewards the player who invested character-building resources such that he can (usually) make that roll. This time out, it's the character who took the Religion proficiency. Next time, it may be the guy with Persuasion, or Search, or...

I'm familiar with node based adventure design, and I wasn't debating its merits. Perhaps this discussion spawned from a lack of a common starting point... if so, allow me to apologize and start again.

We were originally discussing a Knowledge check involving a random religious icon with no context.

If the PC's were looking for clues, or the icon is a future clue (the PCs simply may not know it yet), then we have stakes and context. I still don't believe rolling is the best way to handle Knowledge, but to each their own. It's a skill check of sorts, one way or another, and it comes with consequences.

If the PC's randomly stumble upon the icon without context or stakes and it isn't a clue for a future scene or encounter, then gating adventure content behind a single roll or check is silly, IMO.

So, in this case, there are consequences to failure. And it's important. So yeah, in this case, rolling is a good idea. Nobody is arguing against that.

Yep!

 

[Agamon]

Unless the roll is literally without consequence then it always has stakes; it's just a question of how big they are. Even if the PC immediately retries and succeeds, they've still lost whatever time is taken in the first attempt.

Of course, there's a point where those stakes are small enough not to be worth bothering with (such as requiring a roll to bash down a door when the PCs can just keep retrying until they succeed). But the threshold for that will differ for different groups, and will even differ for the same group at different times.

That's fair. It's not cool for anyone to think everyone else should play the exact same way they do.

Why do they need to know the stakes? They want the information that's gated by that knowledge roll. Deciding not to attempt the roll just means they go straight to the "fail" case.

It's not pass/fail, it's more of a pass/don't try/fail with consequences.

A bashing down the door example:

(DM): The door ahead of you appears to be barred form the other side.
(PC): I want to bash down the door.
(DM): To your hulking barbarian, that certainly looks like it would be possible. Do you care if you make a lot of noise knocking it down?
(PC): Good point, I'll try and do it in one go and make as little noise as I can.
(DM): Okay, make a check with DC X, if you pass, you'll make a bit of unavoidable noise, but it'll open with one shove. If you fail, you'll get the door open eventually, but it will take a few attempts and make a whole lot of noise, alerting anyone in the area.

At this point, the PC can change his mind. The door won't open, but there's no chance at alerting the area, either. Side note, there's some fail forward in that example, which I'm a big fan of. I like the idea that a big beefy PC can bust down a wooded door, if determined; the check is more about how effective they are at doing what they do best.

Also, knowing the stakes makes it less of a "gotcha" game. Some people don't like GM fiat because of that aspect, but this removes that entirely. The PCs are pros in a life and death profession. Being able to assess a situation makes perfect sense to me.

I suppose one could consider it worthwhile to reduce the number of rolls in the game, such that every individual roll becomes that much more meaningful. But given the frequency that D&D resorts to using the dice anyway (because of the prevalence of combat), it really doesn't seem to be the game for that approach.

It's not square peg, round hole. It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I, for one, can say that this approach works quite well.

 

[Agamon]

It rewards the player who invested character-building resources such that he can (usually) make that roll. This time out, it's the character who took the Religion proficiency. Next time, it may be the guy with Persuasion, or Search, or...

This actually is another reason to avoid common rolls. If the cleric in the party has a background where he lived as a cloistered priest, and he's invested in religion and/or history skills, telling them that they know this without rolling because they spent all those lonely years studying dusty religious scrolls is a lot more rewarding to the player than watching the so-called expert roll a 2 on his check.

Of course, this is just for inconsequential information. Like I stated before, if the information is important or necessary, then rolling to see if they happen to know it is all good.

 

[Ristamar]

Side note, there's some fail forward in that example, which I'm a big fan of. I like the idea that a big beefy PC can bust down a wooded door, if determined; the check is more about how effective they are at doing what they do best.

I wouldn't necessarily classify that example as failing forward. Eventual success (bashing down the door) was inevitable, given the task was possible. Failure (making a lot of noise) only occurred if the first check failed. You're not forcing the story ahead despite a failed attempt; you're enforcing consequences directly related to the PC's actions.

 

[Ristamar]

This actually is another reason to avoid common rolls. If the cleric in the party has a background where he lived as a cloistered priest, and he's invested in religion and/or history skills, telling them that they know this without rolling because they spent all those lonely years studying dusty religious scrolls is a lot more rewarding to the player than watching the so-called expert roll a 2 on his check.

Of course, this is just for inconsequential information. Like I stated before, if the information is important or necessary, then rolling to see if they happen to know it is all good.

I agree, though I am often inclined to give out important information without a roll if the character would reasonably know the answer given his or her fields of study. If the knowledge is purposely hidden or esoteric and time is factor, I'd require a roll after a certain amount of library research, consulting with sages and elders, etc.

I'd probably run it like your door bashing scenario. A good roll will find the answer more quickly, while a poor one may still get you the answer, but it'll take a lot longer to find it and/or it may be incomplete, leading to a complication down the road. If time is not a factor, the information is obtainable (without cracking skulls or perilous journeys), and the PC's stated intentions and goals are thorough, I'd probably skip the roll altogether.

 

[iserith]

I wouldn't necessarily classify that example as failing forward. Eventual success (bashing down the door) was inevitable, given the task was possible. Failure (making a lot of noise) only occurred if the first check failed. You're not forcing the story ahead despite a failed attempt; you're enforcing consequences directly related to the PC's actions.

I think maybe we can call it "progress combined with a setback" to use a phrase from the Basic Rules. Or "success at a cost" from the DMG.

 

[delericho]

I'm familiar with node based adventure design, and I wasn't debating its merits. Perhaps this discussion spawned from a lack of a common starting point...

<snip...>

We were originally discussing a Knowledge check involving a random religious icon with no context.

If the PC's randomly stumble upon the icon without context or stakes and it isn't a clue for a future scene or encounter, then gating adventure content behind a single roll or check is silly, IMO.

Ah, I see!

Yes, I agree entirely.

Also, knowing the stakes makes it less of a "gotcha" game. Some people don't like GM fiat because of that aspect, but this removes that entirely. The PCs are pros in a life and death profession. Being able to assess a situation makes perfect sense to me.

Fair enough. I really hate it when a DM plays that sort of "gotcha" game, and I don't do it myself. As a defensive measure against it, you're right - this would help.

This actually is another reason to avoid common rolls.

Agreed again. Though seem my first post in the thread for how I deal with the "everyone rolls" situation.

 

[iserith]

Getting back to the topic of "Knowledge checks," my preference is not to make rolls to test PC knowledge. I'll just give them the knowledge they seek to know if it's reasonable to know it. Rather, I like to use skills like Arcana, History, Religion, etc. as "roll to do" rather than "roll to know."

For example, if a wizard wants to try and remove a dangerous magical glyph, then that's something we might resolve with Arcana. Convincing the king to recognize the noble fighter's lineage and grant her a title could be a function of a History check as the fighter cites the intricacy of her bloodline. A Religion check might resolve how well the cleric reconsecrates the Temple of Life before the zombie horde breaks down the doors. And so on.

 

[delericho]

Getting back to the topic of "Knowledge checks," my preference is not to make rolls to test PC knowledge. I'll just give them the knowledge they seek to know if it's reasonable to know it.

Out of interest, then, do you use passive Perception and Insight?

For example, if a wizard wants to try and remove a dangerous magical glyph, then that's something we might resolve with Arcana. Convincing the king to recognize the noble fighter's lineage and grant her a title could be a function of a History check as the fighter cites the intricacy of her bloodline. A Religion check might resolve how well the cleric reconsecrates the Temple of Life before the zombie horde breaks down the doors. And so on.

Good examples. Actually, I wish things like that appeared more often in published adventures - I can recall a few instances, but only a very few.