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

[Rune]

I also want to point out that this is a problem only with skills that benefit the party as a whole + have no penalty for failure + have no better effects if more PC do the same. Knowledge skills are the main case, but also Thieves' Tools and Investigation are others, and some charisma skills might also be (but it depends how you adjudicate a simultaneous success by someone and failure by someone else).

Their are two things you can do to allieviate this problem--both provided for within 5e's rules, in fact.

1: Follow this formula: Player describes attempted action (including attempts to recall or figure out something), DM determines what ability check is appropriate, Player asks if any skill or tool proficiencies would help, DM says yes or no. The important things to note with this procedure are that i) the players don't determine if or when or what they will roll and ii) multiple sources of proficiency might apply.

2: Don't have them roll for checks that have no cost for failure. (Note that all checks that take any kind of action have an associated cost of failure in the heat of combat--a waisted action.) When failure has no cost, simply assume everyone who can conceivably hit a certain DC does.

This is especially useful for knowledge "checks," because it ensures that clues important to the progression of the adventure never get overlooked due to bad rolls (although piecing them together is another matter).

Note, also, that this still allows for the possibility of being misled or misdirected through incomplete or faulty knowledge. You can totally ace a knowledge check and walk away with a new bit of information--but that doesn't guarantee that the information was accurate to begin with. For this reason, at higher DCs, I tend to include the probable sources of the information with the information itself. This lets the player(s) determine the likelihood of accuracy on their own.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I run most skill checks like either a group skill check or a single (possibly assisted) skill check. And yes, I still call them skill checks.

The group skill check is as normal and done in situations where every group member's contribution makes a difference. For individual skill checks I have the pertinent character roll. If it's a general issue ("Roll a History Check...") then I allow the party to NOMINATE a character to roll. I allow that character ADVANTAGE on the roll if another character can assist them. Assisting characters in this situation must (most always) be proficient in the skill being tested and be in a position to assist. This gets away from the detestable shotgun blast of skill checks that accompanies each request for a test.

 

[Beleriphon]

On check I tend to take the view that they should all be run like Search checks to find something hidden. If the players specifically call out the location of the McGuffin then they find the thing. If they say I want to search the room, then roll a check and hope of the best. The same can apply to knowledge, I want to know if Cthulu can be banished with the Ritual Song of Xvaraggaqqgagnanfbahlahfahghgdal. If the character should know one way or another then just give them the answer, if the answer is up in the air about whether the character knows then give them a chance to succeed or fail at knowing that bit of information.

 

[iserith]

I think more than anything else, this mode of play has fallen out of fashion because it actually requires players to pay attention to what is happening in the game world. I have seen so many instances of this and observed games being played where the players kind of "zone out" until its their turn to roll a die for something. Such conditioning might have been the work of DMs who run games in which nothing of significance can take place without a die roll or check of some kind so the players naturally only pay attention to the stuff that gets things done- rolling dice.

I think a lot of it is on the DM to describe the environment, narrate the result of the adventurers' actions, and manage the table in a way that engages players so they don't "zone out." I've been in some games that were real snoozers in this regard so when I'm running a game, I BRING it because I don't want those players to feel the same way I've felt in other games. Players bear some responsibility in this as well, of course, chiefly by pursuing their goals, generally doing exciting things, and describing what they want to do in an interesting way.

I think you are on the right track, especially when playing with a DM that actually runs the game true to this theory. Another factor in play is the obsession with a character's mechanical abilities and a natural desire to see them in action.

That's an interesting theory. I know I like to see how particular builds perform in the field myself so maybe there's something to that. I just don't put that priority ahead of trying to achieve success without rolling.

 

[Umbran]

Maybe someone already suggest this...

In the case of knowledge skills, there's a problem. But, normal human behavior provides a solution. Real people may know a thing, or not know a thing and admit it. But, far more frequently, they don't really know, but they come up with an answer out of bits and pieces, and honestly believe they know that to be the truth, though they are often at least partially incorrect.

So, when you have many people roll, the PCs have the problem of getting, say, three differing answers, and *not knowing which is correct*. So, when you have multiple people doing it, you can roll for them, and report slightly different answers to those that fail. If only one succeeds, they don't know who is right. If two or more agree, they know they have the answer (and this is equivalent to having advantage on the roll, which is the mechanic for assisting anyway).

 

[Psikerlord#]

I think it's a combination of monkey-see-monkey-do and believing that a check is an action. Certain games and certain DMs promote this way of playing more than others. Even some of the designers' games have the players asking to make ability checks and the DM saying it's okay - it's that common. Often it's in the form of "I want to make a Perception check to..." This mistakes the purpose of ability checks: They aren't there to enable people to do things. It's the fictional action taken that enables a character to do a thing. If the thing you're doing has a certain outcome, then there's no roll. If the thing you're doing has an uncertain outcome, then you're going to roll and your characters' stats and proficiency help you take some of the uncertainty out of it.

A lot of DMs also roll for practically everything. It's mentioned in the DMG as the "Rollling With It" method (page 236). The DMG is smart to point out a serious drawback to this approach, however: "...roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success."

A further influence on this probably has something to do with ability checks frequently having no cost attached to failure. If it doesn't cost you anything to fail, then why not just give it a shot? I try to always have a failed ability check mean the scene changes in some way and often not for the better (for the characters).

It's that common because... it is ok. It's a valid way of playing the game. In fact I suspect it's the most common way of playing. And it makes sense, coz everyone knows how the rules work, and you assume (most of the time) that a roll will be required. And indeed it is (well, in every game I've played in).

Sure sometimes you dont need a roll. But you mostly do (ime).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think the best selling point for players is that asking to make a check is asking for a chance to fail when the DM might otherwise grant success for a good idea.

Asking to make a check is asking for a chance to succeed, when the DM might otherwise state failure for lack of an idea that's good enough. It really depends on the DM. In many games, you would need to be psychic (or cheating) in order to come up with a course of action that had zero chance of failure.

As for the specific case of knowledge checks, a typical DM response might be to dictate automatic failure for anyone who didn't have a reasonable chance of knowing the answer. For a Dwarven history check, everyone would automatically fail, unless the character is a dwarf and/or the character has History proficiency.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Not sure if someone already covered this, but you could use the Working Together rules on PHB 175. Basically, require that one player make the primary check and if there is a qualified assistant to help, then the primary has advantage. You might require non-proficient helpers to roll a check themselves, to determine whether they are qualified enough to grant advantage.

That way the group gets to help, while the spotlight character gets advantage increasing his or her chance to shine (as opposed to rolling a natural 1). Plus, it's more forgiving than Group Checks where the participation of certain characters might negatively impact the party's chances of success (which doesn't necessarily make sense in the case of a Knowledge check).

 

[iserith]

It's that common because... it is ok. It's a valid way of playing the game.

Sure, play however you want. Just don't be surprised if the issues the OP contemplates or the drawbacks the DMG mentions become a problem.

Asking to make a check is asking for a chance to succeed, when the DM might otherwise state failure for lack of an idea that's good enough. It really depends on the DM. In many games, you would need to be psychic (or cheating) in order to come up with a course of action that had zero chance of failure.

I wouldn't want to be in such a game and I wouldn't run it that way. I'm generally looking for reasons why a player's idea does work rather than why it doesn't (something many DMs in my experience do not do), so your idea has to be pretty bad for me to tell you that it automatically fails. (Or possibly you acted without understanding the situation fully due to bad assumptions.) Generally, it will succeed (with or without cost) or you'll roll.

 

[Agamon]

Sure sometimes you dont need a roll. But you mostly do (ime).

That's the thing, though. Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't. But where's that line? Asking, "Does it have anything to do with any of the words written on the character sheet?" is a basic one, but not really good enough criteria for me, personally.

There's a few other questions I ask myself before calling for a roll. Is failure (or success, for that matter) actually an option? Are there consequences to failure? What's more interesting in this case: the suspense of possibly failing, or more predictably moving the game forward? Has the player done anything that negates the need for a roll (like looked under the pillow to find the ring hidden under the pillow)?

I find the game flows better the less rolls there are, and just leave the rolling for when a) the PCs actions haven't already qualified success or failure, and b) failure is meaningful.