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

[Charles Rampant]

I will sometimes restrict the people capable of rolling: if the question relates to Dwarven history, then I would naturally only let the Dwarven PCs roll. I would allow anyone else to roll as well, if they could explain why they should be able to. This means that someone who feels that his character spent some of his mercenary career working in Dwarven lands (an eminently reasonable and interesting element of his backstory, even if devised ad-hoc) could also roll. This tends to prevent the whole table rolling; even attention hogging players won't want to pile in if they have to justify it, and you can always regretfully announce that their suggestion isn't compelling enough.

Mind you, I often don't make players roll. One character in my group is a Dwarven Monk (which we reskinned to be a pugilist, in my Norse-themed setting). His backstory is that he grew up in the wilds, and wandered around the setting for a long time, before entering into the service of Heimdall and getting his magical abilities (i.e. the Monk class features). So when he asks me, "Do I know where that town is?", very often I'll simply say, "Do you think that your guy would?" Sometimes he thinks so, sometimes he thinks not. You can replicate this with anything, really; if you feel that the Cleric should be the one to know about the religious artifact, then just let him/her succeed without a roll! That way you guarantee the required result, and when you show why the player didn't need to roll, they tend to find it just as satisfying. With good players this system works very nicely: it allows you to let the right player shine, you keep the game moving along, and you don't need to worry about attention-hog players dragging the spotlight away, since you can select other players to receive the limelight.

 

[iserith]

What would have happened if the players decided to claim their rights to all try a roll of any knowledge each time?

Players don't get to decide when they are making an ability check. That is solely for the DM to decide. After a player has described what he or she wants to do, the DM must narrate the outcome of the adventurer's actions unless it has an uncertain outcome in the eyes of the DM. In this case, that's when the DM asks for an ability check and assigns a DC based on the player's stated goal and approach and its efficacy relative to the situation. Based on the result of the ability check, the DM can narrate success, success at a cost, progress combined with a setback, or failure.

If a player says, "I want to make a Religion check," I think the best response is "Tell me what you're trying to do by describing your goal and approach, then I'll tell you if you need to make a check or not." The smart play for players is to avoid making ability checks and to do things that are likely to be successful without a check.

 

[Quickleaf]

Group checks with half succeeding meaning success are a bit wonky - in those situations, the more skilled character has a better chance without help.

In cases of, say, climbing or sneaking, that works fine. The skilled characters are helping the non-skilled ones, and the non-skilled ones might still give them away or fail to climb something. In knowledge checks, though, it's not quite as elegant; I guess it could mean that the expert becomes confused by the nonsense his friends are speaking.

The only times I've used group knowledge checks was for a complex situation where none of the PCs could be considered an authority on the topic and their collective knowledge was a "everyone is holding one part of the elephant in a dark room, but nobody realizes it's an elephant" scenario. In that scenario it worked well, but personally I wouldn't use group knowledge checks for standard "where do orcs come from?" sorts of inquiries.

 

[delericho]

Players don't get to decide when they are making an ability check. That is solely for the DM to decide. After a player has described what he or she wants to do, the DM must narrate the outcome of the adventurer's actions unless it has an uncertain outcome in the eyes of the DM. In this case, that's when the DM asks for an ability check and assigns a DC based on the player's stated goal and approach and its efficacy relative to the situation.

That's all well and good, but very often it's obvious not just that there is need for a check but also what type of check is called for. In such cases, I'd be just as happy for the player to jump straight to "I want to make a Religion check" (and, indeed, just rolling the die and telling me the result) as to go through the "What do I know about this icon we've found"/"Okay, roll a Religion check"/"17" cycle each time. It's just more efficient.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think the group check is perfect. Let contribution be voluntary. If a roll is happening, it's in doubt whether anyone in the group knows the answer - which probably means that no one is certain of the answer even if they do know it. If you choose to roll, you're contributing to the discussion. It seems fine to me that the guy with a high int and a trained skill is getting distracted by a bunch of idiots babbling like they know something. They should have the sense to shut up, and he should have the sense to ignore them... but that means pre-emptively deciding to take the word of the expert (ie - he's the only guy rolling).

 

[iserith]

That's all well and good, but very often it's obvious not just that there is need for a check but also what type of check is called for. In such cases, I'd be just as happy for the player to jump straight to "I want to make a Religion check" (and, indeed, just rolling the die and telling me the result) as to go through the "What do I know about this icon we've found"/"Okay, roll a Religion check"/"17" cycle each time. It's just more efficient.

As a player, I would never do that. I would say "Drawing upon my time as a cloistered cleric, I examine the icon we've found and see if it has any religious significance." Then I'd wait for the DM to respond. The smart play is to avoid making ability checks and shoot for success. I certainly wouldn't want to assume I have to make one or to ask to make one. That's the same as saying, "Hey, DM, I definitely want a chance to fail at this." No thanks!

 

[Li Shenron]

If I have to choose between only attempting things my PC is skilled in, ala 3e, or having everybody able to try everything - I prefer everyone be able to try everything.

Keep in mind that this problem applies only to some skills.

Personally I have the feeling that most of the time when gamers are supporting the 'can try everything' idea, they first think of physical task which of course, if they can be attempted by a real person, they should also be tried by an imaginary character.

But there is nothing wrong is having some skills work like e.g. spells and special abilities: everybody understands that 'can try everything' doesn't translate to allowing someone playing a Fighter to cast Magic Missile, or a Wizard cast Wish at 1st level because 'at least I want to try' (i.e. I want a chance to succeed).

Skills are complicated because they cover a HUGE range of different things, so it's not wrong to have some work differently.

In cases of, say, climbing or sneaking, that works fine. The skilled characters are helping the non-skilled ones, and the non-skilled ones might still give them away or fail to climb something. In knowledge checks, though, it's not quite as elegant; I guess it could mean that the expert becomes confused by the nonsense his friends are speaking.

I think the same, the group check rules worked perfectly for us when the whole group was sneaking around the dungeon, but they are not necessarily good for all skills.

Players don't get to decide when they are making an ability check. That is solely for the DM to decide. After a player has described what he or she wants to do, the DM must narrate the outcome of the adventurer's actions unless it has an uncertain outcome in the eyes of the DM. In this case, that's when the DM asks for an ability check and assigns a DC based on the player's stated goal and approach and its efficacy relative to the situation. Based on the result of the ability check, the DM can narrate success, success at a cost, progress combined with a setback, or failure.

If a player says, "I want to make a Religion check," I think the best response is "Tell me what you're trying to do by describing your goal and approach, then I'll tell you if you need to make a check or not." The smart play for players is to avoid making ability checks and to do things that are likely to be successful without a check.

(Emphasis mine) That's a very good point... It might sound a bit too harsh to some players however, but if the books specifically say so, it could be enough to convince even a non-cooperative player.

 

[iserith]

(Emphasis mine) That's a very good point... It might sound a bit too harsh to some players however, but if the books specifically say so, it could be enough to convince even a non-cooperative player.

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. So instead, put forth your best idea based on your understanding of the situation, describe it clearly and what you hope to accomplish, then wait for the DM to respond. Your character's stats and proficiencies are effectively a backup in case the DM doesn't think your idea will certainly get the job done.

 

[Minigiant]

Typically I see a bit of both. Players straight up claiming stuff and waiting for the DM to stop them or Players claiming outlandish things and rolling automatically since they doubt the DM will just let them. However at my table, we tend to "time out" and plan who rolls, who helps, and who acts as auxiliary.

Cleric: The murder dropped this religious pendant in the struggle, you say? As a cleric, I probably know with deity it relates to and that will tell us where to look. So which deity?
DM: Roll Intelligence for it.
Cleric: Time out. I'm rolling as I have the highest mod for religion.
Rogue: I'll help you.
Paladin: I'll roll too in case you roll double 3s again.
Cleric: Shut up.
Wizard: What did the pendant look like again?
DM: It's a dagger with a jagged edge on a bronze plated disc. There is a faint imprinting of a hand on it.
Wizard: I'm going to roll History to recall any history of that image and narrow down the guessing. 16.
DM: Ummm... You recall the Jagged Edge Alliance of the Age of Conquest.
Cleric: Age of Conquest, eh? Then all modern religious imagery wouldn't apply. That would make it easier... right?
DM: Somewhat. You know its not a newer symbol. (I'll drop the DC)
Cleric: 10 and 18
Paladin: 11
DM: The cleric notices that the old symbol is of Vultura, the goddess of scavengers, peddlers, and street folk from back when the empire was strongest.
Paladin: Guess we're going to that part of town.

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

I find that most knowledge checks come from a player wanting to know more about something that is of personal interest to their character. What interests one character may not interest another so the piling on checks never really happen. For example in one of our games we had stumbled upon an alchemy lab. I was playing a wizard who is interested in such things so I went to investigate. Meanwhile the fighter, cleric and rogue were exploring other rooms. They never felt the need to chime in when I rolled a bit less than average on my arcana check simply because they felt their characters wouldn't be concerned enough about it. A similar situation occurred when our rogue failed a history check on a piece of treasure. I would have a higher bonus but I didn't join in because my character was interested in something else.

In most of my games I have found that knowledge gained that is necessary to proceed (like analyzing clues in the murder mystery example) can be gained in other ways as well. Most DMs have figured out that its not much fun if the adventure comes to a standstill because of a failed check so they build in an NPC who can lead the PCs in the right direction as a safety net. Because of this, we often don't feel the need to pile onto knowledge checks.

This is of course just my experience and YMMV based on DM and playstyle.