Assumed Success for Things Other Than Physical and Magical Actions

[doctorbadwolf]

So, what do I mean by assumed success?

Well, a lot of spellcasters have cantrips that let them just light candles, slam windows open or closed, flavor food, stuff like that, and so a lot of games end up just sort of letting those spellcasters improvise stuff that doesn't really matter. You just do it, no roll comes into it.

Then with physical actions, it is gated by how skilled you are, but the same effect comes about. You kip up the wall, knock an unaware nystander out of the way, sprint full speed down a market street without injury, not to mention the stuff that 5e bakes in like jumping a certain distance without a check*, etc.

But it doesn't seem nearly as often to apply to social actions, for some reason. I've seen fairly routine bribes require a persuasion check from an expert in persuasion with high cha, which seems just as unlikely to fail to me as the athlete failing to long jump a few feat.

Anyone have thoughts as to why this is? Do you often bypass rolling in social challenges when failure is very unlikely?

What sorts of things for the different social skills would you say should just be assumed success if you're trained, and if you are an expert?



*I actually really like the idea in the UA for 1DND, where you can jump over small obstacles as part of moving, but to really put everything into a jump you have to use the Jump action. I'd just say that the 1DND Rogue should be able to use those actions with cunning action, unless they plan on giving a similar ability to fighters that covers things not covered by cunning action, like jumping, climbing, swimming, lifting things, etc. That would be a really cool boost to fighters out of combat.

 

[aco175]

I'm wondering if it should be a class thing or based on it one is trained in a skill. For instance, should a rogue be able to bribe well being a rogue with thieves' cant or should he be trained in deception or intimidate? Would the fighter who is trained in intimidate be allowed as well, or it is something extra?

My first thought is that is should be tied to a class even though 5e tries to allow backgrounds and such to make classes more blurred.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm wondering if it should be a class thing or based on it one is trained in a skill. For instance, should a rogue be able to bribe well being a rogue with thieves' cant or should he be trained in deception or intimidate? Would the fighter who is trained in intimidate be allowed as well, or it is something extra?

My first thought is that is should be tied to a class even though 5e tries to allow backgrounds and such to make classes more blurred.

My inclination is to bake flavor and lore deep into classes, so I’m all for making it a class thing.

Fighters also need more boosts to skill use IMO.

 

[Tun Kai Poh]

GUMSHOE games like Trail of Cthulhu and Night's Black Agents assume a high level of competence for any investigative ability, which could be social things like Flattery, Intimidation and Negotiation. If you have any points in the relevant ability, and an NPC  can yield information (a clue) that is relevant to the session, you automatically succeed in getting it by using that ability. Plus, spending points in the ability give you additional benefits (tactical benefits or just bonus information, as if you rolled a critical success in another system).

Investigative abilities also cover a lot of other things like scientific knowledge or technical knowledge. The system is really flexible and creates very competent PCs!

 

[Lilcamper]

Well, many RPGs have rules for when you don't need, or even shouldn't be rolling for minor things. Free League's Alien RPG explicity tells us to only roll when there is something in stake, not for minor things that we take for almost granted.
EABA has two neat rules for this - it uses a pool of d6 for rolls, and when your skill is high enough that you can succeed when rolling 2 in all dice, you don't need to roll at all. Also, on contested rolls, if you have a difference of 2d+ higher than your "target", he is considered outmatched, so you automatically wins (of course, you can still roll if you want to increase your margin of success).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So, what do I mean by assumed success?

Well, a lot of spellcasters have cantrips that let them just light candles, slam windows open or closed, flavor food, stuff like that, and so a lot of games end up just sort of letting those spellcasters improvise stuff that doesn't really matter. You just do it, no roll comes into it.

Then with physical actions, it is gated by how skilled you are, but the same effect comes about. You kip up the wall, knock an unaware nystander out of the way, sprint full speed down a market street without injury, not to mention the stuff that 5e bakes in like jumping a certain distance without a check*, etc.

But it doesn't seem nearly as often to apply to social actions, for some reason. I've seen fairly routine bribes require a persuasion check from an expert in persuasion with high cha, which seems just as unlikely to fail to me as the athlete failing to long jump a few feat.

Anyone have thoughts as to why this is? Do you often bypass rolling in social challenges when failure is very unlikely?

What sorts of things for the different social skills would you say should just be assumed success if you're trained, and if you are an expert?



*I actually really like the idea in the UA for 1DND, where you can jump over small obstacles as part of moving, but to really put everything into a jump you have to use the Jump action. I'd just say that the 1DND Rogue should be able to use those actions with cunning action, unless they plan on giving a similar ability to fighters that covers things not covered by cunning action, like jumping, climbing, swimming, lifting things, etc. That would be a really cool boost to fighters out of combat.

Most games (including D&D to some extent) have a don't roll if nothing's at stake approach and I generally follow that.

One of the greatest crimes a DM can commit, imho as a DM of 34 years, is making people roll too much. That's particularly the case with social stuff. I've played with a DM who basically made you roll Persuasion with like every sentence, and it was terrible, because it just means you gain nothing with any roll except the opportunity to continue rolling. That might be appropriate for some deadly-tense, sword-in-your-face situation, but he used it for like, basically talking to someone over breakfast. Eventually we got him to make us roll less, but only by pointing out the odds got worse every roll and that he was making us roll Persuasion when we weren't even trying to persuade anyone of anything!

I totally agree re: your bribe example and I think it shows a weird flaw that often comes up with D&D because because of the way a lot of DMs think about the game. Obviously, bribing people in a medieval environment would be pretty routine. Persuasion wouldn't even really be needed unless the bribe exposed the bribee to significant risk. But some DMs have this sort of deal where either they have your RP most social stuff and barely roll (which is fine), OR they want you to roll, roll, roll even for minor stuff.

Take 10/20 solved this pretty well in 3E, I notice, really shoring up an otherwise-dodgy skill system.

5E/1D&D could really do with a similar mechanic - the closest we have is Rogues and Eloquence Bards being able to essentially get a minimum of 10 (on the roll, before mods) with certain skills, but I feel like that should be much expanded and come in at a lower level. Fighters could get it with Athletics, Clerics with Religion, Rangers with Survival, Bards with Persuasion/Performance, and so on.

That alone would cause a lot of rethinking of unnecessary demands for rolls.

 

[RivetGeekWil]

I mean, if the outcome of an action isn't uncertain or dangerous, I tell the player they do it. It doesn't matter what "type" of action it is. I also don't play D&D, so I have no idea how that meshes with the mechanics but from my experience with Basic way back in the day I'd hazard a guess it's just fine.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I mean, if the outcome of an action isn't uncertain or dangerous, I tell the player they do it. It doesn't matter what "type" of action it is. I also don't play D&D, so I have no idea how that meshes with the mechanics but from my experience with Basic way back in the day I'd hazard a guess it's just fine.

So I seem to have been unclear on a rather important point.

That is, only part of the question here pertains to running the game, ie DM behaviors. The other, perhaps more important, side, is about actual game mechanics which simply allow the player to assume success.

These features very rarely touch on the “interaction” pillar of D&D. You can jump [strength score] feat as part of moving. You can light your pipe with magic.

You can only “just bribe the guard” if the DM decides you can.

 

[RivetGeekWil]

So I seem to have been unclear on a rather important point.

That is, only part of the question here pertains to running the game, ie DM behaviors. The other, perhaps more important, side, is about actual game mechanics which simply allow the player to assume success.

These features very rarely touch on the “interaction” pillar of D&D. You can jump [strength score] feat as part of moving. You can light your pipe with magic.

You can only “just bribe the guard” if the DM decides you can.

Most narrative or fiction first games will have some mechanics that do this. For example, the Slide playbook in Blades in the Dark has a special ability that lets the character know when they're being lied to. Always. There are several other special abilities that allow the character to take stress and just do a thing. Cortex Prime, Fate, etc. can have similar via SFX or stunts. Sure, you have to take that ability to do that thing and it's not baked into the core mechanics but at the same time the GM can't say no. You pay the stress or the plot point or whatever, and it happens.

 

[payn]

So, what do I mean by assumed success?

Well, a lot of spellcasters have cantrips that let them just light candles, slam windows open or closed, flavor food, stuff like that, and so a lot of games end up just sort of letting those spellcasters improvise stuff that doesn't really matter. You just do it, no roll comes into it.

Then with physical actions, it is gated by how skilled you are, but the same effect comes about. You kip up the wall, knock an unaware nystander out of the way, sprint full speed down a market street without injury, not to mention the stuff that 5e bakes in like jumping a certain distance without a check*, etc.

But it doesn't seem nearly as often to apply to social actions, for some reason. I've seen fairly routine bribes require a persuasion check from an expert in persuasion with high cha, which seems just as unlikely to fail to me as the athlete failing to long jump a few feat.

Anyone have thoughts as to why this is? Do you often bypass rolling in social challenges when failure is very unlikely?

What sorts of things for the different social skills would you say should just be assumed success if you're trained, and if you are an expert?

In Traveller, I play with the SOC attribute a lot. A high and low score actually will effect the situation you are in. For example someone of low SOC might actually fit in better in a blue collar Starport station. Gathering info might be pretty easy for them because they feel more at home. Take that same low SOC score and put them in an administrator's gala and suddenly all those benefits vanish and they need to rely on their skills.

Looking at some other games like cyberpunk, Bladerunner, Android, etc.. I often lean on the same idea above. No character has bad social skills everywhere, but some are adept at working all rooms. If a player invests in social skills, I try and increase the ease and auto success of that investment.

In D&D I try to emulate the above, but it often doesn't work out great. Folks seem to just want to get to the killing and social aspects of the game are expected to be short and sweet. YMMV.