Aldarc
Legend
So 5e simply gets it wrong, then. Not the first time a mistake's been made at the design level.![]()

So 5e simply gets it wrong, then. Not the first time a mistake's been made at the design level.![]()
It doesn’t leave those circumstances out at all. It instructs the DM to narrate success in those circumstances.I think what @Lanefan is (correctly) pointing out is that the default 5e adjudication guidance leaves out circumstances where not succeeding just continues the status quo but succeeding changes it in your favor. Ie, situations wherein there is a consequences to success, but the consequence to failure is simply nothing changing.
A game’s rules can’t be wrong. They are by definition the right rules for that game. They might be the wrong rules for a different game, but that’s hardly an issue. They might be rules you dislike, in which case you might want to play a different game. They might even be rules that don’t serve their intended purpose well. As the only one of the two of us who has played D&D 5e by its own rules, I can tell you they do serve their intended purpose very well indeed.So 5e simply gets it wrong, then. Not the first time a mistake's been made at the design level.![]()
It does, yes. No good reason not to when failure doesn’t have any consequence. The alternative is just wasting everyone’s time.Which as written, if there's no consequence for failure, just either a) hands success over uncontested
Heck off. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s without value.Garbage design.
Frankly, I don’t care if you have a problem with it. You don’t even play 5e.And fixable by just a few additional words. If your line above read "You don't call for a roll unless there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for one or both of failure or success." I'd have no problem with it.
Because unless you want to end up with take-20 in everything but name (i.e. a binary yes or no as to whether your peak skill can beat this lock) there has to be some doubt as to whether your capabilities here, now, today, vs. this lock, are enough.Why is it "garbage design?" If there's no uncertain outcome and/or meaningful consequence for failure, why not just narrate the result and move along? "Seeing as picking the lock is within your capabilities and there is no danger, risk, or time pressure at play, you succeed after X minutes. The door is now unlocked. What do you do?"
In your eyes perhaps. Which makes sense in one regard: from your general body of posts it seems you prefer a less challenging and-or frustrating game in general.A game’s rules can’t be wrong. They are by definition the right rules for that game. They might be the wrong rules for a different game, but that’s hardly an issue. They might be rules you dislike, in which case you might want to play a different game. They might even be rules that don’t serve their intended purpose well. As the only one of the two of us who has played D&D 5e by its own rules, I can tell you they do serve their intended purpose very well indeed.
Is it, though? Is asking the players to think of a different approach because this one accomplished nothing really a waste of time?It does, yes. No good reason not to when failure doesn’t have any consequence. The alternative is just wasting everyone’s time.
Even if success isn't certain; and that's the core of the problem here.It doesn’t leave those circumstances out at all. It instructs the DM to narrate success in those circumstances.
I'm still not seeing the issue. You criticized how D&D 5e handles it, then criticized "Take-20," but so far as I can tell haven't given any explanations as to why this is "garbage design." Given enough time and the willingness to retry, then "your capabilities here, now, today, vs. this lock" are irrelevant. Just keep trying until you succeed. Charge the PCs the time they spend on it and move on. If, however, there is a meaningful consequence for failure - you make noise and a wandering monster shows up, your lockpicks are damaged, you set off a trap on the doorknob, whatever - then "your capabilities here, now, today, vs. this lock" are relevant because failure carries weight other than time spent and thus a roll is appropriate.Because unless you want to end up with take-20 in everything but name (i.e. a binary yes or no as to whether your peak skill can beat this lock) there has to be some doubt as to whether your capabilities here, now, today, vs. this lock, are enough.
In other words: "Seeing as it seems you've got as long as you need, let's see if you're up to getting through this. Roll the die."
Less challenging? No. Less frustrating? Yes. More efficient (as in, get more done in the time spent playing)? Absolutely.In your eyes perhaps. Which makes sense in one regard: from your general body of posts it seems you prefer a less challenging and-or frustrating game in general.
When there’s no consequence for failure, yes, it is.Is it, though? Is asking the players to think of a different approach because this one accomplished nothing really a waste of time?
I sure hope not.
I see that, it’s just not a problem. And we’ve been at an impasse from the jump here.Even if success isn't certain; and that's the core of the problem here.
If you can't or won't see that, we're at an impasse.