D&D 5E Does (or should) the halfling “lucky” ability apply when the DM is making the roll?

[Rya.Reisender]

(Edit: Duplicate. Forum has a hiccup.)

 

[Rya.Reisender]

I'm a little confused by this example because it sounds like they don't know they're lost even though they've failed the check. They only notice they're lost when the landscape doesn't match up with their expectations. That's generally the sort of outcome I'm after, but I don't see how you've gotten there with a transparent navigation check.

The reason you're confused is because you expect your players to want to retrace their steps just because they rolled low on survival and saw the result. In reality, this never happens, players will state what their PCs want to do regardless of what their previous roll result.

I don't tell them they are lost, I just describe what they see. They could guess it, but then again, I vary the consequences from failed results, so my players might think something bad happened but they don't know what that something is. They also don't know the DC, so they could only guess if they failed something.

Also: If you are scared of players always retracing their steps on a failed roll, then just don't make it trivial. Make them roll for that as well. That should be sufficient to discourage them from doing it.

 

[Hriston]

The reason you're confused is because you expect your players to want to retrace their steps just because they rolled low on survival and saw the result. In reality, this never happens, players will state what their PCs want to do regardless of what their previous roll result.

I don't tell them they are lost, I just describe what they see. They could guess it, but then again, I vary the consequences from failed results, so my players might think something bad happened but they don't know what that something is. They also don't know the DC, so they could only guess if they failed something.

Also: If you are scared of players always retracing their steps on a failed roll, then just don't make it trivial. Make them roll for that as well. That should be sufficient to discourage them from doing it.

Oh, well my assumption was that you were advocating for a transparent check with a stated DC and clear conditions following success or failure. Now you're telling me you don't tell your players the DC or even that they've failed the check.

My usual practice in asking a player to roll a check is to state the DC and stakes for the roll. The exception to this is contests, which have stakes but not a DC. Even with a passive check, I'll tell the players what the stakes are ahead of time, but I may not tell them whether they've succeeded or failed a check, which is why I wanted to use passive Survival for navigation. It seems you're already doing this a different way.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

Yes, exactly. I never tell my players the DC or what happens if they win or fail. I honestly treat my players like their PCs. I hardly even narrate anything OOC.

I'm advocating against hiding rolls, though, because that just causes problems (all which you already stated yourself) and is less fun for the players.

 

[5ekyu]

Yes, exactly. I never tell my players the DC or what happens if they win or fail. I honestly treat my players like their PCs. I hardly even narrate anything OOC.

I'm advocating against hiding rolls, though, because that just causes problems (all which you already stated yourself) and is less fun for the players.

If you treat your players like theur PCs and never state DC do you then narratively before the checks are made provide them with some narrative cues/language to how difficult the situation seems to the experienced/skilled character(s)?

For example, does the skilled climbing character get told whether or not they see a climb as easy, as hard or "moderate"? Does the skilked tracker get told whether they see the tracking task as easy, hard or in between? Both cases based on what the characters perceive and their experience, of course.

 

[Hriston]

Yes, exactly. I never tell my players the DC or what happens if they win or fail. I honestly treat my players like their PCs. I hardly even narrate anything OOC.

I'm advocating against hiding rolls, though, because that just causes problems (all which you already stated yourself) and is less fun for the players.

Um, okay. It's just that was never part of my proposal, and I thought the conversation had moved beyond that. What I've been talking about is a passive check. I'm really starting to feel like there has been a lot of talking past each other going on in this conversation. It has helped me organize some of my thoughts on the matter and consider some alternatives, though, so thanks for the productive discussion anyway.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

If you treat your players like theur PCs and never state DC do you then narratively before the checks are made provide them with some narrative cues/language to how difficult the situation seems to the experienced/skilled character(s)?

For example, does the skilled climbing character get told whether or not they see a climb as easy, as hard or "moderate"? Does the skilked tracker get told whether they see the tracking task as easy, hard or in between? Both cases based on what the characters perceive and their experience, of course.

Yes, I definitely do!

 

[Rya.Reisender]

Um, okay. It's just that was never part of my proposal, and I thought the conversation had moved beyond that. What I've been talking about is a passive check. I'm really starting to feel like there has been a lot of talking past each other going on in this conversation. It has helped me organize some of my thoughts on the matter and consider some alternatives, though, so thanks for the productive discussion anyway.

Showing some (in my opinion better) alternatives was the whole point of this discussion. Mission accomplished. ^^y