• Resources are back! Use the menu in the main navbar. If you own a resource, please check it for formatting, icons, etc.

How do you handle insight?

Hussar

Legend
Huh?

Never once have I said there are no jerks at the table. What I say repeatedly is that jerk-proof rules are not the way to deal with it.
I'd point out that no matter what, @Charlaquin woud be very unhappy at @jasper's table. Not because anyone is a jerk, but, because they are approaching the game from very, very different perspectives. It doesn't have anything to do with jerk proofing the game, despite @jasper's somewhat tongue in cheek example. But, that example did achieve the goal of defining what each person wants from the game, so, I'd call that a success.
 
Briggs should not have rolled at all. The DM should have just told him that he doesn't find any traps.

Rolling should only happen if the outcome is in doubt (there are meaningful consequences for failure, and it is interesting). If a 19 doesn't do it, it doesn't sound like the outcome was in doubt.

It sucks to roll high and have nothing happen. No one has fun.
19 was a total result, not the number that was on the dice.
 

ad_hoc

Adventurer
I don't know, I did not ask the player.
But Briggs could have just check again until rolling high right?

If that is the case why not just have Briggs succeed instead of grinding the game to a halt to make inconsequential rolls.

From what I've been reading on message boards people call for far too many ability checks in their games.
 
But Briggs could have just check again until rolling high right?

If that is the case why not just have Briggs succeed instead of grinding the game to a halt to make inconsequential rolls.

From what I've been reading on message boards people call for far too many ability checks in their games.
The game that I'm running doesn't use ability checks to resolve skill rolls. There is a specific mechanic for trying things over and over again until success. The player chose not to use that mechanic.
 

Ovinomancer

Flip Nazi
The game that I'm running doesn't use ability checks to resolve skill rolls. There is a specific mechanic for trying things over and over again until success. The player chose not to use that mechanic.
What are using other than ability checks?

If you run table rules, it's helpful to identify them when discussing topics tgat said rule alter.
 

5ekyu

Adventurer
Why didn't Briggs just check for traps again?
Perhaps Briggs thought that checking for traps has a chance to set off traps (but not a guarantee) and decided the odds were not in his favor on the second roll?

Perhaps the first attempt took up time and they shifted priorities to the quicker bash option?

There are lotsa potential reasons.

As for a meaningful consequence of failure, I cannot imagine a failed check for traps that wouldn't have a meaningful consequence for failure - given the setback option. "GOOD news - there is jo trap mechanism you can disarm from the outside. BAD news, there are signs of a trap you cannot get to, based on some retouching of the exterior to cover up prior cases of it going off. Possibly it was a blast thing, but it seems similar to something you were shown once."
 
What are using other than ability checks?

If you run table rules, it's helpful to identify them when discussing topics tgat said rule alter.
I am running a different edition of D&D. I use a variety of house rules, but they do not impact whether or not a player might choose to retry a skill check.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
It's really up to the DM how to handle retries. If there is no time constraint and the trap isn't going to blow up on a bad roll, it just happens. I might ask for a d20 roll just to clarify how long it takes so on a 1 may take an hour to disable a trap.

This is one of those cases where I wouldn't ask for a roll (or allow a second roll if it's player initiated) unless there's a setback on failure. The setback could be anything from damaging the trap in such a way as to raise the DC, potentially making it impossible to disable to accidentally triggering the trap. My own house rule is that there's a complication if you miss by 10 or more.
 

5ekyu

Adventurer
But Briggs could have just check again until rolling high right?

If that is the case why not just have Briggs succeed instead of grinding the game to a halt to make inconsequential rolls.

From what I've been reading on message boards people call for far too many ability checks in their games.
Without getting into the house rules of whstever system was being used, from a 5e perspective, a roll for checking traps like that situation does not by any means have to be inconsequential. Setbacks can occur on any failed ability check.

To me, it is rare for a case like this that I would not allow a roll on the initial effort and then see what comes out of it.
 

5ekyu

Adventurer
It's really up to the DM how to handle retries. If there is no time constraint and the trap isn't going to blow up on a bad roll, it just happens. I might ask for a d20 roll just to clarify how long it takes so on a 1 may take an hour to disable a trap.

This is one of those cases where I wouldn't ask for a roll (or allow a second roll if it's player initiated) unless there's a setback on failure. The setback could be anything from damaging the trap in such a way as to raise the DC, potentially making it impossible to disable to accidentally triggering the trap. My own house rule is that there's a complication if you miss by 10 or more.
Sounds about right - my traps go off is usually around fail bg 5 or more. 5 or more seems to be used quite a bit thru 5e. But it does vary.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
I'd point out that no matter what, @Charlaquin woud be very unhappy at @jasper's table. Not because anyone is a jerk, but, because they are approaching the game from very, very different perspectives. It doesn't have anything to do with jerk proofing the game, despite @jasper's somewhat tongue in cheek example. But, that example did achieve the goal of defining what each person wants from the game, so, I'd call that a success.
Yeah, I agree. The example, while hyperbolic, very effectively demonstrated the fundamental incompatibility between jasper’s play style preference and my own. So, it did its job well.
 

Elfcrusher

Adventurer
Yeah, I agree. The example, while hyperbolic, very effectively demonstrated the fundamental incompatibility between jasper’s play style preference and my own. So, it did its job well.
Ok. When reasonable people think I'm being unreasonable, I'll back up and reconsider.

I thought jasper was using examples of jerky but unrealistic behavior to discredit a playstyle via parade-of-horribles reasoning (that is, quod jerkus demonstrandum), but maybe his examples are both realistic and...simply another playstyle, not necessarily jerky.
 

jasper

Rotten DM
Ok. When reasonable people think I'm being unreasonable, I'll back up and reconsider.

I thought jasper was using examples of jerky but unrealistic behavior to discredit a playstyle via parade-of-horribles reasoning (that is, quod jerkus demonstrandum), but maybe his examples are both realistic and...simply another playstyle, not necessarily jerky.
This is correct. Some history. I have played with many jerks, some jerky dms and some jerky players. Why? I was stupid and wanted to play the game regardless of how bad the play was. Or social contract of the group had us tolerating spouses/etc of regular players. Most of my examples are base on real life experience. But I do kick up the response to 11. EX. I did have a player roll and fail bad enough to trigger a trap recently (last month), he got mad when I describe his hand get stuck with the poison needle. So I replied some thing to effect, You failed, please let me describe some fiction to the table, and here is your damage.
Now my play style is . It is a game. Dice generally rule. I also do only Adventure League due to. 1.Life would not let the regular group play on a regular schedule. 2. Playing AL I am not as invested in the monsters or modules as much as if was homebrew. 3.The game store is a neutral location.
I do love it when I get I get a role player and I try to promote that. But I have a lot of ROLL players (various reasons), so just rolling dice has become an acceptable mode of play.
Furthermore I do have reading and writing comprehension issues. Boss describes as brain with auto fill wandering down blind alleys and the light at the end is a train.
 

Elfcrusher

Adventurer
I was stupid and wanted to play the game regardless of how bad the play was.
I used to do the same thing with climbing partners. I wanted to climb so bad I would just hang out at trailheads and ask anybody with a rope, "Need a partner?"

Same idea; higher consequences. :-/
 

jasper

Rotten DM
I used to do the same thing with climbing partners. I wanted to climb so bad I would just hang out at trailheads and ask anybody with a rope, "Need a partner?"

Same idea; higher consequences. :-/
DON'T DO JASPER. DON'T DO IT. BUT I MUST.
Jasper asks innocently, " So did they leave you hanging?"
Jasper dives under the table.
"Hmm higher consequences" Jasper sticks his head out.
"How did you WEED them out?"
Ducks under the table.
 

Advertisement

Top