D&D 5E I reject your reality and substitute my own!

[Oofta]

No, it's pretty clear in what it says. Arguing it's ambiguous is an interesting take. I mean, you have the option to point out that it's one of three ways the DMG presents, and that's pretty good. Or your starting point that it's just advice, do what you want -- that works, too. But arguing that it's ambiguous when the text says don't call for a check if there's no consequence for failure? Hard sell, man. You need to do work to read that as "I want my players to be uncertain and that's a consequence, so I can just use that."

No it's not. Their character does the thing and succeeds. What agency was taken away? You're assuming that, by not asking for a roll, I'm preventing the action from happening? Why assume this? Instead, the character searches, and finds no evidence of traps. They take as much time as is needed. No agency is removed here, unless you're mistaking agency with "get to roll dice just because."

Uhuh, me either. The player has their character check for traps -- this happens. Then, because there's no consequence for failure, they succeed in time to their satisfaction.

I mean, how many times is it necessary to reiterate this? You've spent years arguing this exact point despite how often it's explained that there is no consequence for failure. You imagine that it takes time, and that this is a consequence. I agree -- if taking time is a problem, then there is a check because there is a consequence. However, in many cases, the time taken to check for traps is not relevant to consequence, so that's not a problem. I also don't view uncertainty as a consequence, especially if the uncertainty is actually caused by the check. The check should not be generating fiction by itself, it should resolve fiction. A competent character is going to check for traps competently, so if they can't possibly get a bad outcome, why am I wasting everyone's time pretending that they could. Instead, I assume the character performs competently, or that any mistakes made don't do anything because there's nothing there to do.

Honestly, the approach that says you need to make a check because the players shouldn't know things is because the GM doesn't have confidence that their game can be interesting without manufactured uncertainty -- that generating uncertainty enhances the challenge or immersion of the game. I used to think this, too. But, I've found out that I can provide loads of challenge, and get better buy-in from players if I'm not playing silly games like "you're not sure because you rolled low, even though there's nothing there." Heck, I usually make traps noticed straight off (again, competent characters) and make finding out what the trap is/does/is triggered by the point of interest and execution.

Also, I tend to find the objection that rolling prevents metagaming to be farcical -- an inconclusive result on a roll (whether from a secret roll or a roll in the open seen to be low) that only results in uncertainty is guaranteed to result in metagaming -- either by the player declaring actions to double check something that should have already resolved or by the player choosing to ignore what they know and making a choice they know is probably poor but feeling like they have to do the that because of metagaming (in effect metagaming anyway). It's an unvirtuous circle.

All of that to say "I disagree?"

Well, I think that it's just general (good) advice but advice that is taken out of context. Feel free to disagree.

 

[Steampunkette]

Mirage Arcana is, clearly, the only spell which matters, here.

It straight up reinvents the world as you see fit. Complete with tactile functions. Oh. We need a wall to protect our flank? BAM. A wall exists. Oh, the swamp is too difficult to pass through? POW! It is now a clear road. No saving throw. No Magic Resistance. The entire freaking world just CHANGES and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

And even though creatures with Truesight can -see- through the illusion it remains a tactile obstacle. Difficult terrain you invent is still difficult for them. Walls are still walls. Nothing in the 1 mile radius is anything but True according to -your- whims. Use a Mirage Arcana to add a door to a wall and walk right through it. Make the sun shine. Create a giant dome which the Tarrasque is now trapped within. You wanna live in a GORGEUS Palace but don't wanna pay to build it? WHAPOW! Just have to cast this spell once every 10 days to keep it standing.

Oh. Did you want more than one square mile of perfectly designed palace and grounds with no need for anyone to tend the garden? Cast it again. Cast it again. Cast it again. Just straight up do it because there's no limit to how many active copies you can have active at a time. You're only limited by your spell slots and a 10 day cycle of recasting. Make it 9 days and none of them ever end.

4 per day, 9 days, that's 36 square miles at level 20 that you can have perfect and beautiful to your express liking. That would be 7 Waterdeeps worth of terrain where you decide the location of every road, tree, building, etc. You decide how it smells, what it's made out of, how it feels, everything.

You can make this:

Into This:

Presto Change-o.


Mirage Arcana. The greatest "I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

Spoiler: Loki Spoilers

 

[iserith]

@iserith From your experience, it hasn't mattered much, right?

No, doesn't matter at all in my experience. Player knowledge is at best unreliable and the DM is well-advised to adjudicate in ways (e.g. progress combined with a setback) that doesn't unnecessarily create a gap between player and character knowledge, if this is something they care about.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And we are role playing. Characters play a role in a story. There is a difference between what a player knows and what their character knows. The player should run their character as if they searched for a trap and did not find one - in both circumstances. They should behave the same way (all other things being the same).

Which requires metagaming. If there's a difference in thinking, it's considered. The Troll example comes up, here -- how long do I have to pretend to not know I need to use fire before I can do it? A new player can go straight to fire -- they don't know, but they can do this and it's not a problem. If a veteran player does this, the metagame argument shows up. So, the veteran player is expected to distort the play space by intentionally avoiding fire because they know it's the right answer. So, metagaming occurs.

Rolling dice and saying "you don't know" when there's an obvious failure on the die directly causes metagaming problems. You can skip this by not doing this and actually applying a consequence on a failure that resolves the question.

 

[Ovinomancer]

All of that to say "I disagree?"

Well, I think that it's just general (good) advice but advice that is taken out of context. Feel free to disagree.

Yes, my correction of you mistaken assertions about my play is just disagreeing, because you have as valid a claim to the factual nature of how I play so it's in the realm of opinion?

lol. I'm genuinely amused by this rhetorical trick.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which requires metagaming. If there's a difference in thinking, it's considered. The Troll example comes up, here -- how long do I have to pretend to not know I need to use fire before I can do it? A new player can go straight to fire -- they don't know, but they can do this and it's not a problem. If a veteran player does this, the metagame argument shows up. So, the veteran player is expected to distort the play space by intentionally avoiding fire because they know it's the right answer. So, metagaming occurs.

Rolling dice and saying "you don't know" when there's an obvious failure on the die directly causes metagaming problems. You can skip this by not doing this and actually applying a consequence on a failure that resolves the question.

You don't say "you don't know". You say, "you didn't find anything".

 

[Swarmkeeper]

You don't say "you don't know". You say, "you didn't find anything".

“You don’t know”, “you didn’t find anything”, “nothing happens”…

These are all in the same category of non-meaningful consequences. Without meaningful consequences. the die roll should never happen for a 5e ability check.

 

[Micah Sweet]

“You don’t know”, “you didn’t find anything”, “nothing happens”…

These are all in the same category of non-meaningful consequences. Without meaningful consequences. the die roll should never happen for a 5e ability check.

I see what you're saying, but that feels too story game for me. If someone trys to do something, that seems to them to have an uncertain outcome, they should roll for it.

 

[Flamestrike]

Both rolling and not rolling lead to metagaming. Unless the outcome is immediately obvious, a PC isn't necessarily aware of the outcome of a check. Only the player knows they rolled a 2, not the character.

Yes, but if I only ever asked for checks when the chest is trapped, the player knows the roll indicates 'trapped chest' regardless of the result of the check.

When he rolls low, he then refuses to open the chest because he knows the chest is trapped even though he failed the check to determine if he knows the chest is trapped. Which is textbook metagaming.

Most DMs sidestep this by rolling for the player in secret, or by calling for checks when there is nothing to actually be found.

 

[iserith]

Yes, but if I only ever asked for checks when the chest is trapped, the player knows the roll indicates 'trapped chest' regardless of the result of the check.

When he rolls low, he then refuses to open the chest because he knows the chest is trapped even though he failed the check to determine if he knows the chest is trapped. Which is textbook metagaming.

Most DMs sidestep this by rolling for the player in secret, or by calling for checks when there is nothing to actually be found.

Just narrate progress combined with a setback after a failed check - "Yep, you find a trap alright, and that clicking noise is a clear sign that it has been set in motion - what do you do?"

The stage is set for "metagaming" often because of how the DM adjudicates. If the DM doesn't do that, there will be less of it (if that's something the group cares about).