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

[Mort]

Some players aren't the brightest lol, that is amazing.

A ton of D&D spells pretty much amount to "I reject your reality...", in that they allow the player to dictate the fiction. They might not meet the ultra-strict definition posited by @Ovinomancer but I think they're close enough for me. Wish being the most obvious/powerful in that it can literally change reality.

With wish being a clear exception, 5e seems to have really curtailed the "spells actually completely change reality" aspect of prior editions. As in plenty of them change odds, plenty augment reality, plenty do whacky things like light the world on fire. But rejecting reality is more about looking at the DM and saying "nope, sorry that didn't actually happen..." (IMO and maybe nicer).

Under that definition, I think shield qualifies (kind of and that's really more about, again, changing odds). I guess revivify and raise dead are strong contenders. What other spells?

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's not that rolling behind the screen is not "kosher." it's that hidden rolls have fallen out of favor to rolling out in the open.

I don't think there's anywhere near the data necessary to state this. It's certainly fallen out of favor for me, but that's the best I can say. One of my group is currently running 5e as I take a break due to a break, and they prefer rolling some things "behind the screen" (we play online). So, even in my own group, I couldn't claim this as true, just for myself.

I tend to favor passive checks in such circumstances. If a player doesn't indicate that they are actively searching, I don't have them roll, but a passive investigation check might then be dictated.

If the player expressly engages in behavior that involves searching for traps, then I have them roll whether there is a trap or not. Note, this means under most circumstances the minimum ACTUAL result would be their passive check. I find it silly that they could actively get lower than they could passively (though one could certainly, and easily, justify that in the fiction).

I do neither -- I don't ask for a roll if there's no consequence for failure. To me, this wastes time either trying to confirm the roll or in pointless theatrics assuming I, the GM, am trying to pull something. On the other side, if a roll is made and failed, there's always a consequence -- I don't ever just say "there doesn't seem to be a trap." If you search for a trap and fail, then I might deploy any number of options: the trap goes off (rare); the trap is triggered, but hasn't gone off, so you're in danger and what do you do; you find the trap, but it's worse -- it can't be disarmed from the outside or it's effects are magnified, etc; you spend time searching, and I'm going to make an encounter check now (depends on the game structure, I vary this).

Point is, a failure changes the fiction in a concrete way -- something gets worse. I don't bother with "you don't know."

All that said, even with the lucky feat, this isn't really ALTERING reality, it's finding reality. Unless the player has some way of saying I KNOW there's a trap there and the trap suddenly is there whether or not it read before.

Depending on how you look at it, everything is finding reality (in the fiction).

 

[Ovinomancer]

With wish being a clear exception, 5e seems to have really curtailed the "spells actually completely change reality" aspect of prior editions. As in plenty of them change odds, plenty augment reality, plenty do whacky things like light the world on fire. But rejecting reality is more about looking at the DM and saying "nope, sorry that didn't actually happen..." (IMO and maybe nicer).

Under that definition, I think shield qualifies (kind of and that's really more about, again, changing odds). I guess revivify and raise dead are strong contenders. What other spells?

Dim door.

GM: There's a massive crevasse running across the cavern, it's depths not visible in your light or by darkvision. It's at least 50' wide at it's narrowest point. You see the remains of a rope bridge dangling from the this side, clearly cut at it's base from the other side. You spot your quarry disappearing down the passage on the far sid..."

Player interrupts: Dim door. Next.

 

[MarkB]

Dim door.

GM: There's a massive crevasse running across the cavern, it's depths not visible in your light or by darkvision. It's at least 50' wide at it's narrowest point. You see the remains of a rope bridge dangling from the this side, clearly cut at it's base from the other side. You spot your quarry disappearing down the passage on the far sid..."

Player interrupts: Dim door. Next.

I've been that player. We were starting off a session with an in media res set-up where we were outrunning a horde of giant scorpions to a desert city's gates 500 feet away, having just levelled up. I said to the slowest other character "hey, wanna get out of here?" and teleported to the gates.

Then we got lemonades and waited for the rest of the party to catch up.

 

[Mort]

I don't think there's anywhere near the data necessary to state this. It's certainly fallen out of favor for me, but that's the best I can say. One of my group is currently running 5e as I take a break due to a break, and they prefer rolling some things "behind the screen" (we play online). So, even in my own group, I couldn't claim this as true, just for myself.

I think a better phrasing, on my part, would be to say a vocal outcry for rolling in the open. Can't even say if it's a majority or minority, unsure of the numbers.

I do neither -- I don't ask for a roll if there's no consequence for failure. To me, this wastes time either trying to confirm the roll or in pointless theatrics assuming I, the GM, am trying to pull something. On the other side, if a roll is made and failed, there's always a consequence -- I don't ever just say "there doesn't seem to be a trap." If you search for a trap and fail, then I might deploy any number of options: the trap goes off (rare); the trap is triggered, but hasn't gone off, so you're in danger and what do you do; you find the trap, but it's worse -- it can't be disarmed from the outside or it's effects are magnified, etc; you spend time searching, and I'm going to make an encounter check now (depends on the game structure, I vary this).

Point is, a failure changes the fiction in a concrete way -- something gets worse. I don't bother with "you don't know."

That works

Depending on how you look at it, everything is finding reality (in the fiction).

True. As long as "it was always there" then it was found not created.

 

[Oofta]

When it comes to checks, rolls and uncertainty I call for checks when it's uncertain from the player's perspective.

Saying, no you don't need to detect traps, is too much metagaming for me. You're guaranteed that there is no trap. Same with secret doors, trying to determine the intent of a person you're speaking with, and so on.

It's always funny to me when people try to take the DMG suggestions as hard and fast rules when the DMG repeatedly tells you to run your game your way. To me, it's pretty obvious from the text that there's no need to call for a check when the PC wants "to walk across an empty room or ... order a mug of ale". The context is pretty clear that there is no chance of failure, but there is also no expectation of failure under normal circumstances.

Then again, I don't think the DMG or any other book is a legal document that I must adhere to.

 

[Ovinomancer]

When it comes to checks, rolls and uncertainty I call for checks when it's uncertain from the player's perspective.

Saying, no you don't need to detect traps, is too much metagaming for me. You're guaranteed that there is no trap. Same with secret doors, trying to determine the intent of a person you're speaking with, and so on.

Sigh. This isn't what happens. Instead, the PC searches for traps and is satisfied there are none at the end of it. Since, according to my approach, there is no consequence for time spent or for failure (there is no trap), it's assumed they get it right. If there is a consequence for failure -- time or an actual trap -- then there is a roll. On a failure, a bad thing happens, it's never "you don't know." You know what happened due to the low roll, because something bad just happened. A check should, in my opinion, resolve something about the fiction concretely.

It's always funny to me when people try to take the DMG suggestions as hard and fast rules when the DMG repeatedly tells you to run your game your way. To me, it's pretty obvious from the text that there's no need to call for a check when the PC wants "to walk across an empty room or ... order a mug of ale". The context is pretty clear that there is no chance of failure, but there is also no expectation of failure under normal circumstances.

Then again, I don't think the DMG or any other book is a legal document that I must adhere to.

This is true, but then it's hard to discuss a game that's just 'make up whatever you want, it's all guidelines anyway." Like trusting in the Pirate Code. I find it useful to start with the primary guidance and then note changes and why rather than just dismissing the primary guidance as not controlling so it doesn't matter much.

 

[jgsugden]

Surely that leads to this sort of play:
Player: I wish to search the chest for a trap.
DM: There is no trap, no need to roll.
- 5 minutes later -
Player: I wish to search this different chest for a trap.
DM: Make an investigation check.
Player: Err, 5...
DM: There is no trap.
Player:

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).

 

[Oofta]

Sigh. This isn't what happens. Instead, the PC searches for traps and is satisfied there are none at the end of it. Since, according to my approach, there is no consequence for time spent or for failure (there is no trap), it's assumed they get it right. If there is a consequence for failure -- time or an actual trap -- then there is a roll. On a failure, a bad thing happens, it's never "you don't know." You know what happened due to the low roll, because something bad just happened. A check should, in my opinion, resolve something about the fiction concretely.

This is true, but then it's hard to discuss a game that's just 'make up whatever you want, it's all guidelines anyway." Like trusting in the Pirate Code. I find it useful to start with the primary guidance and then note changes and why rather than just dismissing the primary guidance as not controlling so it doesn't matter much.

It's one thing to talk about the advice in the DMG, it's another to justify a style and say "you're playing wrong because of what it says on page XX of YYY".

I think it's obvious from the text that they're warning DMs to not ask for rolls more than necessary which is good advice. I think it's a leap to go from "[don't ask for a] Charisma check to order a mug of ale" to "never ask for a check because you as DM know there's no chance of success". But it's natural language and open to interpretation.

If a player asks to check for traps, they are saying that their PC is actively doing something. That's reflected by a roll of the dice. Telling them that there's no need for a roll is taking away their agency, saying in a sense that no, their PC did not bother to check for traps.

It's similar to if PC casts a fireball at an illusion - I'm not going to tell them that they didn't actually cast the fireball because there's no chance of affecting the illusion. They did decide, based on what they knew, to cast the fireball. They did decide, based on what they saw, to check for traps.

 

[jgsugden]

The obvious answer to the initial question is Wish. As a DM, I've had my entire campaign world changed by wishes, and - after a nice tall drink - I loved it.