Speaking from my own perspective, but also trying to make sympathetic sense of [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]'s, I think there is a bigger issue here which you're missing - or to put it another way, you're missing the
dynamic of play wood because of the
ability check adjudication trees.
I play a game (be that 4e, Prince Valiant, Burning Wheel, or The Dying Earth) in which there are adverse consequences for failed checks. But that's only a special case of the bigger picture: there are adverse consequences for the PCs
unless they act. The situation is framed so as to yield pressure on the PCs (and, thereby, their players) which will drive the game forward.
So while your trapped warlock may choose not to try to bend the bars, because you recognise the prospect is hopeless and you don't like the consequences implicit in the GM's framing of the situation, you can be sure that
something is going to happen that will force you to make
some sort of choice. And if you don't try to escape now, then you give the GM licence to make that
something a bigger deal, if only because the passage of time in the fiction makes it feasible for the GM to evolve the situation forward in an adverse fashion.
This actually came up in the current arc of my Burning Wheel campaign: the PC sorcerer was in prison. One escape attempt went bad, and then he had to deal with various nemeses who came to visit him and strike deals with them in order to be able to get himself out. The choices of which checks to make and not to make affected the details of the unfolding situation, but the player wasn't able to avoid pressure simply by choosing not to engage certain elements of the fiction.
What I've just described is of course not the only way to play RPGs, and my experience (in real life and on message boards) makes me think it's in fact a distinctively minority approach. In a game in which what's at stake is driven primarily by the GM's authorship and modulation of the "plot", then a
consequences for failure approach becomes harder to implement. There was discussion of that not too long ago in
this thread.
I don't find myself disagreeing with anything you are proposing necessarily. But I find times when I can both pressure the PCs if they choose not to act and punish them for failing to be uncommon at best.
And I don't really need to look for them most of the time. Eventually my players seek out things, they look for those narrative points.
Also, I don't like rolling only during narratively important events, because I think that removes rolling too much from the game.
I think what most got me in the post you quoted was Charlaquin's claim that punishing players makes them look for better options instead of relying on their best skills. To my perspective, it would do the opposite. I would fight like crazy to avoid situations where I had to use a skill I was bad at, to the point where I'd cede the narrative to another player. And, if your play involves leaving players no choice but to hope for the best, because both acting and not acting have dire consequences... that can be fun occasionally, but wouldn't it be better for the players to seek out these moments instead of being driven to them?
Ahh, I see the confusion. “Reasonable chance of failure” does not refer to the chances of the player rolling high enough to beat the DC. Again, DCs are something checks have, and we don’t call for checks unless the action meets the three criteria. “Reasonable chance of success” and “reasonable chance of failure” in this context are not mechanical considerations, they are DM judgment calls based on the fiction. If what the rogue is trying to do logically might work, might not, and has stakes, then a check is the way to resolve it, and if we are resolving it with a check, then the rogue can’t get lower than a 10 so it might not be necessary to actually roll dice to determine whether or not he passes the check. Does that make more sense?
So the reasonable chance of failure has nothing to do with the success or failure of the check?
I'm glad we are clearing up confusion, but you realize then that we now have a chance of failure in an action which cannot fail. Which could get very confusing if I tried to explain it to a player for example.
But that makes me re-look at the barmaid example. Chance of success? Yep. Chance of failure? Yep. Stakes? Possible depending on the circumstances. So, would you call for a DC 5 check, if there were high enough stakes? You aren't considering the mechanical effects what so ever, it is purely within the fiction, the mechanical comes afterwards.
The problem is when you start thinking of breaking the manacles as a DC15 check, instead of as an in-fiction action the character performs, the result of which might or might not depend on the result of a DC15 check.
What problem? The closest you've come to telling me there is a problem is that I'll suddenly stop allowing people to succeed without a roll... which isn't true. So what problem do you see in thinking that breaking manacles with pure muscle strength (maybe the aid of a crowbar) is a DC 20? They have an AC and HP too, is it a problem to start thinking of breaking manacles as being a combat roll with damage as well? DC to pick the lock is 15 I do believe, so now I also have the problem of thinking of them as a DC 15 picking check.
All three are true, all three I can consider, and yet keeping those in mind is a problem? How? Why?
And now you might start to see why, when I do call for a check, I tell the player what the DC and consequence for failure is.
Also, important to note here: I’m not just making up consequences out of nowhere. Consequences are a prerequisite for a check to be called for, not something I assign because a check is called for. If you say you want to break down the door with your bare hands, I go through the process in my head. Does this approach (break the door with my bare hands) have a reasonable chance of succeeding at achieving your goal (get the door open)? No. So I don’t call for a check, I say, “try as you might, the iron bars are too solidly built for you to break with just your hands” If you say you want to break off a leg of the bed and use it for leverage, I go through the same process. Does this action have a reasonable chance of success? Sure. Does it have a reasonable chance of failure? Absolutely. Is there a consequence for failure? Eh, it depends. If there are no a guards nearby that might hear the noise, and no time pressure, then no. In that case, the action doesn’t meet all the requirements to be resolved via check, so I’d just let it succeed. “The leg is a bit challenging to rip off, but after a little pulling, you manage it. It makes a loud noise, but no one seems to be coming to investigate. What do you do?” On the other hand, if there is a guard who might hear you, that seems like a consequence. I might say “ok, you could break the leg off the bed with a DC 10 Strength check, but the noise might attract the guard’s attention if you fail. Stealth might be applicable if you have proficiency with it. What do you do?” Now you have enough information to make an informed decision, whether youvwant to accept the risk or try a different approach. You’re not blindly making checks, the results of which you can’t predict. You’re thinking about your character as an entity existing in a world, making decisions as you imagine that entity might. You succeed and fail based on your decisions and the risks you accept or don’t accept.
Also, like... deciding you’d rather try to fake being sick than snap off a leg of the bed and use it to pry the door open because you’re not very strong or Athletic, but you are decently but persuasive sounds like a well-reasoned decision based on your character’s capabilities. That’s making a decision based on what you imagine your character would do in a fictional situation, and baby, that’s what I call roleplaying!
Actually, baby, I was making a decision based off of the mechanics of the roll and what was my highest modifier. The thing you said your style would de-emphasize.
If I was thinking about how my character would act in a fictional setting... I'd consider their personality. Are they are hot head who is going to rage about and try and break out, or are they cool headed and going for a plan that involves deception. I didn't consider any of that, I didn't think about my role, I looked at hard numbers for the most likely path to success. My character didn't matter at all, only my statistics.
And I'm curious, about the bolded part. What do you do with information the player cannot have? I don't see guards, and I seem to be alone, but they've actually got a guard post with a scrying eye set up. Do you tell me that I'm secretly under observation so I can make my decision?
And how long would I have to have to be under "no pressure" timewise? An action is a few seconds, if I have ten minutes during the guard switching or dragging a prisoner off is that enough time to auto-succeed? Would you tell me that, so I could make the most complete decision?
More importantly, that you don’t want to “try Athletics” is the adjudication style working as intended. You should want to try some kind of in-game action that you think has a good shot at resulting in getting you out of this cell. If you are more likely to lean towards solutions that might rely on your magical prowess than your physical abilities in order to mitigate any potential risk, so much the better. Your character’s stats are informing your decisions in a narrative sense rather than a mechanical one. Again, roleplaying.
No role is necessary to look at my stats. And, I know that any roll to break something via strength of arm is 90% likely to be an athletics check. Just like I know "I huddle into the corner to blend with the shadows so the guards can't see me" is a stealth check. I'm trying stealth. Whether or not I dress it up is immaterial to me knowing what mechanical call is likely to be made from my actions.
My mechanical stats are informing decisions of the narrative, exactly what you said would not be the case. "Players are more likely to look for the action most likely to succeed instead of simply rolling a check." Well, I'm looking at the most likely mechanical check to succeed and you are praising me for my roleplaying, with no regards to any role.
That’s fine, that’s your call to make. I inform you of the difficulty and consequences to give you the opportunity to cast Gudance, or Charm Person, or Friends, or spend Inspiration, or enlist help from your fellow party members who might have higher Charisma, or yes, to back out if that’s what you want to do. That makes sense that your character with low Charisma might choose to remain silent in a high-stakes social situation. Also, I think you would find that at my table, more often than not if an action seems like it’d probably work, it just does, especially in low-stakes situations. But any time there is a risk of failure, you know exactly what the risk is, and are always able to back out. In my experience, this very much encourages players to try things, because even in the worst case scenario - the one where you have to make a check - they know what’s at stake, they know their chances of success, and they know they don’t have to go through with it if they don’t feel it’s worth the risk.
So you are perfectly fine with players backing out of moments of fictional importance because their mechanics don't match up with the challenge.
Roll playing is the term you are looking for to describe that.
My players quite often step in with an idea as well. The difference is, when my players do it, it’s with a clever approach they think might have a good chance of achieving their goal, not the name of a skill they want to roll.
Ah, I see the problem. You assume that because I'm fine with players saying "I roll insight" that all they need to do is say "persuasion 23" and that's it. They never come up with clever approaches.
Well, once more, assumptions are dangerous things. Yes, I would allow "I want to roll persuasion to convince the guards to let us go, we're heroes of the city after all". But, that doesn't mean I would allows "Persuasion 23" and just go with it. And my players also come up with clever approaches. I'd like to think I encourage that because they know that having a bad idea isn't going to hurt the party necessarily. Not that I don't also point out to them when they are making a poor decision "So you want to temporarily mind control the guard into letting you go... are you sure about that?"
Neither are those of us who say there must be a cost or consequence for there to be a check. If there is a chance of success, a chance of failure, but no cost or consequence, then the action is successful.
Umm, you might want to reread your post
"Neither of us said there has to be a consequence for there to be a check. If there is no consequence the action is just successful (ie, no check)"
"You just manage to be successful, but...."
