So, "actions that don't have a chance of failure" are not "better options"?
And, if there is no cost for the attempt of consequence of failure, they auto-succeed correct? So, those are options that don't have a chance of failure... I guess that is in the meta since the actions might have a chance to fail in the fiction, but cannot fail in the meta since them failing wouldn't propel the story forward.
What are you talking about?
You say this like it is so easy, that people can just decide to take actions that have no chance of failing. And, now not only are those options better, but they are more effective approaches as well.
Look, I don't know how much more plainly I can say it. At my table, if you think of an idea that seems like it would probably work, chances are pretty good that it just will. If there is a risk involved, I will tell you so, and give you the option to proceed, or change tactics. It's really not that hard.
I'm curious, thinking on my character who is locked in a prison cell. Let us say there is a guard, so you won't auto-success from there being no consequences, what is the best and most effective option that leaves no chance of failure? What would a warlock player do, that uses no mechanics and no skills to automatically succeed in escaping?
I don't know, I didn't plan out a foolproof escape plan for you. Try something, and I'll use my best judgment to adjudicate it.
Your own statements. There must be a consequence for failure.
Then you are still not understanding me. If there is not a consequence for failure, I'm not going to make one up out of thin air. I'm just going to let you succeed.
There must be consequences for not acting.
What does this even mean?
Your only hope as a player is to come up with a plan so iron-clad that it has a near zero percent chance of failure, or risk the situation deteriorating. These are the statements you have been arguing, that is where I am getting this idea from.
In other words, you are reading my statements as uncharitably as possible, and then claiming that I am uncharitable in my adjudication. It's clear that you are not making an earnest attempt to understand my DMing style, so unless you actually come to one of my games to see it firsthand, you're just going to have to take my word for it that it is really not that hard to be successful.
But this is a distinction you have added to the game.
No, it's really not. The Player's handbook describes an ability check as follows:
"To make an ability check, roll a d20 and add the relevant ability modifier. As with other d20 rolls, apply bonuses and penalties, and compare the total to the DC. If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success—the creature overcomes the Challenge at hand. Otherwise, it’s a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the GM."
That is distinct from an action, which the PHB describes this way:
"The players describe what they want to do (...) Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action."
An action is something a character does in the world. A check is a mechanical process a player might or might not need to perform to help the DM determine the outcome of an action.
And how do you explain this to someone. "Your action could fail, but you can't fail because you cannot fail the roll" It reads like an oxymoron. The only reason is so you can claim some sort of moratorium on checks, that checks must be this other thing that can't interact with the fiction except through specific gates, but I don't get why.
You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be. It doesn't require an explanation. Here's how it actually goes in my game:
Rogue: I use my theives' tools to pick the lock.
Me: Ok, that'll take about 10 minutes and a successful DC 15 Dexterity check.
Rogue: I have +7 with Thieves' Tools and Reliable Talent, do I still need to roll?
Me: Nah, you're good, you can totally pick this lock with 10 minutes of work.
Rogue: Cool, let's do it!
Me: *Makes note of 10 minutes passing* Ok, the door unlocks with a click.
My confusion comes from why we need to divide this. A check that cannot fail and an action that can not fail lead to the same narrative result. The same thing happens, either way. If you move 3 ft or 1 yd you have moved the same distance. Yet, you want to divide this, you want to break it into two parts... and the more I think of it the more confused I am.
If I don't separate "Actions which may lead to a check" from "checks that are called for" I will confuse checks with actions which will lead to me using the wrong name? Maybe you gave me a clear and concise example of how exactly these methods differ a while back, but I don't see it. We are doing the same thing, you just insist on adding extra layers and rules about how it happens.
Look, all I'm doing is pointing out that action and check are two different things. You're the one confusing yourself with all this meaningless pedantry.
So it is all about having the proper presentation for you?
No. "I roll perception" and "I listen at the door for the sound of other creatures" are qualitatively different.
Of course I'm still thinking in terms of the check. So are you.
No, you're still thinking in terms of
action=check. You should be thinking in terms of action as the thing your character does and check as a mechanical process that is sometimes required of you to perform to find out what happens as a result of your character's action.
Does the action have a chance to succeed? Does the action have a chance to fail? Does the action have consequences? Am I good at that check?
I can work through the entire process. If there was no chance of failure, of course I'd just do it. There is no chance of failure. Heck, if I can game your system to figure out when there is no consequence you'll imagine large enough to warrant a check, I'll try those too. Not because I want to play my character or try to be clever, but because having a 100% guarantee is an awesome reason to do something when my back is against the wall.
And from this statement, I can just keep talking to you, laying out a large variety of options, and just pick the one you give the best odds of success. Everytime I hit a point of making a check I can back up, consider a different path, and see if you give that one better odds.
Something wrong with that?
An action that has a chance of success, An action that has a chance of failure. An action that has consequences. Once I know all three of those, I know you will call for a roll. How am I supposed to come up with something that has zero chance of failure? What kinds of things allow for that?
By imagining your character as an entity in a world that behaves more or less like the real one. Think about what that character might do in the situation being narrated, and what might happen as a result. If you are uncertain of the results, there's a good chance it will require a check. If you're pretty confident about what you think would happen as a result, there's a good chance that is exactly what will happen. Describe your character's actions accordingly, and I will do the same. If I am uncertain of the outcome, I will ask you for a check to help me decide what happens. Easy.
And, how does your system of enforcing all these rules encourage engaging the story?
By making the above the best way to succeed.
My rules for players wanting to do something? Tell me what you want to do. That's the only big rule. If you are too vague, I'll ask for some clarification until I understand what is going on. If they want to do something silly and impossible like throw a mountain, I'll tell them no.
Me too. The fact that you think the process looks different in my games is a clear indication that you are not understanding me.
I don't need three questions to be confirmed. I don't need "I hear you want to do this" goal and approach questioning. I say "here's the story, here's the scene. What do you do?"
The three questions are entirely on my end. The only thing I need from the players is what they want to accomplish and what their character does to try to pull that off. "I hear ____, I need to know ____" is just my preferred way of asking for clarification. I like that format because it acknowledges and honors what I was able to infer from what the player did say, while making it clear what I still require clarification about, and gives them the opportunity to correct me if my inference was incorrect.
You are adding all these rules and conditions and divisions into the game and claiming it makes the game better, that my way is worse. But as we dig into these rules that you claim are absolute,
Woah, back up a second there. When did I ever make such a claim? That would be a very strange thing for me to have done, because it's not something I believe.
you seem to be getting frustrated and tied into knots over it.
I'm getting frustrated by your seemingly deliberate attempts to misunderstand me. I have been quite clear. My method is not complex. You are the one tying yourself into knots trying to make it more complicated than it is.
I want to engage in the story, not worry about what extra consequences I'm pulling down upon the party by trying something that makes sense but mechanically would be a poor choice. Or if I'm taking the correct course of action that has no chance of failing.
I just want to follow the story.
So just engage in the story. I promise you, that is the best way to be successful in my games. Just imagine the scenario, imagine your character in it, describe your character doing whatever you think makes sense for your character to do, and most of the time, I'll just describe what happens as a result, which most of the time will be about what you expected to happen. Sometimes, I will tell you that I need you to make a check to determine what happens next, and what will happen if you fail. Then you can decide if you want to go through with that action, shore up your odds with some Bardic Inspiration or whatever, or back out and try something else.
I'm not trying to name call, but somehow you seem to think the most important thing is the statistics. You are praising looking to the highest mechanical value for finding your successful strategies, instead of what makes the most sense.
Not at all. The story is the most important thing. Do what you think your character would do. If what your character would do is avoid things they are not good at when stakes are high... That seems plenty realistic to me. And it's none of my business whether or not you arrived at that decision by looking at your stats.
The barbarian shouldn't back out of rolling persuasion just because they aren't good at it, especially if it was their idea and speech that could switch the tide. That is the moment they should roll, they made a narrative move and it could be awesome, but you seem to advocate them backing up, checking the numbers, looking for ways to nudge in guidance or some bardic inspiration. None of that has to do with their Role in the story. That's all rolling the dice.
Again, this misunderstanding of my method is coming from you thinking in terms of action = check. If the barbarian's player has an idea for an awesome speech they think could switch the tide, they should just go ahead and give that speech. If they aren't an expert wordsmith and can't think of a way to make it sound good, that's fine, they can phrase it in terms of goal and approach, "I try to convince the king by playing to his sense of honor and tradition" or whatever. There's a good chance they won't
need to roll. You're so worried about not wanting to have to make a check that you might have a chance of failing, you're completely overlooking the very good possibility that no check will be called for. And if it will be, I'll give you fair warning. There is absolutely no risk in describing a social action with your 8-charisma barbarian. Worst case scenario, I'll let you know exactly what the risks are, and if you're still that worried about failing, you can say "nah, nevermind."
Ah, you were disagreeing with their assertion of making something up, obviously you've considered all the consequences before the players declared their action. Not considering them on the spot.
But, since their point was "I don't require consequences for failure to roll the dice" and your response was "If there is no consequence, we don't roll the dice" you can see how you might come across as missing the point.
No, their point was "I don't make up consequences just because a roll was called for" and my response was "neither do I." I call for a roll
because there are consequences for the action failing, not the other way around.
