5E Players: Why Do You Want to Roll a d20?

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Or - and I know this is hard to believe - I simply disagree. I'm using Occam's Razor. Maybe Occam's dull butter knife. Either the rules directly contradict themselves and leave out your all important "cost" in 2 out of 3 mentions of how to handle checks or my interpretation of the rule is correct.
I've proven that there is no contradiction, so disagree all you like, but you can't be right about that. Occam's Razor and even his butter knife agree with me, not you. The simplest explanation is that the non-contradictory rule in the in the DMG works together with the other two.

You have a right to disagree. Just like I have the right to point out that your interpretation of the rules is not "The rules". Have a good one!
And with that you are literally claiming that the DMG rules are not rules. Take care!

No, it's not a general rule. It's a specific rule given context by the examples in the paragraph it is a part of.
Yep! And since the context of that paragraph is when you should roll vs. when you should automatically succeed, if you are rolling then there must be a meaningful consequence.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
I've proven that there is no contradiction, so disagree all you like, but you can't be right about that. Occam's Razor and even his butter knife agree with me, not you. The simplest explanation is that the non-contradictory rule in the in the DMG works together with the other two.
Unless I missed it, you have a strange definition of "proven". All you've done is stated what you do.

Have a good one.
 

5ekyu

Adventurer
I've proven that there is no contradiction, so disagree all you like, but you can't be right about that. Occam's Razor and even his butter knife agree with me, not you. The simplest explanation is that the non-contradictory rule in the in the DMG works together with the other two.



And with that you are literally claiming that the DMG rules are not rules. Take care!



Yep! And since the context of that paragraph is when you should roll vs. when you should automatically succeed, if you are rolling then there must be a meaningful consequence.
"Yep! And since the context of that paragraph is when you should roll vs. when you should automatically succeed, if you are rolling then there must be a meaningful consequence."

No, the context of that paragraph is made clear and narrowed by its examples specifically included within it. Its context is shown in those examples. Its topic is how its often appropriate to not require roll or check ir even reference to character sheets - as in things anybody can do without noticeable chance of failure.

The broader case of deciding whwn to roll is covered in that next bit where there being a chsnce of failure and chance of success.

See, it makes sense...

They lead with a paragraph sbout cases where you cannot fail, nobody fails, dont even reference sheets - first paragraph.

Then they move to cases where there will be chances of success or failure and rolls might be needed in that second paragraph.

Deciding to yank that last sentence in graph 1 and divorce it from its context - that is definitly into custom interpretation territory.

Which is fine for any game and any GM since after all ruling vs rules and all that.

But it loses that "fine" a smidge when that gets turned and presented as "the rules" for 5e as opposed to "how we do it."

Especially given how many many times their products present calls for checks without meaningful consequences for failure.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
"Yep! And since the context of that paragraph is when you should roll vs. when you should automatically succeed, if you are rolling then there must be a meaningful consequence."

No, the context of that paragraph is made clear and narrowed by its examples specifically included within it. Its context is shown in those examples. Its topic is how its often appropriate to not require roll or check ir even reference to character sheets - as in things anybody can do without noticeable chance of failure.

The broader case of deciding whwn to roll is covered in that next bit where there being a chsnce of failure and chance of success.

See, it makes sense...
Except that you are wrong. When it says, "Only roll if there is a meaningful consequence." that is exactly what it means. The prior paragraph is talking about when NOT to roll. Then it finished with an absolute instruction on WHEN to roll. And that WHEN is when there is a meaningful consequence. In the context the above paragraph, if there is not a meaningful consequence, then the check falls under the category of just let it work unless it's impossible.

Deciding to yank that last sentence in graph 1 and divorce it from its context - that is definitly into custom interpretation territory.
Not even close.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
Except that you are wrong. When it says, "Only roll if there is a meaningful consequence." that is exactly what it means. The prior paragraph is talking about when NOT to roll. Then it finished with an absolute instruction on WHEN to roll. And that WHEN is when there is a meaningful consequence. In the context the above paragraph, if there is not a meaningful consequence, then the check falls under the category of just let it work unless it's impossible.



Not even close.
Are you just trolling at this point? Because over on the other thread

I think you're off just a little bit. This, "But if the player attempts something with consequence, and fails, they are worse off than if they hadn't attempted it." isn't necessarily true. Sometimes being where you started is itself a meaningful consequence.
Or are you just being stubbornly pedantic? Because that's all I've been saying. Sometimes a failed check just means you make no progress.

EDIT: You know what, at this point I don't care. If you agree that failure can mean no progress is made, then the only issue I have is your wording.
 

5ekyu

Adventurer
Except that you are wrong. When it says, "Only roll if there is a meaningful consequence." that is exactly what it means. The prior paragraph is talking about when NOT to roll. Then it finished with an absolute instruction on WHEN to roll. And that WHEN is when there is a meaningful consequence. In the context the above paragraph, if there is not a meaningful consequence, then the check falls under the category of just let it work unless it's impossible.



Not even close.
Ok so, all in all this seems pointless to continue.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Are you just trolling at this point? Because over on the other thread

EDIT: You know what, at this point I don't care. If you agree that failure can mean no progress is made, then the only issue I have is your wording.
Um, those are not opposites. No trolling. Just facts. A failed check with meaningful consequences RELIES on outside influences for those consequences. The check itself is not sufficient.

If you are trying to build a wall to keep out a barbarian horde and you fail, the meaningful consequence is no progress. The reason for that is that the barbarians will get in and kill you. The meaning therefore comes from the barbarians trying to get in, not the failed roll itself.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member

Folks, you seem to be getting heated. That's a problem.

You are unlikely to be happy with the results of the discussion if you don't cool it down several notches.
 

Fanaelialae

Adventurer
Here @Oofta, this may help you understand the process better.

Step 1: Is the ability check impossible? If yes, player fails. If no, go to step 2.

Step 2: Is the task so easy that it's an auto success? If yes, player succeeds without a roll. If no, go to step 3.

Step 3: Is there a meaningful consequence for failure? If yes, go to step 4. If no, player succeeds without a roll.

Step 4: Set a DC and have the player roll the die, then go to step 5.

Step 5: Did the player succeed? If yes, player succeeds. If no, go to step 6.

Step 6: Have the PC make no progress towards the goal along with the meaningful consequence failure, or make progress with a setback along with the meaningful consequence for failure.

You see how all the rules work together and don't fight each other?
Am I the only one who read this and thought it would be more efficient if 1 and 2 were swapped in the order?
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Am I the only one who read this and thought it would be more efficient if 1 and 2 were swapped in the order?
I don't think it matters which extreme is first, if the answer to either one of them is no, you have to check the other before proceeding to #3.

What is your specific thinking about why it would be more efficient to go the other way?
 

Fanaelialae

Adventurer
I don't think it matters which extreme is first, if the answer to either one of them is no, you have to check the other before proceeding to #3.

What is your specific thinking about why it would be more efficient to go the other way?
Too simple for a check is far more likely than impossible IME.

If you make #2 the first step, you only need to make one check (too simple = yes, stop) the vast majority of the time, vs two checks (impossible = no, too simple = yes, stop).

I find that simple actions:
"I walk to the bar and order another ale."
are far more common than impossible:
"I walk to the End of Time and order a Pangalactic Gargleblaster."

Admittedly, this might not be true if the players constantly want to do impossible things, but I can't imagine how that would happen with regularity unless the players were getting their jollies from messing with the GM.

All that said, the question was mainly poking fun at myself. I write software for a living, so that sort of analysis is literally part of my day-to-day. It was the first thing that popped in my head when I read it, which I found amusing, so I figured I'd share.
 

Hriston

Explorer
Too simple for a check is far more likely than impossible IME.

If you make #2 the first step, you only need to make one check (too simple = yes, stop) the vast majority of the time, vs two checks (impossible = no, too simple = yes, stop).

I find that simple actions:
"I walk to the bar and order another ale."
are far more common than impossible:
"I walk to the End of Time and order a Pangalactic Gargleblaster."

Admittedly, this might not be true if the players constantly want to do impossible things, but I can't imagine how that would happen with regularity unless the players were getting their jollies from messing with the GM.

All that said, the question was mainly poking fun at myself. I write software for a living, so that sort of analysis is literally part of my day-to-day. It was the first thing that popped in my head when I read it, which I found amusing, so I figured I'd share.
XP for the Douglas Adams reference.
 

Hriston

Explorer
Too simple for a check is far more likely than impossible IME.

If you make #2 the first step, you only need to make one check (too simple = yes, stop) the vast majority of the time, vs two checks (impossible = no, too simple = yes, stop).

I find that simple actions:
"I walk to the bar and order another ale."
are far more common than impossible:
"I walk to the End of Time and order a Pangalactic Gargleblaster."

Admittedly, this might not be true if the players constantly want to do impossible things, but I can't imagine how that would happen with regularity unless the players were getting their jollies from messing with the GM.

All that said, the question was mainly poking fun at myself. I write software for a living, so that sort of analysis is literally part of my day-to-day. It was the first thing that popped in my head when I read it, which I found amusing, so I figured I'd share.
XP for the Douglas Adams reference. :)
 

5ekyu

Adventurer
Too simple for a check is far more likely than impossible IME.

If you make #2 the first step, you only need to make one check (too simple = yes, stop) the vast majority of the time, vs two checks (impossible = no, too simple = yes, stop).

I find that simple actions:
"I walk to the bar and order another ale."
are far more common than impossible:
"I walk to the End of Time and order a Pangalactic Gargleblaster."

Admittedly, this might not be true if the players constantly want to do impossible things, but I can't imagine how that would happen with regularity unless the players were getting their jollies from messing with the GM.

All that said, the question was mainly poking fun at myself. I write software for a living, so that sort of analysis is literally part of my day-to-day. It was the first thing that popped in my head when I read it, which I found amusing, so I figured I'd share.
While personally I think its really artificially separating what is in fact one step - is it in doubt for me is usually not actually a decision but a reaction and I cannot think of a single case where both impossible snd too easy would be both provoking a reaction - it's not that big a deal so I will throw in the towel as soon as I find it.
 

Advertisement

Top