Restricting rerolls in D&D

[MortalPlague]

This thread has got me thinking about some interesting re-roll house rules. I've already seen a few that I like, but I'll add my own 2 cents to the discussion.

In my games, I recently put a house rule into play regarding physical challenges. It's called Strain. Basically, if a character fails a physical skill check, they can strain themselves to succeed at it. They spend a healing surge to automatically succeed. It was limited mostly to athletics checks, but I was pretty flexible on its application.

Perhaps a more elegant idea would be to grant +5 to the roll per surge spent? Either way, I like the idea that someone can pull a muscle or bruise a rib but get the job done.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Generally, rather than wandering monsters I'd rather just limit rerolls. Then I can get the same pacing consequence of wandering monsters - the play of the game doesn't bog down - without having to make the pacing reflect some ingame threat of being discovered, which often isn't applicable in the scenarios I run.

That is one way to handle it but without a reason that applies to the game world it would feel very artificial.

I like the situational approach. If there is no danger at the moment assume that the task will succeed eventually assuming there was a chance to begin with.

For my next game I was thinking about using a single roll only. The margin of failure would determine how long it takes to succeed. The worse the initial attempt, the longer it takes. The particulars of the situation will determine if that amount of time is dangerous or not.

 

[Janx]

Generally, rather than wandering monsters I'd rather just limit rerolls. Then I can get the same pacing consequence of wandering monsters - the play of the game doesn't bog down - without having to make the pacing reflect some ingame threat of being discovered, which often isn't applicable in the scenarios I run.

You must have something specific in mind, I'd be curious to see an example situation where instead of a risk of being discovered, there's some other reason that automatic success/take 20 can't be granted.*
*It's early, I was up late, please assume that your obvious example would be if I wasn't.

My thinking with WM (spill-over from another thread) is that its too easy to forget to move the monsters around. So GMs should already be planning on moving the static critters around, or having some stock WM prepared.

 

[Zhaleskra]

I believe that there really is no such thing as a "random" encounter. Those whatever are doing whatever for a reason.

Oh, and I'm in agreement that if success/failure matters use the randomizer. Otherwise just say "yes".

 

[jonesy]

I believe that there really is no such thing as a "random" encounter. Those whatever are doing whatever for a reason.

A random encounter is coming across something that doesn't have any pre-plotted connection to anything else in the game. Something totally unrelated that you just happen to meet. If it doesn't seem to have a reason I make one up. Depending on how the encounter turns out it might even become crucial to a main plot. It's happened before that something without any background suddenly grows one.

 

[TarionzCousin]

When in doubt, steal from another game.

I first ran into "frustration penalties", in the context of White Wolf games - if you tried to do something, and failed, you could generally try again. But, each time beyond the first added a +2 to your target number (usually until you'd had some significant break or rest - your penalties usually went away by the next day).

So, you can try again, but if you keep failing, you eventually drive the target number up so high that you cannot complete the task. The mechanic allows for some retries, but not an infinite number.

I've done this with the additional long-term consequences building up.

To use the "move the boulder" example.
Failure.
Re-try but at -2 due to your Strength being lessened. You have that penalty for an hour.
Re-try again at -5 and suffer for 3 hours. Also, your Constitution is at -2 for an hour.

 

[Dausuul]

If the character with the best attack bonus fails to hit a monster, do you let him try again? Do you let characters with lower bonuses try to hit the monster?

Yes and yes. The only restriction is you have to wait till your next turn.

See, that's the problem here. The intuitive logic of combat yields different results in a situation where the exigencies of combat (intense moment-to-moment time pressure) do not apply.

Personally, I think 3E handled this best, with the "take 20" rule. If there's negligible time pressure, and it's logical that you could try several times without negative consequences, then you can roll as much as you like; we just figure you're bound to roll a 20 eventually and assume that you did. 4E's decision to get rid of that in order to make in-combat math line up with out-of-combat math was a bad one IMO; I think I will reinstitute taking 20 in my campaigns.

(Actually, I might change "taking 20" a bit and call it "climb 20" instead. The idea is that you can set out to do something in a careful, methodical fashion. When climbing 20, you make a skill check but assume the die roll was 1. Then you make another check and assume the die roll was 2, et cetera. Continue until you succeed, get all the way to 20, or are forced to stop.)

 

[pemerton]

That is one way to handle it but without a reason that applies to the game world it would feel very artificial.

I don't think there would have to be any artificiality in the game. The player declares that the PC is (eg) trying to move the boulder. The die is rolled. If it fails, the ingame situation is that the PC has tried, and tried, but can't do it.

In the gameworld, the PC has retried. But the result of those retries has been resolved with the original roll. (So the retries don't actually get played through at the table.)

If there is no danger at the moment assume that the task will succeed eventually assuming there was a chance to begin with.

It depends what one takes the chance to be. In applying a one-roll-only/let-it-ride approach, then the die roll isn't modelling a "chance in the gameworld". It's something like a "chance the story goes the player's way".

Example: suppose the boulder DC is 20, and the PC has a +9 athletics bonus, so the chance of success is 50%. If the DC is understood as meaning "every time this PC spends a minute pushing the boulder, s/he has a 50% chance of moving it" then it would be artificial to stop rerolls. But in a "let it ride" approach, the DC is understood as meaning "the player has a 50% chance for it to be the case that, in the gameworld, his/her PC is able to push the boulder, until there is some significant change in the circumstances."

You must have something specific in mind, I'd be curious to see an example situation where instead of a risk of being discovered, there's some other reason that automatic success/take 20 can't be granted.

The sort of example I have in mind is this:

The players are trekking through the wilderness. They come across a roadside shrine to Melora and Avandra. One of the PCs decides to pray at the shrine and leave a small sacrifice of money, in order to get a blessing for the rest of the day's travels. I (as GM) decide that if a Religion check succeeds on a Hard DC (at 1st level, this would be a DC of 19) the next Nature check made in the course of travel gets a +2 bonus.

Now there is no reason why a player can't keep praying and praying (paying every time, if the money amount is small). But it adds nothing to the resolution of this situation to let rerolls keep being made, or to allow the player to take 20 (I've already set the DC that is right for the scene). One roll will do the job. And I don't want to add the risk of wandering monsters in my wilderness to produce this result (for example, it might already be established in the fiction that the wilderness has difficult terrain but few dangerous creatures).

Another example: the players decide to search the shrine. I've already decided that a Perception check at Moderate DC (12 at 1st level) will find a runic prayer inscribed on the base of one of the rocks, which will give them a bit of extra information about the person they are hoping to find at their destination. Again, the DC has already built in the relevant probabilities. Allowing the players to make rerolls (or take 20) doesn't add anything to the resolution of the scene except muck up the probabilities.

Of course there are other ways to run the resolution of these sorts of scenes. I'm just giving some examples of the sorts of situations in which I wouldn't take the approach of allowing retries and using wandering monsters to apply time pressure. They're just not scenarios where this sort of way of doing it adds anything.

 

[prosfilaes]

Another example: the players decide to search the shrine. I've already decided that a Perception check at Moderate DC (12 at 1st level) will find a runic prayer inscribed on the base of one of the rocks, which will give them a bit of extra information about the person they are hoping to find at their destination. Again, the DC has already built in the relevant probabilities. Allowing the players to make rerolls (or take 20) doesn't add anything to the resolution of the scene except muck up the probabilities.

This is an example of why I would allow rerolls. If you don't allow any means of increasing the probability here, you're taking power out of the players' hands. In reality, there's a big difference between glancing around the shrine, and taking the time to tap every bit of stone to make sure there's no hidden spots behind it. If the players say "There's something here, and we aren't leaving until we find it", then it's no fun if you keep it from them because you preset the probabilities independent of what the players decide to do.

 

[pemerton]

Prosfilaes, your comment relates to another thread I started recently, about different motives or reasons for playing.

In a game which is about the players engaging the challenge and trying to use their wits to overcome it (think White Plume Mountain as the most outrageous version of this) what you say is right.

But in a different sort of game, where the emphasis of play is on something a bit different - maybe the relationship between the PCs and the various gods, or between the PCs and the person who they are hoping to find at their destination - then building the sort of play you describe - operational, hunt down the clues-type play, might be out of place.

That's part of why I think different approaches to retries make sense in different sorts of games.