Restricting rerolls in D&D

[ExploderWizard]

Edit: As an aside, here is a way I think skill checks should not work. In a recent RPGA game, I had an idea for a way to use a skill in a skill challenge, but realized my character was pretty terrible at the skill. So I asked another player who had a good bonus with that skill to try and said I would aid him. But the DM said "Nope! Your idea, your roll. He can aid you." So naturally the check failed.

This is why I prefer player driven games. A good idea should be actually worth something. This is the kind of treatment that encourages players to not bother trying.

 

[Zhaleskra]

This is why I prefer player driven games. A good idea should be actually worth something. This is the kind of treatment that encourages players to not bother trying.

This is among the many reasons I don't play RPGA games.

 

[jonesy]

...This avoids the problem of an 8 Strength Wizard bending bars after the 20 Strength Fighter fails...

Umm, how is that a problem?

"I loosened it for you."
"Sure you did. I just used a better technique for that."

 

[Janx]

Edit: As an aside, here is a way I think skill checks should not work. In a recent RPGA game, I had an idea for a way to use a skill in a skill challenge, but realized my character was pretty terrible at the skill. So I asked another player who had a good bonus with that skill to try and said I would aid him. But the DM said "Nope! Your idea, your roll. He can aid you." So naturally the check failed.

by this ruling and its modeling of reality:

a few weeks ago my friend came over to help me replace some bad plumbing.

I was trying to remove one of the bad pipes in the crawlspace and I couldn't budge it. So I asked my friend to give it a try, since he was stronger at it.

According to this GM, my friend couldn't use his muscles to wrench the pipe because it was MY idea?

That flies in the face of common sense. People ask me for my help because I'm better at implementing their idea than they are. I'm aiding them to solve it, they're aiding me (by handing me tools, money, etc).

This RPGA story is a case of a bad GM call, and hopefully isn't a trend among all RPGA GMs.

 

[Mark CMG]

There are some efforts for which throwing more time at the situation can make a difference, and there are others where doing the same thing over and over isn't going to change the result. Once a GM decides which applies, they can allow for multiple rolls to matter or not. Which is not to say that players cannot try, only that the consequences might not be changed by repeated efforts without adjustment to approach. If the effort takes place where no outside influence changes the consequence, the only thing lost might be time. It might be worthwhile to explain this to the players, though, to make sure they know how things work even if their characters might not.

 

[Stormonu]

Perhaps a more modest limit might be equal to your ability modifier (if you gave a negative modifier, no rerolls).

Also, I think in certain cases that a Party roll is an excellent idea.

 

[Janx]

maybe the solution is so simple it doesn't need rules.

if you are in combat, retries have inherent consequences by virture of the fact that people are moving and the fight is still going on.

If you aren't in combat, there's 2 situations:
a) you have all the time in the world because there's not any pending danger

b) you are in dangerous territory and wasting time on retries means eventually something is going to discover you

Situation B is the one that matters. When you are building your game content, make sure you have wandering monsters, guards, etc ready. Whenever the PCs sit around wasting time, there's a chance somebody's going to come along and discover them.

There's your solution. Sure, you can pick at that lock as long as you want to, but eventually, a patrol is going to find you. So get in, or move on.

 

[Macbeth]

I like that solution, Janx! But I'd say that's still rules.

 

[pemerton]

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.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I'm a big fan of this concept. I refer to it with the term Burning Wheel uses: "Let it ride." Basically, if you make a roll (success or failure) the result stands until the circumstances change.

I like to take "let it ride" one step further. The roll, i.e. the random number rolled by the player, stands forever, for the whole party. The players can change their fail roll to success by adding enough modifiers to achieve success with that original roll. E.g. a PC fails to move the rock, but when he comes back with friends and a crowbar the new modifiers may be enough to make the original roll a success. This eliminates some gaming of the system and makes intuitive sense to me. It's possible that additional time on the task will provide a modifier, but that's a DM call.

An idea I played with in my homebrew is that every skill check succeeds given enough time. The skill, difficulty, modifiers, and roll just tell you how long it tales to succeed. The player makes the roll, states how long he's going to work on it, and if it's enough time he succeeds. The player doesn't know how long the task will take until he achieves success. The penalty of course is time. The thief may be able to pick that lock in 6 hours, but if the area is crawling with wandering monsters, the resources required to stay at that location and get the job done may be prohibitive.