D&D 5E Rolling Without a Chance of Failure (I love it)

[Charlaquin]

To you. If it informs characterization, inter party banter and trash talk, and how everyone at the table conceptualizes any element of the fiction at all, it’s relevant.

Yes, to me. Unless I say otherwise I’m talking about my own preferences. And I prefer games where we get stuff done over games where we spend a lot of table time bantering and trash talking. People are often amazed when I say I don’t have trouble meeting the 6-8 encounter adventuring day guidelines? It’s because I keep the game focused on the gameplay. Not to say there isn’t room for characterization - there certainly is. But we keep on-task because we don’t waste a lot of time on rolls that don’t add anything to the actual gameplay.

What’s more, stories are better off with moments that don’t matter than without them, as long as they aren’t constant and don’t individually take up large lengths of narrative.

I strongly disagree. I’m sure you’ve heard the “kill your darlings” adage. That exists because stories are better when everything in them serves a specific and necessary purpose. Sometimes that purpose is to reveal something about the characters, sometimes it’s for a bit of breathing room from the action, or a spot of comic relief or what have you, but it’s still very purposeful and important to the story.

This very strongly comes across as redefining the position to force all things to fit within it.

It very much isn’t. In my very first post in this thread, I said that the intent behind the advice not to call for rolls unless there’s a consequence for failure isn’t to say you should call for rolls less often, but to say you should make failure consequential more often. This has been my position the entire time.

I’m always willing to drop a subject if you don’t want to continue discussing it.

I just don’t care to argue about semantics. You now understand what I mean when I say don’t call for rolls unless there’s a consequence for failure. Sorry if you don’t like that phrasing, but as long as we understand each other I don’t see much point in arguing about my verbiage.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That exists because stories are better when everything in them serves a specific and necessary purpose.

The adage is wrong, when treated as anything other than advice to not be so precious about a work that you are reluctant to change or remove things that suck (by whatever definition matters to the creator and/or intended audience).

What you’re saying here, I could only agree with at all if you added “sometimes” before “better”.

 

[Oofta]

Care to put it into context for us?

I ... just did.

For example, a character doesn’t normally need to make a Dexterity check to walk across an empty room or a Charisma check to order a mug of ale. Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure.

That's the context, don't call for checks for simple mundane checks.

But I also don't take the DMG as gospel. It has some good advice, but the best is that you need to make the game your own.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I ... just did.

For example, a character doesn’t normally need to make a Dexterity check to walk across an empty room or a Charisma check to order a mug of ale. Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure.

That's the context, don't call for checks for simple mundane checks.

But I also don't take the DMG as gospel. It has some good advice, but the best is that you need to make the game your own.

So, if you believe "the best is that you need to make the game your own", then why the need to cast aspersions (i.e. "bad advice" or "really strange") on those that want to interpret the line "Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure" as something that goes beyond skipping checks for the simple and mundane?

 

[Charlaquin]

The adage is wrong, when treated as anything other than advice to not be so precious about a work that you are reluctant to change or remove things that suck (by whatever definition matters to the creator and/or intended audience).

What you’re saying here, I could only agree with at all if you added “sometimes” before “better”.

I struggle to imagine a story that would be made worse by cutting superfluous elements.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I struggle to imagine a story that would be made worse by cutting superfluous elements.

I don’t. Lord of The Rings, any Guy Gavriel Kay novel, most literature written before post-modernism, The Dresden Files. Frankenstein. If it weren’t 10:30 on my 5th closing shift in a row, I could probably think of others.

“Superfluous” elements are often the difference between what I’d categorize as “Succinct”, “Sweeping”, and “Emotive”, stories.
There are other categories, but I’m not sure how to categorize Dickens, exactly. Obviously not succinct.

But efficiency of language is not a good in itself. It’s opposite often serves the story and writing style of a storyteller better. The opening salvo of Oliver Twist is brilliant. It sets the tone for the story, the language is a pleasure to read in itself, and if the reader isn’t reading it as homework, it can fire the imagination and get the brain moving like a good morning excercise. It’s brilliant. Make it more succinct, reduce Oliver’s birth to one short sentence or skip past it entirely, and the story loses an incredible wealth of value.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don’t. Lord of The Rings, any Guy Gavriel Kay novel, most literature written before post-modernism, The Dresden Files. Frankenstein. If it weren’t 10:30 on my 5th closing shift in a row, I could probably think of others.

“Superfluous” elements are often the difference between what I’d categorize as “Succinct”, “Sweeping”, and “Emotive”, stories.
There are other categories, but I’m not sure how to categorize Dickens, exactly. Obviously not succinct.

But efficiency of language is not a good in itself. It’s opposite often serves the story and writing style of a storyteller better. The opening salvo of Oliver Twist is brilliant. It sets the tone for the story, the language is a pleasure to read in itself, and if the reader isn’t reading it as homework, it can fire the imagination and get the brain moving like a good morning excercise. It’s brilliant. Make it more succinct, reduce Oliver’s birth to one short sentence or skip past it entirely, and the story loses an incredible wealth of value.

In other words, it serves a specific and necessary purpose in the story. It is, by definition, not a superfluous element.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No, I understand other people might call for a check when there’s no obvious consequence for failure and have their reasons for doing so. I was responding to your critique of the way I and others run the game: “If there is a chance of failure if a check is made, but not if an approach that makes sense is taken, the game/GM is punishing players when they want to make checks.”

My point was that this isn’t a coherent critique, because the way that I and others run the game, a check wouldn’t be made if an approach that makes sense wouldn’t have a chance of failure.

Yes, I know. What you’re quoting was said with regard to the idea that players create the risk of failure by asking to make a check, which is a common part of discussions about this.

Are you asserting that those who don't ask for rolls for color are mostly running games with combat?

No. When I wish to assert a thing, I simply do so. I don’t dance around it.

Plenty of resources are spent in exploration and social interaction challenges to mitigate the swing of the d20 in my games. It's just I'm never asking them roll just so I can narrate some color. I don't need a die roll to do that.

No one needs a die roll to narrate color. If it was a need, one of the various people who have answered the OP question would have expressed it as such.

 

[Maxperson]

Definition 2 of consequence is “importance or relevance.” The lock frustrating you for longer than it should have is not important or relevant (unless there’s time pressure making it so).

6 of one, half a dozen of the other. Either make failure consequential, or don’t call for a roll. Either way, the advice not to call for a roll when failure is inconsequential is being observed.

Ok, but now you know what I mean, so perhaps we can move on.

I view not getting into the room, chest or whatever is locked to be a meaningful consequence for failure.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, I know. What you’re quoting was said with regard to the idea that players create the risk of failure by asking to make a check, which is a common part of discussions about this.

As a hypothetical. Players asking to make checks are asking for a chance of failure, because a chance of failure is an inherent property of checks. This is not meant to suggest that a DM ought to create a chance of failure where one would not otherwise exist because the player is “asking for it.” Rather, it is meant to illustrate the absurdity of seeking to make checks, rather than seeking to be successful (which may incidentally require a check, or may not).