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

[Oofta]

Ok. Consider combat as an analogy. In order to properly resolve an attack in combat, one needs to know which target the character is attacking and with what weapon, which can be seen as analogous to the goal (kill the goblin) and approach (by attacking him with my sword). Any additional details describing the specifics of the attack may be an enjoyable bit of color, but are unnecessary to resolve the action.

There are many situations where I don't need anything explicit. I mean, I do care but I know that Sly will always attack with their short sword and if the first attack doesn't hit they'll decide whether to attack with their dagger unless they've specified otherwise. We use minis so if Sly is indicating movement and moves into position that they can only attack 1 creature, that also does not need to be stated. Even if there are multiple targets, if the target they attacked last time is the creature is still around I'll assume that's the target.

Outside of combat it’s the same. When picking a lock, presumably your goal is to open the door/chest/whatever, and your approach is to pick the lock with your thieves’ tools. Any additional description about you carefully testing the lock pins with your probe or whatever are an enjoyable bit of color, but are unnecessary to resolve the action. When checking an area for traps, finding out if there are any traps there is a goal, comparable to killing the goblin getting a locked door or chest open. In order to resolve the action, I need to know what your approach is, Are you just looking with your eyes? Are you touching stuff with your hands? Are you using a tool of some kind? I need to know these things to determine what the potential outcomes will be, just like I would need to know what weapon you’re using when attacking or if you’re using thieves’ tools vs. smashing the lock or whatever. Checking an NPC’s emotional state for signs of deception is similar to checking a physical object or area for traps, just in a social context. Specific details about how you’re doing it are a nice bit of color, but are unnecessary to resolve the action.

From that example, I would go with option D. “I’m hearing that you want to find out if the chest is trapped. What does your character do to try and find that out?” If the player said they don’t know, I would offer some suggestions, like “you could try running your fingers or a tool of some sort over its surface to notice any irregularities, try and tilt it to check underneath, stand behind it and open it a crack to see if anything happens, or anything else you can think of, it’s up to you.”

So even with option D, you would still have them go through the motions of checking for a trap even though there is none?

As for the rest - maybe I'm just having flashbacks to the DM who would say something along the line of "Aha! You touched it! Make a constitution saving throw because you didn't look for contact poison first!" It became a game of player description versus DM gotcha. Now, I'm not saying that you would do that. However it's not my preference because it stresses player's skillful description over PC capability. I want PC proficiencies and how the player built their character to matter outside of combat. If someone wants to min-max their PC so that their fighter has maxed out strength and con while ignoring every out-of-combat skill, I think it should matter.

As far as stating specific goals and whatnot, for me it would just be superfluous most of the time. Obviously they're checking the chest for traps because they want to open the chest. Why else would they? I'm going to assume the rogue has thieves tools, just like I'm going to assume that Sly is going to use their short sword in melee combat and is not try to kick the goblin in the knee. I don't need to police my character's possessions and I assume that if they have the tool for the job they're going to use them. Why would they not?

There are exceptions to all things of course. If the monk is trying to pick the lock because the rogue is not available I'll verify that they have the tools and are proficient. There are times when I have to clarify exactly which creature the PC is targeting in combat or what they are trying to achieve. But 90% of the time or more, what they want to achieve and how they're doing it is going to be clear.

I think a big part of why I choose to focus on PC skill and not player skill is twofold. First, focusing on player skill rewards experienced players, particularly players who have been playing with a specific DM for a long time. Second, some people would find it very difficult to describe that kind of interaction either because they don't have the imagination, can't easily put it into words, have no clue what you want or just don't have the kind of personality that lends itself to that style.

Last, but not least, I fully acknowledge that I'm not the right DM for everyone. No DM can be. Most players seem to enjoy my DMing.

 

[Maxperson]

Their action was ignored by the story. Literally nothing happened as a result.

I think you are overgeneralizing the "ignoring the player" aspect of this. Perhaps your players would feel ignored. Mine would be happy that nothing happened instead of something bad happening.

 

[soviet]

I wrote a game BTW, it's called Other Worlds. It's dirty Story Now stuff for the most part but there is a technique I came up with called Deferred Conflicts. Basically, if a character does something and the consequences won't be apparent until later... roll later, at the moment of proof.

So, if you try to persuade the guard to leave a door unlocked for you? Roll when you infiltrate the compound and get to that door.

You try to see if the door is trapped? Roll when you open it.

You try to cast a spell that protects you against trap damage? Roll if a trap goes off.

In each case the character tries their best and thinks they succeeded, but we don't roll the dice to confirm until the attempt is actually tested. It's not a technique to use all the time. But it can make some of these 'failure = nothing happens' rolls more interesting.

 

[Maxperson]

So to clarify: I don't care how you run your game. I think the advice in the DMG is explicitly talking about mundane activities and is not broad overall advice on when and how to ask for checks. In other words if someone asks if they can tell if a chest is trapped, I'll call for a check no matter whether or not there's a penalty for failure.

There are multiple areas that talk about this, though. The ability check section in the PHB says this.

"The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."

If there's no trap, the rules say that you should just tell them that they fail to find one. The outcome is not uncertain. If you think that the players will use the out of character knowledge of the die roll when the outcome is uncertain(a trap is there), then that's a player issue and you should talk to the players about that.

All I'm saying is that there's no one true way. The DMG is just advice, and like many texts throughout history people have taken a sentence here and there out of context to mean things that are not intended. This is one of those cases. IMHO.

The DMG is rules, not "just advice." Trying to reduce it to "just advice" or misusing "rulings over rules" to ignore RAW isn't effective. You're making a house rule. It's no big deal, but that house rule isn't supported by those arguments. Why? Because even in a game like Monopoly or Chess, the rules amount to "just advice," and "rulings over rules" is intended for those situations not explicitly covered by the rules, not as a mantra to trot out whenever you've changed a rule and are in a RAW discussion.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, in real life, "nothing happens" is a very common outcome. Sometimes, you can't lift a box, sometimes, you start writing a book and never actually finish it, sometimes you go on a second date and then realize you don't wanna third. Yeah, this stuff happens. It's still boring, though. Ain't we playing to see exciting #### unfold?

If everything is exciting, then nothing is exciting. For a situation to stand out as exciting, it has to have the mundane to stand out from. It's not a problem to have the mundane(nothing happens) in the game. It's an issue when it happens too much of the time.

 

[Maxperson]

No, we're playing to pretend we're eating shawarma. (The bread has too many carbs for me to eat it in real life.)

I saw the Avengers playing that game in an end credits scene.

 

[iserith]

If everything is exciting, then nothing is exciting. For a situation to stand out as exciting, it has to have the mundane to stand out from. It's not a problem to have the mundane(nothing happens) in the game. It's an issue when it happens too much of the time.

It stands out from the mundanity of real life which is what we're escaping from for a few hours when we enter these worlds of swords and sorcery full of deadly perils.

 

[Charlaquin]

There are many situations where I don't need anything explicit. I mean, I do care but I know that Sly will always attack with their short sword and if the first attack doesn't hit they'll decide whether to attack with their dagger unless they've specified otherwise. We use minis so if Sly is indicating movement and moves into position that they can only attack 1 creature, that also does not need to be stated. Even if there are multiple targets, if the target they attacked last time is the creature is still around I'll assume that's the target.

Yeah, for sure. There are always things that can be figured out from context. When a player says “I try to pick the lock,” I know they mean with thieves’ tools, I don’t make them say so. And when a character only carries one weapon, I don’t make them say “I attack with my short sword” every time. But there are also some things you can’t safely assume. Maybe Sly usually uses his short sword and follows up with his dagger, but are you going to assume that he does so when fighting a skeleton, which is famously weak to bludgeoning damage? I wouldn’t, and if Sly’s player didn’t specify, I would ask for confirmation, “with your short sword?”

So even with option D, you would still have them go through the motions of checking for a trap even though there is none?

Of course. The player doesn’t know there isn’t a trap, and the decision to check if there is, and how to go about doing so, matters. That decision carries tension - do they play it safe and just scan with their eyes? Do they risk touching it? Do they use a 10-foot pole? Making these kinds of decisions are what the game is all about.

As for the rest - maybe I'm just having flashbacks to the DM who would say something along the line of "Aha! You touched it! Make a constitution saving throw because you didn't look for contact poison first!" It became a game of player description versus DM gotcha. Now, I'm not saying that you would do that. However it's not my preference because it stresses player's skillful description over PC capability. I want PC proficiencies and how the player built their character to matter outside of combat. If someone wants to min-max their PC so that their fighter has maxed out strength and con while ignoring every out-of-combat skill, I think it should matter.

Sure; we’ve all had experiences that shape our preferences today; I’m equally affected by bad experiences with DMs calling for rolls for every goddamn thing, most of which had no meaningful gameplay consequence, but just served to make the game into a total farce as characters regularly struggled with utterly trivial tasks. And I’m likewise not assuming you would do that.

Regarding “player skill vs. character skill,” I agree that a player’s character building choices should matter, and their descriptive skills should not. But my preference is for the player’s decisions to be the most important thing, and for character build to be subordinate to that. Just like in combat, your decisions about how to position yourself, how to prioritize your targets, when to retreat, etc. have the greatest impact on your chances of victory, and your stats simply help insure greater consistency and might occasionally help shore up tactical mistakes. Likewise, I want the player’s decisions while exploring and socializing to have the greatest impact on the outcome, and their stats to serve as insurance against failure. When your decisions lead you into risky situations, your stats will help you have a better chance of avoiding those risks. They’ll also help inform what kinds of tasks you’re best suited to. A character with high strength and low dexterity is probably better off trying to open locks by breaking them than by picking them with thieves’ tools because if a roll is required, they’ll have a greater chance of success at the former.

As far as stating specific goals and whatnot, for me it would just be superfluous most of the time. Obviously they're checking the chest for traps because they want to open the chest. Why else would they?

Checking for traps is again not an approach but a goal - to learn if there are traps or not. The thing that’s missing, for me, is what they’re doing to try and learn that.

I'm going to assume the rogue has thieves tools, just like I'm going to assume that Sly is going to use their short sword in melee combat and is not try to kick the goblin in the knee. I don't need to police my character's possessions and I assume that if they have the tool for the job they're going to use them. Why would they not?

There are exceptions to all things of course. If the monk is trying to pick the lock because the rogue is not available I'll verify that they have the tools and are proficient. There are times when I have to clarify exactly which creature the PC is targeting in combat or what they are trying to achieve. But 90% of the time or more, what they want to achieve and how they're doing it is going to be clear.

Yes, as I went into above, there are some things that can be safely assumed, such as a character using the weapon they currently have drawn to attack the target they’ve been attacking for the past few rounds when they say “I attack”, or a rogue using thieves’ tools when they say “I pick the lock.” But there are other things that can’t as easily be assumed. Are you touching the chest when you check it for traps? I don’t want to make that decision for you, you tell me.

As I’ve told you many times before, all I’m looking for is reasonable specificity. If it’s clear what you’re trying to accomplish and how, I’m not going to insist you phrase it in some specific way. But it does need to be clear what you’re trying to accomplish and what you’re doing to try and accomplish it. Yes, this does mean you have to accept that the outcomes of your actions are a direct result of the specific actions you declare, that’s kind of the point.

I think a big part of why I choose to focus on PC skill and not player skill is twofold. First, focusing on player skill rewards experienced players, particularly players who have been playing with a specific DM for a long time. Second, some people would find it very difficult to describe that kind of interaction either because they don't have the imagination, can't easily put it into words, have no clue what you want or just don't have the kind of personality that lends itself to that style.

I understand that different players have different levels of skill and comfort when it comes to describing their characters’ actions, and I take that into account. I know most players aren’t engineers and aren’t going to know how a trap would likely work and how to find it without setting it off - neither do I! I interpret action declarations in good faith, and I don’t insist on any particular degree of detail, only reasonable specificity. As long as I understand what you are trying to accomplish and what your character is actually doing in the game-world, we’re Gucci. I’m not going to spring any gotchas on you because you said something the wrong way, I’m just trying to insure a clear and internally consistent narrative, and to avoid making decisions for you about what your own character does.

Last, but not least, I fully acknowledge that I'm not the right DM for everyone. No DM can be. Most players seem to enjoy my DMing.

Of course. Likewise.

 

[soviet]

If everything is exciting, then nothing is exciting. For a situation to stand out as exciting, it has to have the mundane to stand out from. It's not a problem to have the mundane(nothing happens) in the game. It's an issue when it happens too much of the time.

Conversely, if nothing is exciting, then nothing is exciting. I agree there is a place for mundane diversions and quiet moments etc, I just think that 'picking up the dice' should be reserved for the exciting bits.

 

[Charlaquin]

I wrote a game BTW, it's called Other Worlds. It's dirty Story Now stuff for the most part but there is a technique I came up with called Deferred Conflicts. Basically, if a character does something and the consequences won't be apparent until later... roll later, at the moment of proof.

So, if you try to persuade the guard to leave a door unlocked for you? Roll when you infiltrate the compound and get to that door.

You try to see if the door is trapped? Roll when you open it.

You try to cast a spell that protects you against trap damage? Roll if a trap goes off.

In each case the character tries their best and thinks they succeeded, but we don't roll the dice to confirm until the attempt is actually tested. It's not a technique to use all the time. But it can make some of these 'failure = nothing happens' rolls more interesting.

Reminds me of how I handle Stealth. Most other DMs I’ve observed call for a Stealth check right away when a player says their character is sneaking somewhere, even if there’s no one to observe them at that moment, and then refer to that number when/if they pass by an enemy that might spot them. I instead wait until there’s an actual chance the character will be spotted before calling for a Stealth check. Call for the rolls when they’re relevant, I find it’s much more exciting that way.