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

[iserith]

Action declaration is to search for traps. Presumably in reality this process has several steps, starting with looking for anything obviously sus. Of course the character will not touch it if they notice the poison/death runes/whatever at this point.

How about we don't guess or retcon? How about we just establish what the character is doing with reasonable specificity before the adjudication step? Certainly there are traps that can noticed or deduced without touching things, right?

It doesn't say that. Nevertheless, sounds reasonable.

I know it doesn't say that. I'm putting it in the context of the rules for ability checks so that the entire thought process can be fully understood. All of these rules work together.

Right. And I argue 'I search the chest for traps' is sufficient to allow the investigation roll with the stated difficulty. And I think it is pretty clear that the bureau example backs this up. The idea that the trap would need more detail than that simply is not supported by anything.

When you say things like "allow the roll," you are signaling to me that the player desires to roll and are trying to say the things that will get them there, when that should not be the case in my view. As well, "I search for traps" sits at the level of "I search the room" to me. I don't know exactly what you're doing and so I can't decide if you succeed, fail, or need to make a check.

So 'lock is ornate' is the telegraph, and they need to specifically look in the lock, not just examine the chest? I don't think this is in line of the bureau example, but I guess it makes sense. Then again, why not require that they say the specifically look for an needle in order to get to roll? Certainly you must admit that where one draws the line is rather arbitrary?

BTW. This is actually a pretty sensible trap. This is the sort of trap most players might indeed know to suspect, as it could exist in reality and is pretty well known type of trap. But a lot of traps are not like that.

That the lock is "oddly shaped" is also me telegraphing. But what needs to be clear is that there isn't a specific set of words that a player needs to say to be "allowed to roll." I'm not "allowing rolls." I'm adjudicating actions. They didn't roll because they searched the locking mechanism. They rolled because their action declaration (whatever it was at the time of play) was sufficient where I didn't need to assume what they were doing and also it wasn't an automatic success or failure, but rather was uncertain, and carried with it a meaningful consequence for failure. (In this case, 10 minutes lost which calls for a wandering monster check and pushes the clock further toward adding an additional villain to the adventure location. The latter occurred hourly.)

Again, there is no requirement outside of stating a goal (what you want to do) and an approach (how you set about doing it) with reasonable specificity so I don't have to assume or establish what your character is doing.

Ultimately in a game where the player doesn't know whether they succeed or fail when making the action declaration it limits their ability to describe somewhat. But II really don't think this needs to lead to lacklustre action declarations.

But you know what. I'm going to agree with you halfway. I think relatively broad action declarations should generally suffice to get to roll. But if the player describes something more specific that happens to be particularly effective for the situation, they should get lower DC or an advantage.

Really the player just needs to say what they're trying to accomplish and how. That's all.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It's the same. If I need the player attempt to push the nob on the drawer, pull the nob, twist the nob, tap the nob in the middle, slide the nob up, slide the nob sideways, slide it down in order to convey to me how he's trying to find the trap, that's pixelbitching. All of those are potential ways to trigger a trap or find a secret compartment. And that just touches on the things you could try.

Yes. But let's call it 'pixel hunting' from now on.

 

[iserith]

Staring at a chest is not checking it for anything. If they are checking the chest for traps, they are touching it.

Says you (and Crimson). I don't see why certain traps couldn't be detected visually with no physical interaction. That seems like a thing that could exist, particularly given how many of them can be noticed by keeping watch while moving about the adventure locations (perhaps resolved with passive Perception). Therefore, when it comes to checking for traps, I'm going to ask players whether they're visually or physically inspecting the item. Perhaps for some traps a physical inspection is required to have a chance at noticing the trap. But not all traps, certainly.

 

[iserith]

Yes. But let's call it 'pixel hunting' from now on.

You'd be calling it a thing it's not though, at least as it pertains to the games we're describing. That level of detail is not necessary. It's rather disingenuous in my view to say that a level of detail slightly more what you're asking for with the goal of increasing player agency and reducing conflict is somehow a degenerate form of play.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Says you (and Crimson). I don't see why certain traps couldn't be detected visually with no physical interaction. That seems like a thing that could exist, particularly given how many of them can be noticed by keeping watch while moving about the adventure locations (perhaps resolved with passive Perception). Therefore, when it comes to checking for traps, I'm going to ask players whether they're visually or physically inspecting the item. Perhaps for some traps a physical inspection is required to have a chance at noticing the trap. But not all traps, certainly.

Yes. And thus the character who knows what different sort of traps could exist (unlike the player) and who knows what tells they have (unlike the player) and who knows what techniques one can use to reveal them (unlike the player) takes those steps. That's why they can on a success spot the touch poison, because as a person who understand how traps work (unlike the player) they checked for that first. Had they not noticed such (because poor attention or it not being there) they would proceed to check for other forms of traps, which require touching the chest. The roll represents this process.

 

[iserith]

Yes. And thus the character who knows what different sort of traps could exist (unlike the player) and who knows what tells they have (unlike the player) and who knows what techniques one can use to reveal them (unlike the player) takes those steps. That's why they can on a success spot the touch poison, because as a person who understand how traps work (unlike the player) they checked for that first. Had they not noticed such (because poor attention or it not being there) they would proceed to check for other forms of traps, which require touching the chest. The roll represents this process.

There's a lot of assumptions built in there. I hope your players share them so there are no misunderstandings.

As well, a player who is not experienced with traps is welcome to have the character who is try to recall lore to assist with the situation. The DM can then adjudicate that attempt to recall lore. That's just the player playing effectively.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You'd be calling it a thing it's not though, at least as it pertains to the games we're describing. That level of detail is not necessary. It's rather disingenuous in my view to say that a level of detail slightly more what you're asking for with the goal of increasing player agency and reducing conflict is somehow a degenerate form of play.

Sure, perhaps it is an overreaction. I'm sure in these sort of argument people imagine the differences to be far more drastic than they're in reality. Ultimately the exact level of granularity and detail required is somewhat arbitrary and a matter taste, though of course there could be extremes that might be genuinely problematic.

Though I don't agree that this is really about agency or reducing conflict. Conflict is reduced by everyone at the table being (roughly) at the same page, whatever that page might be. As for agency, it is more about at what sort of level the players want to be making decisions. People who might be inclined to call your method 'pixel hunting' (accurately or not) clearly are not interested making decisions on that level nor feel it enhances their agency. But of course that again is subjective.

 

[iserith]

Sure, perhaps it is an overreaction. I'm sure in these sort of argument people imagine the differences to be far more drastic than they're in reality. Ultimately the exact level of granularity and detail required is somewhat arbitrary and a matter taste, though of course there could be extremes that might be genuinely problematic.

Though I don't agree that this is really about agency or reducing conflict. Conflict is reduced by everyone at the table being (roughly) at the same page, whatever that page might be. As for agency, it is more about at what sort of level the players want to be making decisions. People who might be inclined to call your method 'pixel hunting' (accurately or not) clearly are not interested making decisions on that level nor feel it enhances their agency. But of course that again is subjective.

It reduces conflict by not setting up situations where the DM and the player are imagining different things the character is doing. You can see this a lot in games. I saw it just the other day on a stream where the DM basically assumed the character did a thing and the player stepped up and said the character wouldn't do that. Now this problem isn't all on the DM. The player needed to do a better job of being explicit with action declarations. If he had done that, the DM couldn't have filled that void with a bad assumption.

It increases agency because the player has more control when actions are reasonably specific, leaving little or no room for someone else to come in and reduce agency by describing what their character does for them.

I ask players to be succinct in the truest sense of the word - brief but clear - because my game moves fast. Say enough that I don't have to ask you a bunch of questions to clarify what you're doing so I don't step on your agency. But don't say so much that you're slowing down the game. That's a pretty good rule of thumb in my experience and it makes for much more engaged players. No wall flowers at my table, that's for sure.

 

[Lanefan]

They're checking for traps! How? If they roll well, in a way that works, if they roll low, in a way that doesn't. Look, a trapped chest from DMG:


Plain DC 20 investigation check to detect, plain DC 15 thieves tools to disarm. The player isn't expected to specify the exact method of examining or disarming. Which is great, as I have no clue what either of those methods would be!

Yeah, I'm with @Charlaquin and @iserith on this bit at least: I too want a bit more detail and-or granularity around what's being done other than just "I check for traps".

I'm fine if, through going through all the details a few times at low level, they come up with a reasonable SOP for use as that campaign goes along. After that, all they have to do is tell me they're using their SOP (here, the code-word is "We thief over it") and we're gold: it has the granularity built in, and saying one phrase covers it all.

That said, there's inevitably going to be times when the SOP doesn't cover the specific instance they're dealing with. For example, if their SOP for chests covers needle traps in the lock and traps based on lifting/removing the lid but doesn't cover (because they never considered) traps that trigger if the chest is emptied or moved, then unless they say they're looking for such things this time they'll set it off.

After that, they'll (I hope!) add checking for that type of trap to their SOP.

Trial and error.

 

[iserith]

Yeah, I'm with @Charlaquin and @iserith on this bit at least: I too want a bit more detail and-or granularity around what's being done other than just "I check for traps".

The odd part about this for me is that often it's the same people that use "I check/disarm the trap" and throw dice at the situation who also complain that exploration challenge options are lacking in D&D 5e. I'm not saying that's the people engaged in the current conversation (I don't recall who was in the last exploration hate thread), but there's usually a correlation.