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

[Plaguescarred]

Do you ever do this? Rolling even without a chance of failure?

No i don't i usually ask for a check when there's no risk of failure and or meaningful consequence to it. Nor when i don't want randomness to determine the outcome of a task. I can decide the outcome or use Passive Check. Rolling for all and nothing clogs the game unecessarily, i don't ask one for walking, running, climbing stairs, haggling and most social interactions etc.. Or for a task that will eventually succeed with time and no disturbance.

If i'd ask for a check that is not to determine the outcome, it'd be to foil the table. Asking for a random d20 roll, looking at one's sheet just to puzzle them and raise metagame suspicious....

 

[CubicsRube]

Often I see the following DM advice:

"Don't ask for a roll if failure isn't interesting."

I totally understand this advice.

As a player, though, I disagree. I love to roll. In most situations, I'd choose to roll a check than not roll and automatically succeed. Even when failure isn't interesting.

In my experience, this guideline often leads to my DM saying, "Oh, your character has a high History bonus, so I won't make you roll for it."

Though that makes sense narratively... I've invested in History! I want to roll!

However, I understand that a failed History check really isn't fun. Just saying, "You don't know anything about that" doesn't really lead to interesting narrative outcomes.

In the game I run, I almost always ask players to roll. I've tried to find ways to always make failure a little interesting, even when success is guaranteed.

Here are some examples:

A rogue is trying to pick a lock. It's not a difficult lock, and they have time, so I'll tell them "you are going to succeed, but roll to see how effortless it looks." On a low roll there's a lot of sweat and broken lockpicks. On a high roll they pick the lock with a bent paperclip and a wad of chewing gum.

A barbarian is trying to cut a chain in two. They're a barbarian, they'll get through it in time. I'll have them roll an attack roll to see if it makes a loud noise or not, alerting creatures in the dungeon.

A character with the Soldier background is commanding a lower-ranking guard to move aside. Because of their background feature, they will succeed. But I'll have them roll a Persuasion or Intimidation check to see what the guards think of them after - are they in awe, or suspicious, or annoyed?

Do you ever do this? Rolling even without a chance of failure?

Yes, this is usually called "failing forward" and somewhat related to "success with a cost". I use it sometimes and it's pretty common in more narrative systems.

In your lockpicking situation succeeding but having your lockpicks break so they can't be used again is great when the party needs to get somewhere. A read on the "don't roll unless it's meaningful" can include these kinds of situations rather than just pass/fail.

 

[Oofta]

Of course it’s about making the game fun. Some people just find different things fun than you do.

There is no one true way, DMs and groups should try out different options and see what works for them. In no way am I saying my style is better than any others.

Personally I prefer that people state what they're trying to accomplish but my preference doesn't work for all my players. So if they simply state "I make and insight 18, can I tell if they're lying" I'm not going to make a big deal out of it. They simply took a shortcut because they knew I'd call for an insight check if they told me they suspected the NPC was lying. Another example would be if they roll an athletics check to climb a wall, after the fact I may say something like "It was easy to climb the wall, there are plenty of handholds and no athletics check was necessary." to let other players know a roll isn't necessary. If a declaration isn't clear I'll ask for clarification. In other cases I'll explain that it doesn't matter if you rolled a 20 to climb the wall, it can't be done without magic. Rolling the dice just reflects an attempted action by the PC.

But just because following a strict pattern doesn't work for me, if someone else finds following a different pattern works better for them then good for them.

Back to the OP, I think the DM needs to work in some checks that have varying levels of success and failure. Sounds like the players miss the challenge and potential setbacks. A lot of times I'll try to work in some kind of setback. If a PC's skill is high enough picking a lock may be inevitable but there's a difference between getting it open in a few seconds and taking half an hour.

 

[Charlaquin]

Oh, fair enough. I have no problems doing that though.

Yeah, that’s just a matter of preference, some people are more comfortable with it than others.

I rolled a 15 on my arcana check, what do I know about this monster?

Me: (looking at the monster and figuring, yup, that's good enough) You know X, Y and Z.

Good enough for what? It’s just a number devoid of context. I prefer the player tell me what they want to know about the monster and what experience they’re drawing on to try and recall it. Then as with any other action I’ll use that information to determine if a roll is needed and what DC.

Player: I climb up the wall, 15 Athletics.

Me: You scramble up the wall with ease.

Climbing doesn’t typically require an Athletics check in 5e.

It helps that pretty much my entire group also DM's other games, or has in the past, so, they all know the drill. And, no one is too fussed about this sort of thing. Like I said, I much, much prefer, "I search the room, Investigate X" than, "I look around the room... pause for me to tell them to make the roll that they know they're going to make 99% of the time anyway... roll... pause while I tell them the result... move on."

“I look around the room” doesn’t tell me what they’re looking for, and it also doesn’t sound like an action that would have any reasonable chance of revealing anything that wasn’t in the initial description of the room.

I just find the notion that you can't understand what the player wants from context frankly baffling. It's not like we're all new DM's who've never played before. You know exactly what the player is trying to achieve most of the time, and, if I don't, I'll just ask.

I can generally understand from context what a player hopes to achieve, but not what their character is doing to try and achieve it. I can imagine something they might do to try and achieve it, but that’s not my job. It’s the player’s job to tell me what their character is doing to try and achieve their goals, and my job to decide if that could work, fail to work, and has a consequence for failing to work, and if so to set a DC for it to work.

 

[Charlaquin]

Personally I prefer that people state what they're trying to accomplish but my preference doesn't work for all my players. So if they simply state "I make and insight 18, can I tell if they're lying" I'm not going to make a big deal out of it. They simply took a shortcut because they knew I'd call for an insight check if they told me they suspected the NPC was lying.

Well, they did tell you they suspected the NPC was lying. Or, at least, they told you they wanted to see if they could tell the NPC was lying, which implies suspicion of lying. The problem for me (apart from the fact that I don’t like insight to work as a lie detector) is that it doesn’t tell me how the character is trying to figure out if the NPC is lying.

Another example would be if they roll an athletics check to climb a wall, after the fact I may say something like "It was easy to climb the wall, there are plenty of handholds and no athletics check was necessary." to let other players know a roll isn't necessary. If a declaration isn't clear I'll ask for clarification. In other cases I'll explain that it doesn't matter if you rolled a 20 to climb the wall, it can't be done without magic. Rolling the dice just reflects an attempted action by the PC.

Climbing is a weird example to use here because it doesn’t typically require a check in 5e.

But just because following a strict pattern doesn't work for me, if someone else finds following a different pattern works better for them then good for them.

Yeah, of course. People should do what they find fun and works for them. I’m simply advocating for the way I have found to be most successful and why.

Back to the OP, I think the DM needs to work in some checks that have varying levels of success and failure. Sounds like the players miss the challenge and potential setbacks. A lot of times I'll try to work in some kind of setback. If a PC's skill is high enough picking a lock may be inevitable but there's a difference between getting it open in a few seconds and taking half an hour.

Time spent on a task only matters if time is a limited resource. Either a ticking clock or periodic wandering monster checks or the like. Now, for me it almost always is, but I know it isn’t for everyone. If there wasn’t a source of time pressure, I would probably add some other consequence. Progress with a setback is a good option, maybe the lock gets picked but the thieves’ tools break in the process or something.

 

[DEFCON 1]

When I run, checks that are related to the imparting of information I will usually have players make rolls for because they have the skills and want to see themselves get stuff out of them. Usually there is info that I would impart to the players as a matter of general knowledge "for free"-- I wouldn't need to ask for a roll because they would automatically succeed to get it. But when I do ask for a roll, the check is to potentially get more information in addition to the general stuff they would get anyway. So there's no "failure" related to the check per se (unless you consider getting stuff you would have gotten anyway a failure)... but there is a chance of greater success.

I'm not stingy with information so I don't mind giving out more information than they otherwise might have gotten if they hadn't rolled. And the players get the double-boon of more info * and * the thrill of rolling a check and seeing that '19' or '20' come up.

 

[Charlaquin]

Eh, I think everyone means “consequence other than just not getting anything special from the situation” in these discussions.

What I mean is literally a consequence - something meaningful that happens as a direct result, something to make the roll consequential.

Sometimes all the possible outcomes are success, with different details, or moving the story in slightly different directions, helping inform future “consequence” elements like an “unnecessary” Persuasion check helping inform how people at court view the characters involved in that check, and color their reactions later on, or even adding weight to one side of a decision about an NPCs future and what path they will take in the future.

They can also be used to add characterization for PCs and NPCs, to establish social dynamics, and other forms of soft influence on the game.

Maybe it’s because these descriptions are too vague, but they all sound like consequences to me.

 

[Charlaquin]

When I run, checks that are related to the imparting of information I will usually have players make rolls for because they have the skills and want to see themselves get stuff out of them. Usually there is info that I would impart to the players as a matter of general knowledge "for free"-- I wouldn't need to ask for a roll because they would automatically succeed to get it. But when I do ask for a roll, the check is to potentially get more information in addition to the general stuff they would get anyway. So there's no "failure" related to the check per se (unless you consider getting stuff you would have gotten anyway a failure)... but there is a chance of greater success.

I'm not stingy with information so I don't mind giving out more information than they otherwise might have gotten if they hadn't rolled. And the players get the double-boon of more info * and * the thrill of rolling a check and seeing that '19' or '20' come up.

Yeah, I like the Dungeon World approach of getting interesting and directly useful information on a (complete) success, and only getting interesting information on a failure.

 

[el-remmen]

Climbing doesn’t typically require an Athletics check in 5e.

It doesn't?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What I mean is literally a consequence - something meaningful that happens as a direct result, something to make the roll consequential.

Maybe it’s because these descriptions are too vague, but they all sound like consequences to me.

Then every roll has a consequence and the discussion has no meaning.