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

[Maxperson]

So your sessions are just 'I attack', 'I attack', 'I cast fireball', 'I make an Investigation roll', 'Yay I gained a level' ad infinitum? Sounds empty. No roleplaying at all, just pure mechanics.

"I attack." is every bit as much roleplaying as "I take my sword and thrust it up into the orc, just under his rib cage." In both cases you are playing the role of the fighter in combat.

 

[iserith]

These kinds of calls are unavoidable and there's no underlying rule. It's about scene framing and levels of abstraction and it's a big part of why we have a GM.

"Can I roll to bribe the guard?" is probably fine. "Can I roll to persuade the king to do X?" is probably not.

It's basically the same kind of distinction the GM makes when he resolves directional decisions at a micro level in a dungeon, but doesn't do the same in the city when the PCs decide they want to go shopping to buy some potions.

There's nothing in D&D 5e that suggests players should be asking to make rolls. (It's also a bad strategy.) They can ask if a skill or tool proficiency applies to an ability check the DM has already asked for though.

 

[Umbran]

Players don't get to decide to roll checks. They describe what they are doing, "I check for traps," not "I roll perception to find a trap."

Flip side - most GMs haven't spent significant effort in training the players to describe actions in detail enough to make what skill applies obvious. When they don't have the habit, suggesting which skill they hope to apply is basically a statement of approach. And it is not appropriate to mark it as a player fault when the GM hasn't invested in developing the player habit.

And we shouldn't confuse the player asking to do a thing with the player deciding to do a thing.

But yes, "I attempt to intimidate the orc" is enough. It would be nice for the player to roleplay more, but I don't need more to know what he's doing.

We can note that there's very little light between "I attempt to intimidate the orc" and "I would like to roll intimidation against the orc". But, it is reasonable for Intimidation to work off Charisma or Strength, and neither declaration, in and of itself, clarifies which is going to be applicable.

 

[Maxperson]

Flip side - most GMs haven't spent significant effort in training the players to describe actions in detail enough to make what skill applies obvious. When they don't have the habit, suggesting which skill they hope to apply is basically a statement of approach. And it is not appropriate to mark it as a player fault when the GM hasn't invested in developing the player habit.

And we shouldn't confuse the player asking to do a thing with the player deciding to do a thing.

I've had players roll the die right after they say that, before I can even respond.

We can note that there's very little light between "I attempt to intimidate the orc" and "I would like to roll intimidation against the orc". But, it is reasonable for Intimidation to work off Charisma or Strength, and neither declaration, in and of itself, clarifies which is going to be applicable.

If they don't differentiate it to me, then they get the default charisma. If they want me to engage the rules variant for skills with different abilities(and I do use it), they will need to convey that to me somehow.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I've had players roll the die right after they say that, before I can even respond.

A habit left over from other games, I would wager.

If they don't differentiate it to me, then they get the default charisma. If they want me to engage the rules variant for skills with different abilities(and I do use it), they will need to convey that to me somehow.

So, you need reasonable specificity from the player? Our gameplay is not so different after all!

 

[iserith]

I know, like I have the background (I think it is outlander or something) a few characters back so as a feature I got to find food for me and up to X people (I think 5) in campaigns before and after that we had to RP getting food and making rolls to save supplies... but that game we skipped it... after 1 or 2 games we didn't even say "elishar finds enough food" we just skipped the food/water thing... so as much as my passive ability helped it felt for 9 levels like I didn't have one because the game just made me auto win and as such we never had the problem.

Elishar was also a Monk/Druid multi calls that fought with a staff. he never had big spell casting moments (always behind on caster level) and never had major combat moments aside an occasional lucky crit(no one is calling monk the best warrior even before multi). So my biggest contributions where in travel/exploration... Druidcraft meaning I always new North came up once or twice then the DM just stopped asking us if we were lost... again even though he did so in pre and post campaigns.

So the way this is supposed to work is that when you're engaged in a wilderness travel exploration challenge, your character undertakes the Foraging travel task (see "Activities While Traveling"). Your character isn't a ranger in favored terrain, so while Foraging, you cannot Keep Watch for Danger. Unlike other characters, your Outlander background means that you don't have to make a roll to see if you successfully forage; however, what it does mean is that you are automatically surprised if a stealthy monster comes calling while you're traveling. As well, you have no chance of noticing traps since your passive Perception does not apply as your attention is focused on Foraging.

There's a meaningful choice to be made here and if the DM presents the game as intended, it's a risk for Elishar to use that background feature as he is more likely to be surprised or, depending on his rank in the marching order, run afoul of traps. Your DM also appears to have been quite generous with the Navigating travel task. At best, I would have granted advantage on the Wisdom (Survival) check for knowing which direction was north (since you can get advantage already just by being able to see the sky). Weather should also have an impact on your foraging ability relative to resource expenditure - hot days require more water, so if the weather table indicated extreme heat, I'm going to say you come up short on the additional water supplies. Someone else will have to engage in Foraging as well to get the party all it needs and, unlike you, that person will probably have to roll (unless also an Outlander).

All that to say, ranger or Outlander features don't actually allow the party to just skip over content. But it depends on how the DM is implementing it. Implementing the way the PHB and DMG contains a lot of meaningful trade-offs and decisions to be made by the players with risks attached.

EDIT: And I didn't even get into how travel pace affects tasks like Foraging or Keeping Watch for Danger!

 

[Maxperson]

So, you need reasonable specificity from the player? Our gameplay is not so different after all!

First, I'll accept "I attempt to intimidate the orc." The player will then get a charisma ability check if the outcome is in doubt.

Second, the specificity I described there was for when the player is trying to do something unusual. Yes, if they aren't trying to use the standard charisma stat, they will need to describe to me why I should be using a different stat. I mean, if they were in a riddle contest and wanted to show off mental prowess, I'd even allow a intelligence intimidate check if they described that to me.

Third, I said earlier in the thread that if the players want to describe things to me in detail, that's a good thing, because it can earn them an auto success where they might just have a roll with a base declaration. I just don't require those high details. As an example, a player could tell me, "I search the drawer for traps, including running my knife through the drawer seam." If the trap is in the seam, they will find it. If it's not, they will still get the roll, because they searched the drawer for traps.

 

[iserith]

Third, I said earlier in the thread that if the players want to describe things to me in detail, that's a good thing, because it can earn them an auto success where they might just have a roll with a base declaration.

I don't know, man, sounds like playing the DM and guess their thoughts instead playing of the game.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't know, man, sounds like playing the DM and guess their thoughts instead playing of the game.

That isn't an argument of mine, though. And from what I've read, the "playing the DM" complaints describe having to find that one spot in order to achieve success, failing if you don't. That's different from what I said.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

"Is your character just looking at the drawer? Sliding a knife along the seam? Jiggling the handle? In what way is your character interacting with the drawer that might allow them to determine the presence or absence of traps?"

These are examples of a DM prompting a player to be reasonably specific in how they are approaching something. These are NOT some expectation that the player is a trap expert. Nor are they a setup for a gotcha. Do you simply not believe @Charlaquin when they explain this? Or are you trying to wedge these into your seemingly different playstyle? Maybe that's it and why it seems like it doesn't work to you.

That does. And it's a fairly gotcha to expect that. What if the trap is not along the seam? They miss the trap? If yes, then it's a gotcha level of detail being asked for, and the player is expected to be a trap expert that goes through every possible way to find a trap on the drawer. If no, then there's no real point for asking for that level of detail. The person is going to be able find the trap via the roll, even though they completely failed to find the trap through their description. Might as well just accept, "I search the drawer for traps."

The DM description for the scene is important, too. What is the environmental clue that gives the player a sense that something is not right here? If the DM just says, "there's a chest in the corner", then I guess I can see how it would be a gotcha if it is trapped and we expect the player to blindly guess what's going on.

But, when we create a more detailed scene as DM that includes: "There is a chest in the corner with an oddly shaped locked" - now the player has a little more detail to work with when they decide upon the approach their PC is taking. In this style of play, if a player states "I search the chest for traps" without reasonable specificity, that puts the "how" of it on the DM. If the DM then makes assumptions about "how" we potentially end up with the PC touching the needle in the lock - which is a real gotcha and a recipe for table conflict. Instead it's up to the player to decide how the PC would react to the environmental clue and let the DM know with reasonable specificity: "Grog smash lock with maul!" or "Sly wants to peer into the keyhole to see if there is any funny business" or "Bardikins uses his thieves tools to pick the lock" or whatever the player wants their PC to do. The DM, in this playstyle, is not expecting them to go "through every possible way to find a trap". The DM is expecting the player(s) to pay attention to the description of the environment (step one of the play loop) and then to declare their approach (step two of the play loop) so that the DM can do their job of adjudicating the action (step 3 of the play loop).

Whether you like it or not, does this playstyle make sense to you?
It really exists and people are having fun with it. Just like your playstyle exists and people are presumably having fun with it, too.
We don't employ gotchas and we aren't expecting flowery declarations or mind readers or technical experts at the table.