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

[Charlaquin]

I don't expect my players to be trap experts.

Neither do I.

That's what the proficiency is for.

And it will be added to the dice roll in the likely event that their attempt doesn’t eliminate the possibility of failure.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

That is certainly one viable option. What people are talking about though is the negative side of "rolling as a last resort". Bob, who's barbarian has a -1 to appropriate checks, is more successful than Sally who has a +15 because Bob knows how the DM thinks and knows what to say.

This is definitely an issue in some games, though I'd wager than allowing the -1 Bob to succeed where +15 Sally fails is a systemic flaw and needs be mediated by GM skill. Nothing is perfect, unfortunately, especially when human error is introduced.

When skill checks arise from necessity, I think it's fair for the GM to ask:

• What skill do you want to use?
• How are you using that skill?
• What is your desired outcome?

Then the GM sets the Difficulty Class (and consequences) based on task, intent, and what Blades in the Dark calls effect. Bigger, bolder outcomes get higher Difficulty Classes (and bigger, bolder consequences). In addition, I think that modifying the DC based on the appropriateness of the skill used prevents too much BSing in this method.

The aforementioned Moria riddle example. Some GMs are loathe to require a skill check and would prefer player ingenuity to handle the riddle, but let's disregard that briefly. I can't remember the exact details of the example, but say the default skill check is a DC 15 History check to recall the answer to the riddle (plus, you have to know a few words of Elvish). The basic consequence of failure? The Watcher in the Water will appear as you spend hours pondering the riddle.

• Player 1: I am a dwarf, and we have a long oral history, and I am knowledgeable of such. I wish to roll History to recall the details of this riddle.

All fine and good.

• Player 2: I am an elf, and my people were once friends with the dwarves. I wish to roll Insight to unravel the nature of the riddle from the dwarf's perspective.

That one's a little less direct, but it kind of makes sense. The GM might allow it to proceed, but in that case, he might make it a DC 20 check instead.

• Player 3: I wish to use Deception to solve this riddle. I'll utter off a bunch of gibberish in dwarvish to trick the door into allowing me to pass.

That's probably not going to fly--it doesn't pass the smell test--and I think the table would generally agree, with or without the GM's say-so. But if I were feeling generous, I might allow a DC 20 Deception (Intelligence) check to befuddle the spells upon the door, and should the test fail, the character's is marked as Dwarf-cursed: all dwarves take a dislike to him instantly, and his tongue is bound by spells so he can neither speak nor write dwarvish until the spell is lifted...and that's in addition to the Watcher's untimely appearance.

Your handling of the situation might vary.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

"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.

I strongly dislike the idea that every action needs to be flowery for it to be considered roleplaying. If your character sees his old rival in town and says, "I attack him," that's roleplaying. While it's not winning any awards for masterful prose, it's telling us about how your character acts. Walking up and punching someone because you don't like him is roleplaying (an unpleasant sort, I'd say).

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Maybe there would be less disagreements on how to handle these things, like how to handle traps, if... oh, I dunno... maybe the game system, the rules, or the mechanics were a bit more helpful and transparent?

I'm just gonna leave this right here.

 

[HammerMan]

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.

there is a HUGE gap between "you have to do X every time" and "You never do X"

in my campaigns (as player, as DM, at home, in stores, at cons) have normally had a mix.

I will use my store (local comic store that has room) game I played in as example. It was earlier in 5e.

we had 6 players and a DM. 3 completely new players 1 mostly newish, and 2 old hats (me being the oldest). of the Completely new we had 1 was a preteen one was an older college age teen and one was in mid twenties.

We had a pretty easy 1st adventure (but it took 7 sessions each 3ish hours long). We had kobolds attacking caravans. We spent the entire first 2 sessions (not counting character creation night that I guess we call session 0 now) we spent in town talking to people and learning what was on the caravan most recently taken (and I am VERY sure the DM was pulling a bunch out of his butt because he did not see this coming). We had only 1 die roll the entire time... it was when at the barn/stable/kenel a player asked if he could buy a dog and the owner gave a large price (I don't remember what it was) and the player (The new preteen) said "I intimadate him to give me a better price" and made a roll, the DM told him "Congrats, you intimadate him, and those dogs that where playing with the kids all moved up and start growling at you" It was a good thing the other old hat was there and said "Okay, that proves they are worth it," and the two pooled there money to buy a dog.

Session 3 had us tracking the kobolds, and ended up just being us talking and 'getting to know each other' (in game not out of game) at a camp fire the first night out.

So by session 4 I would call that ALOT of roleplaying... but when we fought the first set of kobolds we had alot of "I attack" sometimes it made sense and we just rolled with it sometimes we had to ask "With what?" but at no point did anyone narrate anything other then the other old timer narrating AFTER the crit with his mace about how he brought it down on the head and got covered in kobold brains.

When we retreated (and boy did we retreat i session 5) we meet an NPC Druid (we were out of healing and had someone stable at 0 so I think DM was being extra nice) and the same preteen said "I try to persuade him to help us" when we were all talking, the DM had him roll and he got high, so he switched from telling us about magic berry's to telling us he has cure wounds and 2nd level spell slots. (i don't know if it was a 3rd level druid from the begining or if the DM rewarded the high roll by making him better)

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Let's let @Charlaquin answer the question. If there's a trapped drawer and I describe to you how I slide my knife through the space under the drawer(and that's all I describe to you), and the trap is not there, do I get a roll to find the trap anyway?

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?

Yes and no.

It doesn't make sense that trap makers always have signs/clues pointing to where the traps are. Traps are made to be hidden and hard to figure out. Otherwise they are useless as traps and are just hazards. So making an oddly shaped lock to indicate that the lock is trapped does not make sense. The occasional trap where there's a scorch mark or whatever clue caused by a previous trigger is fine.

It does make sense that a player can say, "I look into the keyhole to see if I can see a needle." or something similar, and have a much better or even automatic success, depending on how the needle trap is constructed.

It really exists and people are having fun with it.

Sure. I'm not saying that it's big bad wrong fun or anything. The DM can put neon signs and arrows showing exactly where all the traps are and what they do, and if everyone in the game is having fun, it's all good.

 

[iserith]

Yes and no.

It doesn't make sense that trap makers always have signs/clues pointing to where the traps are. Traps are made to be hidden and hard to figure out. Otherwise they are useless as traps and are just hazards. So making an oddly shaped lock to indicate that the lock is trapped does not make sense. The occasional trap where there's a scorch mark or whatever clue caused by a previous trigger is fine.

It does make sense that a player can say, "I look into the keyhole to see if I can see a needle." or something similar, and have a much better or even automatic success, depending on how the needle trap is constructed.

Do you imagine that the creator of this poison needle trap made the lock oversized because they wanted to provide a clue that the lock is trapped? That doesn't make a lot of sense if your goal is to hide the trap, right? Or could we instead choose to imagine that's just what they had to build because of the technology being used at the time and it just so happens to be a clue that it's trapped to anyone looking at it now? Might we also imagine a scenario where players acting with imperfect knowledge don't even bother searching for traps despite that clue being embedded in the description of the environment? Because that happens too.

 

[soviet]

For me if there's a trapped chest I will just have a note along the lines of 'there's a needle trap by the lock'. I don't have a big boxed text description for players to solve. I'm just asking for a brief description of their approach. This can generate an automatic success, if the described approach is exactly appropriate, but can never generate an automatic failure. The minimum outcome is always that you still get to make the check.

 

[Charlaquin]

If the actions are not just for flavour and one of these specific things is required in order to detect the trap, it rather pretty damn pixel hunty to me. For example if the trap is at the handle but the player declared that they slide their knife along the seams, what then?

“Pixel hunting” implies there is one correct answer, and anything else will result in no progress. This is not the case in my games. I do not come up with any particular solution, there are infinitely many possibilities for approaches the player might take, and even if an approach doesn’t result in success, it might still result in a check.

 

[HammerMan]

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

A big issue, especially with mixed new and old players (of that DM not nesasarly the game or edition)

I can tell you my friend ross LOVES over the top almost satirical 80's action films/tv shows. If I follow those tropes I am WAY more likely to get things by him.

on the other hand my friend kurt is MUCH more a fan of Grimdark (what he calls) realistic stories, if I follow those tropes I am WAY more likely to get things by him.

on the other hand my old DM Becky was a huge drama back story almost soap opera DM...

If i tried the exact same thing, say an over the top action trick Ross would be like "No roll baddd *** you got it" and might even reward me with MORE then what I asked for... if I did to Kurt he would also not give me a roll but just say "No we don't do that kinda bull puckey here" and Becky would set a DC, and depending on how it fit the story set it higher or lower...

If i tried another the exact same thing, say a quick dramatic reveal about my character Ross would be like "No " and be upset I tried to just add something mid ggame without asking ... if I did to Kurt he would look at me weird, but may or may not go for it... and Becky woullove it pause, add to it we would go back and forth then I would succssed now but later she would use this new plot seed...

If i tried yet another the exact same thing, say a dark almost noir trope that is gritty and dirty Ross would be like "ugh, boreing, but here is your DC " ... if I did to Kurt he would smile and go with it ... and Becky would imost likely be grossed out and ask me to try the same thing a little less graphic or a little more light hearted and call a do over.

3 DMs 3 really different play styles, all thinking (and would argue and in Becky's case argue alot and violantly) that they are useing the rules as written. All 3 have been playing as long or longer then I have (Becky and I started playing same year but not sure on months, Kurt was starting with me and Ross was playing before any of us)