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

[iserith]

This unintentionally highlights why the inspiration system is bad, but that's another conversation entirely.

I disagree. I think when implemented well, it works great. (In my game, the player would claim Inspiration for saying that themselves so I don't have to worry about it.)

 

[Maxperson]

Whether the character is only inspecting visually, or making contact. Whether they’re touching it with their hands, or a knife, or a set of thieves’ tools, or a 10-foot pole, or anything else they may have with them. What the character is actually doing in the fiction, like I keep telling you.

Outside of a few corner cases, searching requires both visual and physical contact with the object. Thieves' tools if they have them will be used, since the player and PC don't have the IQ of a turnip.

That’s an assumption you’re making. Two, actually - what tools the player may think are appropriate for the job, and that the character is using them. Maybe you’re comfortable making those assumptions and your players are fine with it, and that’s great. I am not.

It's one assumption. I'm assuming that the PC and player don't have the IQ of a turnip and would use the appropriate tools.

Generally unless a character’s perception is hindered in some way, such as the blinded condition, the game assumes they are aware of their surroundings, so this is a non-issue.

I didn't say it was an issue.

That’s not the only difference, the two declarations convey different information.

Nope. Both convey to me the exact same information. Since I'm not assuming that the PC and player are too dumb to use the tools, I don't need them to declare the use of the tools. I already know(no assumption) that the tools are in use. Since outside of corner case scenarios, of which the dresser is not one, I know(no assumption) that touching and visual inspection are required for proper searching.

I suppose the player could opt to get disadvantage on the roll by only staring at the dresser in hopes of finding something, but the player will tell me if that's the case.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Are some folks actually doubtful that the game can work the way @Charlaquin has been so patiently describing? Are they fearful that it is a lightly-concealed indictment of their own playstyle? Are they being difficult just for the sake of winning interweb points? I truly don't... understand... how understanding has been such a challenge to reach with some posters. A simple "ah, I see what you're doing there but that's just not my preference" goes a long way.

One theory is that some tables play 5e, at least partially, with holdover procedures from older versions of the game. I mean, what was fun in a past editions must work perfectly well in the current edition, right? And it can be really fun that way, I'm not saying it can't. However, the ideas of "approach and goal" with "reasonable specificity" aren't necessarily simpatico with older editions and, indeed, various mechanics and play techniques of older editions ported over to 5e aren't necessarily simpatico with "approach and goal" with "reasonable specificity". Now, I'm not claiming this way is the "right" way to play 5e - but I am saying that it is an interpretation of 5e that has worked exceedingly well at many different tables. And "exceedingly well" does not mean "better than" or "superior to" or any of that nonsense. It means I prefer it for our table and see that it works well for others.

If we all had the time to watch a stream of each others' games (if we all actually streamed, that is), I bet some subtle and some not-so-subtle stylistic differences would become rather obvious to the viewer and explain quite a lot of why there is so much pushback regarding what @Charlaquin et al have been trying to communicate. I also bet (h/t @el-remmen) that, for the most part, there would be many, many similarities to 5e game play at all our tables and we'd witness people having a good deal of immersive fun with this hobby we all love. That is all.

ETA: in case anyone desires an answer key... it can, it isn't, and the cake is a lie.

 

[iserith]

If we all had the time to watch a stream of each others' games (if we all actually streamed, that is), I bet some subtle and some not-so-subtle stylistic differences would become rather obvious to the viewer and explain quite a lot of why there is so much pushback regarding what @Charlaquin et al have been trying to communicate. I also bet (h/t @el-remmen) that, for the most part, there would be many, many similarities to 5e game play at all our tables and we'd witness people having a good deal of immersive fun with this hobby we all love. That is all.

I'd need some of that Critical Role money to make it worthwhile to stream my games.

But otherwise, it looks like any attempt at understanding these things went out the window years ago. It's just the same old conversation with the same old posters that make the same spurious claims that goes nowhere. Time to get out and flog myself for falling into the trap yet again. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 16 or more times over the span of several years, shame on me.

 

[Maxperson]

Are some folks actually doubtful that the game can work the way @Charlaquin has been so patiently describing? Are they fearful that it is a lightly-concealed indictment of their own playstyle? Are they being difficult just for the sake of winning interweb points? I truly don't... understand... how understanding has been such a challenge to reach with some posters. A simple "ah, I see what you're doing there but that's just not my preference" goes a long way.

It this point I'm having to defend MY way of doing things. @Charlaquin is trying to tell me that one sentence conveys more information than the other when it doesn't. Both convey the exact same information to me. I don't need the extra word count.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

It this point I'm having to defend MY way of doing things. @Charlaquin is trying to tell me that one sentence conveys more information than the other when it doesn't. Both convey the exact same information to me. I don't need the extra word count.

Thank you for answering my second question.

 

[Maxperson]

Thank you for answering my second question.

That was the question that I didn't answer there as I answered that one to you earlier in the thread. As long as the group is having fun, pretty much anything you do is good. There's nothing anyone can say or do that could be an indictment of my playstyle, because my group has lots of fun.

 

[Charlaquin]

If you think trying to pick a lock with a sandwich or sticking your tongue out at a goblin is the same thing as earnestly trying to pick a lock or attack a goblin, then I think your analysis is off - or you're not really discussing this in good faith.

The earnestness of the attempt has nothing to do with how I evaluate if an action can succeed or not. Players are perfectly welcome to declare that they try to pick a lock with a sandwich or kill a goblin by sticking tongue tongue out at it. My job is to resolve the actions, not to judge their earnestness. Neither of those approaches, earnest or not, have any possibility of succeeding at achieving their goals. Likewise, trying to find a trap that (by the terms Maxperson set) could not be found by sliding a knife under the drawer, by sliding a knife under the drawer, has no possibility of success.

From where I'm sitting, it is pixel hunting - the fact that you have a set of pixels that you will declare 'not it' despite the PC's earnest attempt at taking action is pixel hunting. You may not have an exact expectation that a player has to declare, but you have indicated a willingness to say "but not that" and that's just hunting for the right subset of pixels.

Listen. I understand and respect that you don’t like that some approaches can fail to achieve their goals without a roll being called for. That’s a thing, that is true of my games, that some people do not like. But the term pixel hunting is not an accurate description of it, because in point and click adventure games there is only one solution that will allow you to progress, and in my games there is no limit to the number of approaches that can allow you to progress. It’s fine if you don’t like the way I run my games but please, PLEASE stop using this inaccurate and insulting analogy for them.

"I will allow anything for trap hunting.... but I won't allow that." - with apologies to Meatloaf

Nice reference, but I’ll allow anything- including trying to pick a lock with a sandwich or kill a goblin by sticking your tongue out at it. It’s just that some things won’t work.

 

[Oofta]

... trying to pick a lock with a sandwich or kill a goblin by sticking your tongue out at it ...

Unless the PC is insane, why would they attempt to do this? It's one thing to have a preference, that's fine. It's your game and if works for you and yours more power to you. But you don't have to reduce it to a ridiculous extreme, I think it actually hurts your argument.

In my game I assume when they find/remove a trap they're using training and experience, you want the specifics spelled out and I don't care. But I will never assume they're idiots who have no clue how something they're attempting could be accomplished.

P.S. Would the sandwich idea work if the locked chest was really a mimic?

 

[Charlaquin]

Outside of a few corner cases, searching requires both visual and physical contact with the object.

That may be how you run the game, but it is not a rule. I allow players to search however they like.

Thieves' tools if they have them will be used, since the player and PC don't have the IQ of a turnip.

The decision of whether or not to use any given tool depends on a lot of factors that have nothing to do with IQ. If the player is concerned that contact with a trap’s mechanism might set it off, for example, they may opt not to touch it with anything, including thieves’ tools.

It's one assumption. I'm assuming that the PC and player don't have the IQ of a turnip and would use the appropriate tools.

See above. Also the “and” does indicate a second item in your list of assumptions.

Nope. Both convey to me the exact same information. Since I'm not assuming that the PC and player are too dumb to use the tools, I don't need them to declare the use of the tools. I already know(no assumption) that the tools are in use.

Since outside of corner case scenarios, of which the dresser is not one, I know(no assumption) that touching and visual inspection are required for proper searching.

That is an assumption. Maybe it’s an assumption that’s a built-in part of your table rules - at your table, it’s understood that an attempt to search for something always involves whatever contact and tool use may be necessary to find it, unless the player specifically states otherwise. That’s a perfectly fine expectation to set, but it is not the expectation at my table.