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

[Lanefan]

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.

If they get useful info on a success and interesting info on a fail, that leaves no room for any option where they get false or misleading info; or a red herring; or info that steers them off course into danger.

 

[Lanefan]

Not typically. It just costs 2 feet of movement for every foot climbed. Sometimes a Strength (Athletics) check may be required to climb in difficukt circumstances like a slippery surface with few or no hand and footholds.

For someone trained in climbing I can maybe see this; though I still don't like auto-success on things like this I could get behind a very high success rate (95+%).

For anyone else? Way too generous.

 

[Charlaquin]

If they get useful info on a success and interesting info on a fail, that leaves no room for any option where they get false or misleading info; or a red herring; or info that steers them off course into danger.

Yep

 

[Lanefan]

There are times when a skill check can be fun, interesting, and engaging. And there are times when it is not. Knowing the difference is a skill both players and GMs acquire through practice and experience. It should not be an arbitrary demand players make just because they are itching to roll more dice during a session. Or because it might uncover a reward (perception), offer an advantage (stealth), or reveal free information (insight) that they did not need to earn.

And which is more important: the choices a player makes about their character, or the dice that can ultimately undermine their decisions? A ranger trained in survival or animal handling should be able to accomplish basic or simple tasks. That is why he is a ranger and not a fighter, or wizard, etc.

This cuts to the basic question of whether having a skill should ever make a character perfect at [skill] or just incrementally better at it.

Me, I try for "incrementally better" every time; for two reasons:

1 - nobody's perfect.
2 - incremental improvements can scale with level; all-or-nothing cannot.

Example: animal handling doesn't make you perfect with animals but you're hella better than someone without the skill (in 5e terms, what might be a DC 15 for most people is a DC 5 for you; but a '1' always either fails or has unpleasant side effects). On the flip side, someone without a skill often still has a chance to perform [skill], just maybe not a very good one.

 

[Lanefan]

Yep

So if their info-gathering can't ever steer them off course, doesn't that end up as kind of a fuzzy railroad where no matter what they do they're either going to a) gain accurate info and be able to move forward along the path you've set or b) gain interesting info and move forward only not as far/fast?

 

[Charlaquin]

So if their info-gathering can't ever steer them off course, doesn't that end up as kind of a fuzzy railroad where no matter what they do they're either going to a) gain accurate info and be able to move forward along the path you've set or b) gain interesting info and move forward only not as far/fast?

It’s not a railroad at all. The player either gets information that’s directly useful or they get information and it’s up to them to make use of it if they can. I don’t see any value in intentionally giving them false information.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So if their info-gathering can't ever steer them off course, doesn't that end up as kind of a fuzzy railroad where no matter what they do they're either going to a) gain accurate info and be able to move forward along the path you've set or b) gain interesting info and move forward only not as far/fast?

Can't speak for @Charlaquin , but for me if I want to impart false or misleading information, the NPCs in question will just pass that stuff on to the PCs without even needing any checks in the first place, LOL. Then if the PCs don't bother checking up on the stuff they've been fed (an Insight check to gauge the honesty of the NPC in question at a minimum), that's on them.

 

[iserith]

So if their info-gathering can't ever steer them off course, doesn't that end up as kind of a fuzzy railroad where no matter what they do they're either going to a) gain accurate info and be able to move forward along the path you've set or b) gain interesting info and move forward only not as far/fast?

The players don't need any additional help from me for them to chase red herrings or draw erroneous conclusions. They can and often will do that on their own.

As well, faced with a low roll on the die and subsequent information from the DM, a player may believe that the information they were just given is false and discard it anyway. By telling them they get either the info they wanted or, on a failed roll, information that is interesting that they didn't want, it sidesteps this issue.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I've always liked rolling. If I feel that the difficulty is low, then you'd succeed no matter how low you roll, but you might succeed with a bonus if you roll high. Or succeed, but have an interesting negative side-effect occur as well if you roll really low. I like the dice to tell us all, even ME (as GM) what's happening in the world.

 

[Lanefan]

The players don't need any additional help from me for them to chase red herrings or draw erroneous conclusions. They can and often will do that on their own.

As well, faced with a low roll on the die and subsequent information from the DM, a player may believe that the information they were just given is false and discard it anyway. By telling them they get either the info they wanted or, on a failed roll, information that is interesting that they didn't want, it sidesteps this issue.

Sadly, it's difficult to avoid this metagame consideration without having the DM do all such rolls in secret, which takes away the fun of players getting to roll dice.

@DEFCON 1 , I hear ya; but my more usual take is that if the PCs don't go looking for info the chances are very high they won't find any, whether it be true, false, or irrelevant.

@Charlaquin , there's tons of potential advantages in giving deceptive info now and then:

--- distraction (the PCs end up here while the real stuff's happening there without interruption by pesky adventurers)
--- delay (whatever the PCs are doing take longer in the fiction, which is almost always an advantage to their foes)
--- danger (the false info can lead the PCs into a trap, an ambush, or even an entirely different adventure if they so decide)

The latter two also have potential to burn some PC resources; not as big a thing in 5e as in older versions, but still worth considering.