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

[BookTenTiger]

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?

 

[iserith]

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

No, and as a player, since part of the requirements of there being an ability check in the first place is that there's a meaningful consequence for failure, I will try to avoid rolling as much as possible. In my games, you don't want to roll. It will hurt (relative to the situation) if you fail. This drives players toward balancing out their reliance upon the character sheet with coming up with creative solutions and characterizations. Being told "you succeed, no roll" is something players like to hear in my experience.

 

[BookTenTiger]

No, and as a player, since part of the requirements of their being an ability check in the first place is that there's a meaningful consequence for failure, I will try to avoid rolling as much as possible. In my games, you don't want to roll. It will hurt (relative to the situation) if you fail. This drives players toward balancing out their reliance upon the character sheet with coming up with creative solutions and characterizations. Being told "you succeed, no roll" is something players like to hear in my experience.

We had to actively ask our DM to stop saying "you succeed, no roll" because we missed rolling dice.

 

[soviet]

Yeah, this is pretty common framing in conflict resolution systems: we're not necessarily rolling to see whether you can do the thing, but whether you can do it quietly, or quickly, or without upsetting people. It can be a good technique to port over into D&D skill tests.

EDIT: when those other stakes are meaningful, that is. Just something like 'roll to look cool doing it' wouldn't be enough to justify a roll for me.

 

[iserith]

We had to actively ask our DM to stop saying "you succeed, no roll" because we missed rolling dice.

It sounds like the DM was going more toward the "Ignoring the Dice" method instead of the "The Middle Path" (DMG, page 236-237). The DMG says the former has some potential drawbacks whereas the Middle Path does not.

In the Middle Path, players will in my experience tend to do the things the character has a better chance of success at if they have to roll, but work toward removing the uncertainty as to the outcome of the task and/or the meaningful consequence for failure so they don't have to. Sometimes they can, obviating the need for an ability check. Sometimes they can't, meaning they end up rolling in an area where they stand a good chance of succeeding based on their investments and tactics. As long as the group is engaging in the sorts of adventuring tasks where uncertainty and consequence is present, there will still be plenty of rolling. If the group is sluggish in terms of pace and doesn't cover that much adventuring content in a given session, then there may be a perception that they rarely roll, particularly if the DM is leaning toward the Ignoring the Dice method.

 

[soviet]

This is the classic 5e PHB Ranger trap, where you're so good at wilderness stuff that the game skips over the dice roll and associated screen time... which is the opposite of what you want.

 

[BookTenTiger]

It sounds like the DM was going more toward the "Ignoring the Dice" method instead of the "The Middle Path" (DMG, page 236-237). The DMG says the former has some potential drawbacks whereas the Middle Path does not.

In the Middle Path, players will in my experience tend to do the things the character has a better chance of success at if they have to roll, but work toward removing the uncertainty as to the outcome of the task and/or the meaningful consequence for failure so they don't have to. Sometimes they can, obviating the need for an ability check. Sometimes they can't, meaning they end up rolling in an area where they stand a good chance of succeeding based on their investments and tactics. As long as the group is engaging in the sorts of adventuring tasks where uncertainty and consequence is present, there will still be plenty of rolling. If the group is sluggish in terms of pace and doesn't cover that much adventuring content in a given session, then there may be a perception that they rarely roll, particularly if the DM is leaning toward the Ignoring the Dice method.

That sounds like how I run my own game.

The players often come up with really creative solutions, really going out of their way to gain advantage. So I'll have them roll a check to see what the other consequences are instead of failure.

 

[jgsugden]

You're misunderstanding the core of the concern, I think. In fact, you're advocating for how most DMs view the advice: Don't have a role unless it has consequences.

What should be avoided is:

"[Hmmm, they want to climb a rope. That should be pretty easy... DC 10!] The DC is 10! Roll! [Oh crap, they rolled a 1] What was the total? 2? Really? [Oh %@# - they should fall ... and the rope they're climbing is hanging over a 200 foot fall into lava]. Uhhhh, you start to slip. Roll another athletics check! [Phew ... another smooth save by the Wrold's Greatest D...] ANOTHER 1? [There is no way that should by anything other than a fall. But if he dies now, that totally sidetracks the game ... ugh] You start to fall, but one of the natives on the cliff swings down and catches you just before you fall!"

There, the DM refused to accept the dice roll results and overrode them with Dues Ex Machina.

"[Hmmmm, I need them to know this information so I'll make them roll to see if they know it.] Everyone roll an Arcana Roll to see if you understand the Arcane Script! What'd you get? 4,5,2,3,1? Really? Well, it is hard, but you're able to translate the script. It says, "Frogs in Winter."

Here, the DM never intended for the PCs to have any chance of failure. No matter the role, the core of the information was always going to be revealed. Even if the DM has it take longer because they rolled low, it leaves a bad taste.

If there is an obvious consequence to a failed roll, it has to be allowed to exist. If it won't, don't make them roll - or better yet, be prepared to have an alternate route to success.

Th

 

[Lanefan]

I've no problem either as player or DM with rolling when the only consequence of failure is nothing changes, as long as success is meaningful. (ditto in those rare situations where the only consequence of success is that nothing changes but failure is meaningful)

As long as at least one of success or failure is meaningful, then roll away!

 

[payn]

I only have the players roll without failure if its driven by them. In the examples above, if the barb player tells me they want it to look badass and break a chain like they can do it effortlessly, then I'll ask for the roll. I know players like rolling, I like rolling too, but I dont want to fart around rolling all night for everything thats not important.