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

[el-remmen]

In my experience:

1. People like to roll
2. Rolling a die and adding a number to it and telling the DM (or doing it behind the screen for secret checks) takes almost no time at all.
3. Simply not succeeding is a consequence. It may not be a big consequence, but not finding the secret door or not translating the ancient runes have consequences to what happens next.


Not quite related but came up above: My players expect me to narrate the results of checks and most combat and I prefer it that way, too - though sometimes players contribute to that narration as well, if it is within the framework I set up for the success or failure.

 

[Oofta]

Well, they did tell you they suspected the NPC was lying. Or, at least, they told you they wanted to see if they could tell the NPC was lying, which implies suspicion of lying. The problem for me (apart from the fact that I don’t like insight to work as a lie detector) is that it doesn’t tell me how the character is trying to figure out if the NPC is lying.

It's pretty obvious if someone is doing an insight that they're ... wait for it ... trying to get insight into the persons mannerisms and behaviors to get a sense of their emotional state. I don't want to "pixel bitch" about having to ask if someone is nervous, lying, hiding something, stumbles over their words a bit only when mentioning Lord Drake or whatever.

I don't ask people how they're picking a lock or swinging a sword, it's a PC skill not a player skill. Another example would be history. Either the PC knows a bit of history or they don't. They don't need to justify how they came across it, although as long as they don't go overboard it can be fun.

Climbing is a weird example to use here because it doesn’t typically require a check in 5e.

Really? Going up a stairs or ladder does not, climbing a wall or cliff that does certainly does. Maybe it never matters in your games, but occasionally it has in mine, in games I've played and in streamed games that I watch.

Yeah, of course. People should do what they find fun and works for them. I’m simply advocating for the way I have found to be most successful and why.

Time spent on a task only matters if time is a limited resource. Either a ticking clock or periodic wandering monster checks or the like. Now, for me it almost always is, but I know it isn’t for everyone. If there wasn’t a source of time pressure, I would probably add some other consequence. Progress with a setback is a good option, maybe the lock gets picked but the thieves’ tools break in the process or something.

There are often times where the PCs have no idea if time matters. But if you spend a few seconds unlocking a door the odds of having a chance encounter are significantly lessened.

As always, just explaining what I do. I'd have to see an actual play session or examples, but I see no value in having strict declaration of action structure in the game.

 

[Oofta]

Oh, one other thing. In my game, rolling will never have a negative effect that would not have happened without the roll. Obviously players can attempt to bypass obstacles, sometimes that will require rolls sometimes it will not. But I don't want player skill in manipulating the story (and me as a DM) to trump PC skill. If someone has invested heavily in a skill, I want that part of their build to matter.

 

[iserith]

In my experience:

1. People like to roll

A d20 is nobody's friend. It will kill you and everyone you ever loved given half a chance. I prefer not to give it that chance wherever possible by minimizing rolls I make as a player (if I can). A d20 is very swingy. Leaving my character's fate to it is not a good strategy for success.

Also, I think players liking rolling could be a sign that failure narrated by the DM isn't meaningful or consequential enough to feel risky (or players aren't certain what the stakes are prior to the roll).

 

[Charlaquin]

It doesn't?

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.

 

[el-remmen]

A d20 is nobody's friend. It will kill you and everyone you ever loved given half a chance. I prefer not to give it that chance wherever possible by minimizing rolls I make as a player (if I can). A d20 is very swingy. Leaving my character's fate to it is not a good strategy for success.

Also, I think players liking rolling could be a sign that failure narrated by the DM isn't meaningful or consequential enough to feel risky (or players aren't certain what the stakes are prior to the roll).

1. Some people like swingy, or at least some degree of swing
2. It could be, but not in my experience. Also, very few times is the "risk" of failure immediately apparent. Like, picking a lock when an undetected trap is present or when not translating the arcane runes means operating the portal to shove the demon back where it came in the final showdown is impossible - requiring coming up another option in the endgame.

 

[Charlaquin]

Then every roll has a consequence and the discussion has no meaning.

I’ve definitely had rolls called for that were not consequential. In my experience this happens most often when the DM uncritically assumes “action was declared, therefore a check must be called for” and doesn’t think through what the potential results of failure would actually be. Then when the roll fails, they hastily say “Uhh… well, you eventually succeed, but it takes you a really long time to do it, and it’s really hard for you!” or something similarly inconsequential.

 

[iserith]

2. It could be, but not in my experience. Also, very few times is the "risk" of failure immediately apparent. Like, picking a lock when an undetected trap is present or when not translating the arcane runes means operating the portal to shove the demon back where it came in the final showdown is impossible - requiring coming up another option in the endgame.

I would say the opposite is true in my experience - most of the time the stakes are apparent and only very few times is it not very clear. This could explain some outcomes you're seeing in players wanting to roll. In my game, they don't want to if they can avoid it. They bank Inspiration and use other resources wherever possible to mitigate the swinginess of the d20 for those times they do.

 

[el-remmen]

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.

I require a check for almost any climbed distance greater than your height. Sometimes that is DC 5 and sometimes that is DC 25 (or anywhere in between) - depending on what they're climbing and in what circumstances. I say "almost" because yes in a non-stressful relatively easy situation I might handwave it, but falling even five feet can make a difference when you're trying to escape the dire wolves on your heels or whatever.

I guess that brings me to my other point about the consequences of failure, sometimes there can be one but even the DM doesn't quite know what it would be - so you gotta roll with it. Or at least, I feel I do for a satisfactory experience. (Note: a satisfactory experience does not necessarily = a successs)

 

[iserith]

I’ve definitely had rolls called for that were not consequential. In my experience this happens most often when the DM uncritically assumes “action was declared, therefore a check must be called for” and doesn’t think through what the potential results of failure would actually be. Then when the roll fails, they hastily say “Uhh… well, you eventually succeed, but it takes you a really long time to do it, and it’s really hard for you!” or something similarly inconsequential.

Yep. "You said the word 'look' so uh make a Perception check..."