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

[Charlaquin]

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.

Yes, again, that’s what they’re trying to accomplish, but it doesn’t tell me what the character is doing to try and accomplish it.

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’m not so particular as to insist the player say what specifically their character is trying to learn about the NPC’s emotional state, but I need to know what the character is doing to try and learn the NPC’s emotional state. Are they watching the NPC’s body language? Are they listening to the tone and tenor of their voice? What is happening in the game world that the player hopes will result in them achieving their goals?

If you don’t care to specify that, great. I do, and I would appreciate you not calling it “pixel bitching.”

I don't ask people how they're picking a lock or swinging a sword, it's a PC skill not a player skill.

Nor do they need to; using thieves tools and swinging a sword are both actions the character is taking in the game world. The specific details of that action aren’t terribly important to me, it’s enough that I know in broad strokes what the character is doing.

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.

Knowledge checks are a bit odd, people handle them differently. I prefer the player say what they’re trying to recall and where they may have came across that information before.

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.

There are occasionally situations in my games where climbing involves a check, it’s just not typically required. But if a dangerous situation arises while climbing, yeah, a check may be necessary.

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.

Sure, and if it does matter, a roll should definitely be called for.

As always, just explaining what I do.

Of course.

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.

It’s not a strict action declaration structure. I just need to know what the player wants to accomplish and what the character does in the fiction to try and bring about that result.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Well yeah, if there are dire wolves at your heels then failure to climb away is obviously consequential.

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)

Eh, not my style.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

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. So unless there is a reasonable and interesting narrative that could evolve from a possible bad roll, it should be fine to handwave the minutiae of tasks that don't really challenge or hinder the character/player.

But, of course, it can be a matter of personal taste. Players want to roll for everything? No problem, as long as the GM is allowing it. Just keep in mind that the burden is placed on the GM, not the players.

Also, there are other game systems that are much better at informing the narrative with game mechanics than the d20.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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, as we've discussed previously it's a difference of experience as much as preference. I pretty much never see what you're describing. What i do see is that the check doesn't determine success or failure, but rather whether you get bonus information, get to push the scene in a way you want, etc.

I would also say that the difference between struggling to do a thing and doing it effortlessly is a thing that matters to most players, and thus a thing that matters objectively any time it is relevant to such a player.

And of course, again, for a many, many, players, it is simply more fun to roll. I had no interest in using 5e's crafting rules until my buddy and I figured out some basic guidelines to roll for things like getting it done quicker, rolling to figure out the enchantment and process in the first place, negotiating the price of components, investigating the best quality components, etc. By turning crafting a magic item into a small skill challenge, it became a worthwhile thing to ever bother doing.

 

[el-remmen]

If you don’t care to specify that, great. I do, and I would appreciate you not calling it “pixel bitching.”

I, too, prefer folks avoid gendered pejoratives. Thanks.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yep, as we've discussed previously it's a difference of experience as much as preference. I pretty much never see what you're describing. What i do see is that the check doesn't determine success or failure, but rather whether you get bonus information, get to push the scene in a way you want, etc.

Sure, and those are consequential things. When I say “consequence for failure” I’m using the word “failure” in its game mechanical sense, as in, you rolled under the target number. When that happens, there should be some sort of meaningful outcome as a result. Not getting bonus information or the scene going in one direction instead of another are absolutely consequences for failure.

I would also say that the difference between struggling to do a thing and doing it effortlessly is a thing that matters to most players, and thus a thing that matters objectively any time it is relevant to such a player.

Eh, I disagree. It matters if that struggle actually affects the game in some way, but if it’s just a difference in how you narrate the exact same result the most it’s going to matter is if the player gets annoyed that their character had to look foolish because of a bad dice roll.

And of course, again, for a many, many, players, it is simply more fun to roll. I had no interest in using 5e's crafting rules until my buddy and I figured out some basic guidelines to roll for things like getting it done quicker, rolling to figure out the enchantment and process in the first place, negotiating the price of components, investigating the best quality components, etc. By turning crafting a magic item into a small skill challenge, it became a worthwhile thing to ever bother doing.

But what you’re describing is a situation where the results of those dice rolls matter. I agree that most players like rolling dice, but only if rolling the dice matters. I don’t imagine you would have had any more fun using the crafting rules as written and also rolling a d20 every day of crafting, with the result of that d20 roll not having any impact whatsoever. To make it fun, you had to assign meaningful outcomes to the results of the rolls. Because rolling dice is fun, when the dice roll matters.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sure, and those are consequential things. When I say “consequence for failure” I’m using the word “failure” in its game mechanical sense, as in, you rolled under the target number. When that happens, there should be some sort of meaningful outcome as a result. Not getting bonus information or the scene going in one direction instead of another are absolutely consequences for failure.

Eh, I disagree. It matters if that struggle actually affects the game in some way, but if it’s just a difference in how you narrate the exact same result the most it’s going to matter is if the player gets annoyed that their character had to look foolish because of a bad dice roll.

But what you’re describing is a situation where the results of those dice rolls matter. I agree that most players like rolling dice, but only if rolling the dice matters. I don’t imagine you would have had any more fun using the crafting rules as written and also rolling a d20 every day of crafting, with the result of that d20 roll not having any impact whatsoever. To make it fun, you had to assign meaningful outcomes to the results of the rolls. Because rolling dice is fun, when the dice roll matters.

Then, again, I don’t see what there is to discuss. You’ve defined consequence in a way that guarantees success for your position, rhetorically, regardless of its logical strength.

Not having the status quo change in your favor isn’t a consequence for failure by any useful definition of terms. It’s just a consequence for success.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I’ll put it a different way, and see if that helps. It is worth rolling a check if there can be multiple success states depending on the number rolled.

 

[Charlaquin]

Then, again, I don’t see what there is to discuss. You’ve defined consequence in a way that guarantees success for your position, rhetorically, regardless of its logical strength. .

You seem to be making the mistake of thinking that since my position is not in conflict with yours, it isn’t useful. But in my experience, there are many DMs who do not consistently insure that a meaningful outcome directly results from a player rolling under the target number. If that advice isn’t useful to you, great, but that doesn’t mean it’s without value to others.

 

[Charlaquin]

I’ll put it a different way, and see if that helps. It is worth rolling a check if there can be multiple success states depending on the number rolled.

Yes, I agree. What I’m saying is that it’s not worth rolling a check if there are not multiple possible success states (and/or failure states) depending on the number rolled.