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

[Charlaquin]

Only very unconvincingly. We try to run really equal opportunity tables, where people who are not charismatic in real life can play characters with much more leadership than other characters at the table, and where people who try to explain in detail how a trap works in real life get zero bonus over a player who knows nothing about those but whose character is a specialist of.

It's one way to play the game, for sure, but for us it's important to allow everyone to play anything if they want to, and not penalise them for this.

Players in my games can also play anything they want to and not be penalized for it, so this is not a coherent critique of my approach.

 

[soviet]

Yeah it's not about testing the player's real-life knowledge about trap detection, just about building some verisimilitude and atmosphere.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Or, rather, because I make use of telegraphing, it’s a game of “pay attention to environmental cues.”

Sure, to certain level of granularity that makes sense. I just don't think trapped chests are that. When we get to the certain level of technical detail, we must just let the system represent the expertise. Like I wouldn't actually ask the player what they exactly do if they want to use their character's medical knowledge to strop bleeding. Player doesn't need to know that, but if the the character has medicine skill, they'll know.

 

[soviet]

I've already described my procedure for traps:
1) Player describes how they examine the item.
2) If it would plausibly find the trap, they find it automatically. The bar to cross here is pretty low so it's not 'read the GM's mind'.
3) Otherwise no trap is detected.
4) When the player would set off the trap, at the last second they can make a detect traps check to spot it and avert disaster. Fail = trap goes off

 

[Charlaquin]

Sure, to certain level of granularity that makes sense. I just don't think trapped chests are that. When we get to the certain level of technical detail, we must just let the system represent the expertise.

And it does, as a backup, when the action you declare doesn’t remove the possibility of failure.

I feel like you’re railing against being given an opportunity to succeed more easily.

Like I wouldn't actually ask the player what they exactly do if they want to use their character's medical knowledge to strop bleeding. Player doesn't need to know that, but if the the character has medicine skill, they'll know.

I think “bandage their wounds” is a reasonably specific action declaration here.

 

[soviet]

Sure, to certain level of granularity that makes sense. I just don't think trapped chests are that. When we get to the certain level of technical detail, we must just let the system represent the expertise. Like I wouldn't actually ask the player what they exactly do if they want to use their character's medical knowledge to strop bleeding. Player doesn't need to know that, but if the the character has medicine skill, they'll know.

Sounds tedious. Empty, purely mechanical.

You examine the chest - make an Investigation roll. OK, nothing happens.

You try to persuade the guard - make a Diplomacy check. OK, nothing happens.

You try to sneak into the castle - make a Stealth check. OK, nothing happens.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sounds tedious. Empty, purely mechanical.

You examine the chest - make an Investigation roll. OK, nothing happens.

You try to persuade the guard - make a Diplomacy check. OK, nothing happens.

You try to sneak into the castle - make a Stealth check. OK, nothing happens.

Yeah, that's not how it goes at all. But ultimately trapped chests are not that interesting to begin with, and "I examine the chest and try to figure out if it is trapped," is specific enough for me.

 

[soviet]

Yeah, that's not how it goes at all. But ultimately trapped chests are not that interesting to begin with, and "I examine the chest and try to figure out if it is trapped," is specific enough for me.

I agree trapped chests are not that interesting. And to be fair I'm sure your games are not at all as I described! It's just how it can sound to someone with a different approach

 

[iserith]

Yeah, that's not how it goes at all. But ultimately trapped chests are not that interesting to begin with, and "I examine the chest and try to figure out if it is trapped," is specific enough for me.

Here's a trapped chest from one of my adventures:

"Rubble chokes the way in. A large, skeletal hand appears to be erupting from the stone floor ahead, an overlarge iron-banded chest in its death grip emblazoned with a cycloptic eye. On each of the phalanges is engraved a single Common letter which, from left to right, are T, R, U, T, and H, twisting and writhing as if composed of roiling shadows."

Still not interesting?

 

[el-remmen]

embarrassed the player

That is quite a leap! I don't think I've ever had anyone be embarrassed by making a check that failed or ultimately made no difference. But even if they did feel momentarily like a goofus, we're playing a game, everyone (including the DM) is bound to look like a goofus at some point - sometimes when you "see what happens" what happens is something goofy. I don't see that as a bad thing.

We clearly have different styles - but nearly everything you're saying on this topic doesn't match with my experience, or at least with any regularity where I feel like I need to be concerned about it or change it.