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

[soviet]

They've bribed enemies to join their side? They've scared people away with threats of violence?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

They've bribed enemies to join their side? They've scared people away with threats of violence?

Possibly... But even if they haven't, anyone could instantly name those approaches and couple of others.

And frankly, at least to me in a RPG social interactions are far more interesting than trapped boxes.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I don't expect my players to be trap experts. That's what the proficiency is for. The PCs are going to be better at checking for traps than any description a player is going to give. "I check for traps." tells me that the character is going to be doing whatever it is that medieval(or the D&D approximation) trap experts do to find traps.

Indeed, no one in this thread expects the players to be trap experts.

 

[soviet]

Indeed, no one in this thread expects the players to be trap experts.

Exactly. All that's expected is to be able to make up a sentence or two describing their approach. It doesn't have to be realistic, just vaguely plausible.

Similarly, I don't accept 'I attack'. But I don't need to hear a detailed strike pattern that would realistically incapacitate an enemy and a defensive stance consistent with the training given to warriors in that era. I'm not going to autofail anyone that doesn't say they're watching the enemy, or execute anyone that doesn't say they're protecting their head. I'm just looking for some colour and atmosphere in my game. 'I try to advance slowly on the orc, parrying his blows and looking for an opportunity' is fine.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Exactly. All that's expected is to be able to make up a sentence or two describing their approach. It doesn't have to be realistic, just vaguely plausible.

Similarly, I don't accept 'I attack'. But I don't need to hear a detailed strike pattern that would realistically incapacitate an enemy and a defensive stance consistent with the training given to warriors in that era. I'm not going to autofail anyone that doesn't say they're watching the enemy, or execute anyone that doesn't say they're protecting their head. I'm just looking for some colour and atmosphere in my game. 'I try to advance slowly on the orc, parrying his blows and looking for an opportunity' is fine.

Except people are basing the character's chance of success, or even the ability to roll on that description. It isn't just colour. People literally are talking about making it autofail on wrong description.

 

[HammerMan]

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.

I know, like I have the background (I think it is outlander or something) a few characters back so as a feature I got to find food for me and up to X people (I think 5) in campaigns before and after that we had to RP getting food and making rolls to save supplies... but that game we skipped it... after 1 or 2 games we didn't even say "elishar finds enough food" we just skipped the food/water thing... so as much as my passive ability helped it felt for 9 levels like I didn't have one because the game just made me auto win and as such we never had the problem.

Elishar was also a Monk/Druid multi calls that fought with a staff. he never had big spell casting moments (always behind on caster level) and never had major combat moments aside an occasional lucky crit(no one is calling monk the best warrior even before multi). So my biggest contributions where in travel/exploration... Druidcraft meaning I always new North came up once or twice then the DM just stopped asking us if we were lost... again even though he did so in pre and post campaigns.

 

[Umbran]

The player doesn’t have to guess how I imagine traps are detected or disarmed, they simply have to listen to my description and make decisions.

This is stated in the abstract. That seems to be failing you. And I can see why - the abstract statement you give doesn't differentiate what you claim to do from, say, Gygaxian searching methods of guessing exactly the right thing.

So, I suggest you please give us a description of a trapped chest as you'd give it to players, and then give us two examples of how players would state actions that successfully engage with that description, neither of which is the player guessing exactly how you personally think the trap works.

Concrete examples may elucidate where broad statements do not.

 

[HammerMan]

This is stated in the abstract. That seems to be failing you. And I can see why - the abstract statement you give doesn't differentiate what you claim to do from, say, Gygaxian searching methods of guessing exactly the right thing.

So, I suggest you please give us a description of a trapped chest as you'd give it to players, and then give us two examples of how players would state actions that successfully engage with that description, neither of which is the player guessing exactly how you personally think the trap works.

Concrete examples may elucidate where broad statements do not.

I had a DM back in 3.0 that demanded we describe our searches... I tired. I "searched" (with best search modfier and rolling in high teens) the closet and described goign through loths looking for hidden draws and tapping everything, and found nothing... the much lower search fighter on the other hand rolled single digits but described taking the hanging bar off and looking to see if it was hallow... he found a portable hole folded up in it... BTW the fighter player had been playing with this DM for years and out of game knew this was the sort of thing he did.

SO yeah, my rogue/wizard with max ranks and better stat searched worse then the fighter with 1 cross class rank and worse stat even when I rolled better becuse he knew how the DM thought...

as much as people argue role play vs roll play, I hate 'play the DM cause I know them' more. This also lead to the (same DM) half orc with dump stat cha and no ranks in any social skills out talking (intimadating/diplomacy/bluff) then the sorcerer who built her character around cha and social skills because the half orc PLAYER was more persuasive, and the sorcer player was more introverted.

That DM also bad talked my own campaigns becuse I wouldn't allow his 'perfect argument that made sense' convince anyone when he rolled low and had poor skills on his character, or he couldn't find traps by 'out thinking them' when he didn't have trap finding abilities on his character...

 

[Oofta]

Exactly. All that's expected is to be able to make up a sentence or two describing their approach. It doesn't have to be realistic, just vaguely plausible.

Similarly, I don't accept 'I attack'. But I don't need to hear a detailed strike pattern that would realistically incapacitate an enemy and a defensive stance consistent with the training given to warriors in that era. I'm not going to autofail anyone that doesn't say they're watching the enemy, or execute anyone that doesn't say they're protecting their head. I'm just looking for some colour and atmosphere in my game. 'I try to advance slowly on the orc, parrying his blows and looking for an opportunity' is fine.

That ... would just lead me to repeat the same rote boring phrase every time I attack as a player. I'd have a phrase or two that I spew out, I'd rather just cut to the chase.

There are times I'll add extra "fluff" as a player or ask for it as a DM, but every single turn? Not for me, thanks. Honestly it would be the same for finding traps or other things. It would just feel like inconsequential filler to me that I would repeat ad nauseum once I figure out what the DM wants to hear.

If it works for you, great. I just don't see how it adds much to the game, I'd rather speed up combat (and finding/removing traps, etc.) as much as possible so I can get to the decision making and RP that actually has an impact.

 

[HammerMan]

Exactly. All that's expected is to be able to make up a sentence or two describing their approach. It doesn't have to be realistic, just vaguely plausible.

Similarly, I don't accept 'I attack'. But I don't need to hear a detailed strike pattern that would realistically incapacitate an enemy and a defensive stance consistent with the training given to warriors in that era. I'm not going to autofail anyone that doesn't say they're watching the enemy, or execute anyone that doesn't say they're protecting their head. I'm just looking for some colour and atmosphere in my game. 'I try to advance slowly on the orc, parrying his blows and looking for an opportunity' is fine.

OMG... I thought it was bad with skills...

outside of 4e abilities 99% of the time my fighter is just 'attacking" I mean is "I swing my sword with the intent to kill" good enough? if so what is diffrent between that and "I attack X times"

My armor Artificer makes 2 attacks or 3 attacks (off hand depend on if I need the bonus action to reup my temps) would I have to describe each punch each round?