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

[Maxperson]

Yes, if you try an approach that has no logical possibility in achieving your goal, you will fail without a roll. The same as if you tried to kill a goblin by sticking your tongue out at it. If that’s pixel-hunting, then we’re all guilty of it.

Here's the difference. Were you to play in my game, "I search the dresser for traps" and "I attack the goblin" would get you a chance for success or failure, even though more specificity could help you. Were I to play in your game, I'd need to spell out each area of the dresser I am looking for traps in. I'd have to tell you that I'm examining all the nobs, the under areas of the drawers, the back of the dresser, under the dresser, the sides of the dresser, the top of the dresser, checking the legs to see if they are trapped, remove the drawers one by one checking behind the remaining drawers, etc. I'd have to check all the pixels that I could think of, because if I missed say the legs and that's the pixel that was trapped, I fail.

 

[Charlaquin]

NOTE: I'm not saying you're doing it wrong, just why I take issue with the approach.

Noted, and appreciated.

If Olaf's (the fighter with a -1 to all appropriate checks) player happens to say the correct thing they automatically succeed, right? So in the case of contact poison* that they look at the handle or sprinkle some flour to see if it sticks they just succeed, correct? Exactly the same as Sly with their +15 in the appropriate checks.

I take issue with the phrasing “say the correct thing” because it implies there’s a particular “correct thing” that the players have to say to succeed automatically, which is not the case. But I think understand what you meant by it, and yes, it is possible to succeed without a check if your approach has no possibility of failure at your goal, regardless of your character stats.

That to me would not add tension, it would mean that I wouldn't ever bother building a PC that had a balance of combat and out of combat skills. I'd put something into the non-combat skills because once in a blue moon it will matter. But if I was Sly's player? I would feel like my choices to build a well rounded PC was a waste. I definitely wouldn't waste an ASI on the skilled feat which I have done in my home campaign.

I think this would be a poor strategy, because you wouldn’t have the stats to serve as effective insurance against failure in the (usually quite frequent) cases where your approach can succeed or fail and has consequences for failure. In this system (which is to say, the system of adjudication I employ, not necessarily the D&D 5e system), player skill and avatar strength both matter. Player skill in making good decisions that are likely to result in success, and avatar strength in helping you avoid failure when it’s a possibility. This may not be to everyone’s taste, but it works well for me and the people I’ve DMed for

I'm not picking on your example, but to me it's what I always keep going back to. If the player knows the DM and knows the "tricks" to find traps (because no DM is infinitely inventive) they'll automatically succeed most of the time. Of course I say this as someone that rarely uses simple traps but that's a different issue and a different thread.

This has not been my experience. Even players I have been playing with for a long time do not succeed without a check most of the time.

Besides, if the rogue isn't available there's always the "Barbarian find trap" method. If I think the side table drawer is trapped, throw the table at the opposite wall until it breaks. Trapped door? Throw the bard at it.

I actually think that’s very smart play! If you’ve got the HP for it, why not utilize that resource? A great example of the intersection of player skill and avatar strength.

*Does anyone actually use contact poison? I always thought it was kind of a silly, and what if my PC wears gloves?

I can’t remember the last time I actually used a contact poison trap. It’s just a convenient example like the troll that players are always using out of character knowledge to attack with fire, the locked door characters with unlimited time are always spending as long as it takes to pick, and the chandelier that creative players’ fighters are always swinging on.

 

[Mordhau]

It’s really not complicated to come up with a simple goal and approach, but that’s also why I advise using “I try to __ by __” when in doubt.

Obviously.

Sure it is. It includes both a goal (get potions) and an approach (buy them at a shop).

None of that is necessary, as long as goal and approach are clear, which they are in the potion shop example.

Would they? News to me.

No need to play out a conversation if you don’t want to. Just say what you want out of the guards and what you do to try and get it.

I fail to see how "I bribe the guards" doesn't have both a goal and an approach.

It doesn't state the goal, but that would presumably be contextually obvious (they're guards, you probably want them to let you past) and bribing is an approach (I'm going to offer them money).

Now you may want more detail, but there isn't a set of criteria you can just apply here.

"Walk to the potion shop" is an approach only if is contains sufficient detail. If I've decided some major event has happened overnight in the city, and therefore it really matters which way you walk to the shops then it is not sufficient and the GM may need to ask for more detail (and possibly even pull out a map of the city.)

 

[Charlaquin]

Here's the difference. Were you to play in my game, "I search the dresser for traps" and "I attack the goblin" would get you a chance for success or failure, even though more specificity could help you.

Really? You wouldn’t need to know what weapon I was using?

Were I to play in your game, I'd need to spell out each area of the dresser I am looking for traps in. I'd have to tell you that I'm examining all the nobs, the under areas of the drawers, the back of the dresser, under the dresser, the sides of the dresser, the top of the dresser, checking the legs to see if they are trapped, remove the drawers one by one checking behind the remaining drawers, etc. I'd have to check all the pixels that I could think of, because if I missed say the legs and that's the pixel that was trapped, I fail.

No, you wouldn’t, that’s what I’ve been trying to tell you.

 

[iserith]

Doesn't really change anything.

"Can I roll to brbe the guards?
Yes. Go ahead. Roll Persuasion."

Is really not substantively different to:

"I want to bribe the guards
Ok. Roll persuasion."

Or of course,

"I search for traps."

Which may result in the GM either asking for more detail or calling for a roll.

The issue is one of focus and framing.

"Can I roll to bribe the guards?" and "I want to bribe the guards..." don't have enough information to adjudicate the action in my view. Bribe them to do what? How much are you offering? A sufficiently big offering might result in no roll needed. Or these guards may have been established to be very upright and religious so an attempt to bribe them fails outright, no roll.

Asking to make ability checks and stating a reasonably specific goal and approach has a big impact on the play experience, even if they end up with the same mechanic being employed to resolve the action. I also explain to players as well that trusting a d20 is not a good strategy - the better option is to act in the fictional setting in a way that removes uncertainty as to the outcome and/or the meaningful consequence for failure, if you can. Then fall back on your character sheet if you can't.

 

[Charlaquin]

I fail to see how "I bribe the guards" doens't have both a goal and an approach.

It doesn't state the goal, but that would presumably be contextually obvious (they're guards, you probably want them to let you past) and bribing is an approach (I'm going to offer them money).

Well first of all, it was not obvious in the context of this conversation. Second of all, even with more context, I don’t want to make assumptions about what a player wants to accomplish or what their character is doing to accomplish it when they can easily just tell me.

Now you may want more detail, but there isn't a set of criteria you can just apply here.

Yes, there is. Goal and approach. What you want to accomplish and what your character does to try and accomplish it. When in doubt, “I try to __ by __” will pretty much always satisfy both requirements.

"Walk to the potion shop" is an approach only if is contains sufficient detail. If I've decided some major event has happened over night in the city, and therefore it really matter which way you walk to the shops then it is not sufficient and the GM may need to ask for more detail (and possibly even pull out a map of the city.

Sure, if I need more detail I’ll ask for it. Obviously.

 

[Mordhau]

"Can I roll to bribe the guards?" and "I want to bribe the guards..." don't have enough information to adjudicate the action in my view. Bribe them to do what? How much are you offering? A sufficiently big offering might result in no roll needed. Or these guards may have been established to be very upright and religious so an attempt to bribe them fails outright, no roll.

If you need more information then you ask for it. If you're tracking money, then of course how much money you spend matters. But if you've reached the point when all the PCs have 10s of thousands of gold pieces then maybe you don't care any more. It's all circumstantial.

And of course if the guards can't be brided then "No. You can't bribe the guards".

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

Y'know, it seems to me that we can discuss our GMing styles and the potential rough spots that might arise in a game, but the nitpicky "your game is bad because of hypothetical X" and "OH, YEAH? How would you deal with this?"-gotcha scenario posts aren't really conducive to a positive discussion.

 

[iserith]

If you need more information then you ask for it. If you're tracking money, then of course how much money you spend matters. But if you've reached the point when all the PCs have 10s of thousands of gold pieces then maybe you don't care any more. It's all circumstantial.

I shouldn't have to ask for more information or assume what they are doing. The player can just as easily say it up front. That's just holding up their end of the conversation by performing their role well.

And of course if the guards can't be brided then "No. You can't bribe the guards".

As DM, short of magical compulsion or the like, I can't tell a player what they can and can't have their character try to do. A player determines what the character does, what they say, and how they think. I can only tell them the result of their actions when they try, sometimes using dice to determine a result. Certainly I will have telegraphed the guards as being upright and religious when describing the environment, but what the player does with that information is up to them. They take the hint and don't try. Or they don't take the hint, try, and fail. But I can't tell them they can't try.

 

[billd91]

Yes, if you try an approach that has no logical possibility in achieving your goal, you will fail without a roll. The same as if you tried to kill a goblin by sticking your tongue out at it. If that’s pixel-hunting, then we’re all guilty of it.

That is pixelhunting, but no, we're not all guilty of it.