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

[Crimson Longinus]

I don’t know, and I don’t really care. My job is to adjudicate actions, not judge why the player is doing them.

So do your players also need to specify that they stick the sharp end of the sword at the enemy? I am absolutely certain that you assume certain level basic competence and sanity from the characters all the time.

 

[Maxperson]

Default, assumption; tomato, tomahto.

No. A default is not an assumption. It's a fact. The default rule for PC stats is rolling or array. That's a fact, not an assumption.

You rule that the character uses whatever contact and tools are necessary to find what they’re searching for unless the player states otherwise, which is perfectly fine and reasonable, but not to my preference. I rule that the character does only what the player declares they do.

That's fine, but it assumes incompetence on the part of the PC. The player is not going to have the expertise and skills of the PC, so the PC is being gimped.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Have you consider that comparing the way someone else enjoys the game to the worst-designed examples of point-and-click adventure games I might be prone to cause conflict?

I am sure it does. But at the point you say that player having to describe examining the correct part of the chest or face an auto failure, there really isn't other way to describe it. My benefit of doubt lies in assuming that it wouldn't in practice go like that in your game; but what you said certainly did fit the definition.

 

[Charlaquin]

I sometimes write backstories for my PCs and one was the grandson of a rogue (a retired PC). One of the stories was his grandfather training him on how to find and disable traps, including a lock that sprayed stink bug infused water into his face when he didn't take the time to check for traps first.

Cool!

So I assume competence in the PC because they were trained to do this, unlike the player.

Right, and in my game that training is reflected by the proficiency bonus, which helps greatly in the (usually quite frequent) cases where your action requires a roll to be resolved.

I'm not objecting because I feel "threatened", it's because of the hyperbole that someone could make an attack with their tongue.

No one could make an attack with their tongue (unless they’re like a chameleon-person race with a tongue attack feature, but I digress), that’s the point of the example. It’s a point of comparison we can all agree would obviously not require a roll to resolve, because clearly it could not possibly result in progress towards killing the target. I’m saying that, to me, sliding your knife under a drawer is no more likely to result in finding a trap that, according to Maxperson, can’t be found by sliding a knife under the drawer. I don’t understand what about that is the slightest bit objectionable.

That, and I still think it diminishes any need to actually invest significantly in non-combat skills if you're good enough to talk your way out of needing to actually make a roll.

That has not been my experience. Players who have played with me for a long time still frequently need to make checks to resolve their actions, and when they do, having invested in the appropriate abilities and proficiencies for the task helps them quite a bit. At a certain point you either believe me when I say that, or you don’t.

 

[Charlaquin]

So do your players also need to specify that they stick the sharp end of the sword at the enemy? I am absolutely certain that you assume certain level basic competence and sanity from the characters all the time.

A sword does slashing (or piercing in the case of a short sword) damage by default, so the rules themselves establish that a character making an attack with one is using the sharp portion unless the player specifically declares otherwise.

 

[Charlaquin]

No. A default is not an assumption. It's a fact. The default rule for PC stats is rolling or array. That's a fact, not an assumption.

I don’t care to argue semantics with you.

That's fine, but it assumes incompetence on the part of the PC. The player is not going to have the expertise and skills of the PC, so the PC is being gimped.

Player skill and avatar strength are both important the way I run the game. The player can attempt to avoid having to risk failure by declaring actions that they think are likely to eliminate the possibility of or consequences for failure, or to declare more generalized actions that are unlikely to fail outright but will likely require a check to resolve. Many examples of each have been given throughout the thread at this point. In any case, if failure and success are both possible and failure is consequential, avatar strength will help insure against failure.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Yes, I think some of us are doing it only when it actually matters and others are doing that plus sometimes for color. For me, I don't do it for color because it, in part, it lessens the impact of player resources spent to improve chances of success. Like if I know a roll is just for color, I'd rather not spend my Inspiration on it. I'll save that for when I'm two failed death saves in and about to make another!

I often use rolls for filling in the color of the narrative. If I have a player spend a resource on something they didn't really need to do then I usually do one of two things.

1. (Let them have it back) As you approach the rock wall and begin the words to your spider climb spell you notice that this wall looks elementary to climb up and over, even for your small build. Are you SURE you want to use that spell?

2. (Give them extra, even if it's just some spotlight) You gleefully scurry up and over the rock wall taking a moment to taunt the Goliath ranger on the way past. With your secure position at the apex helping everyone across the party passes effortlessly. Nobody else has to roll and everyone crosses safe and sound.

 

[Charlaquin]

I am sure it does. But at the point you say that player having to describe examining the correct part of the chest or face an auto failure, there really isn't other way to describe it. My benefit of doubt lies in assuming that it wouldn't in practice go like that in your game; but what you said certainly did fit the definition.

The example was a rhetorical trap set up by Maxperson. He specifically asked, if there was a trap you needed to check the handle to find, and you declared that you slid your knife under the drawer, if that could result in finding the trap. Obviously the answer is no, as surely as the answer to “could you pick a lock with a sandwich?” would be no. If answering no to that question means my game is pixel-hunting, I don’t know what game with any semblance of internal consistency would not be pixel-hunting. If you want an example that might actually occur in a game of mine, read my reply to @Umbran ’s request for such an example. I’ve pointed it out like three times now, and it continues to go completely unacknowledged, seemingly because it doesn’t suit the narrative that my game is pixel-hunting.

More importantly though, there are perfectly valid, non-insulting ways to express that one doesn’t like the notion that I ask my players to state a goal and approach and that some approaches would result in failure without a roll. So I can only imagine that people are continuing to use the pixel-hunting epithet despite my repeatedly saying it offends me and politely asking them to stop, because they are actively trying to offend or goad me.

 

[Maxperson]

I don’t care to argue semantics with you.

It's not semantics. A default is not an assumption at all. This is not a definitional argument. You're declaring apples to be oranges and I disagree.

Player skill and avatar strength are both important the way I run the game. The player can attempt to avoid having to risk failure by declaring actions that they think are likely to eliminate the possibility of or consequences for failure, or to declare more generalized actions that are unlikely to fail outright but will likely require a check to resolve. Many examples of each have been given throughout the thread at this point. In any case, if failure and success are both possible and failure is consequential, avatar strength will help insure against failure.

That's how I run it and you're disagreeing with me.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's how I run it and you're disagreeing with me.

Wow, it’s almost like different approaches can lead to similar results! Imagine that!