Shadowdark Shadowdark Discussion Thread [+]

[Bill Zebub]

...doesn't that three part test come from the 5E rules? I feel like "roll for everything culture" is like a self-reinforcing meme, growing out of jokes about how 3E handled skills.

Yeah 5e describes it pretty explicitly, but a lot of people seem to assume it's meant to be played the way they learned to play previous editions (and even that may have been their own interpretation).

 

[Reynard]

Yeah 5e describes it pretty explicitly, but a lot of people seem to assume it's meant to be played the way they learned to play previous editions (and even that may have been their own interpretation).

Well, you see, that information is in the DMG -- which no one reads, because they already know how to DM.

 

[darjr]

Well, you see, that information is in the DMG -- which no one reads, because they already know how to DM.

This is a tradition as old as the DMG as a kind of book.

 

[Mannahnin]

...doesn't that three part test come from the 5E rules? I feel like "roll for everything culture" is like a self-reinforcing meme, growing out of jokes about how 3E handled skills.

Yeah 5e describes it pretty explicitly, but a lot of people seem to assume it's meant to be played the way they learned to play previous editions (and even that may have been their own interpretation).

Well, you see, that information is in the DMG -- which no one reads, because they already know how to DM.

In the 2014 PH they still put one of them. "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure." (p.174).

The 2014 DMG (p.237) says to only call for a roll if there's a meaningful consequence for failure and if there's a meaningful chance of success or failure.

5E 2024 moves the test into the PH (p.10): "The DM and the rules often call for an ability check when a creature attempts something other than an attack that has a chance of meaningful failure. When the outcome is uncertain and narratively interesting, the dice determine the result."

 

[Bill Zebub]

The 2014 DMG (p.237) says to only call for a roll if there's a meaningful consequence for failure and if there's a meaningful chance of success or failure.

One of the problems (IMO) with this is that too many people interpret failure itself as a meaningful consequence. "Well there was a chance of my opening the lock, and now that I've tried and failed there isn't, so that's a meaningful consequence..."

 

[Mannahnin]

One of the problems (IMO) with this is that too many people interpret failure itself as a meaningful consequence. "Well there was a chance of my opening the lock, and now that I've tried and failed there isn't, so that's a meaningful consequence..."

If Open Locks isn't able to be re-tried, sure, that's a meaningful consequence. To my understanding there's not a general restriction on re-trying in 5E. Unlike in 2E AD&D, where the rules specify that if you fail to open a given lock you can't try that lock again until and unless you gain a level.

I do think it would definitely be worth talking more in any given PH or DMG about when not to call for a roll and why. Examples are good.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

...doesn't that three part test come from the 5E rules? I feel like "roll for everything culture" is like a self-reinforcing meme, growing out of jokes about how 3E handled skills.

I saw it in Knock magazine, which got it from Google+, which predates 5E.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If Open Locks isn't able to be re-tried, sure, that's a meaningful consequence.

I disagree. It was locked before, it's still locked now, nothing has changed. There was no "consequence" to trying, in fact you gained information: now you know you can't pick the lock.

In my mind there has to be a risk taken before dice are rolled. Something to at least make you think, "Do I really want to do this?" Something that will make somebody without any skill say, "No thanks; not worth the risk." (With the side benefit that it dissuades me-tooism, without requiring artificial rules.)

To my understanding there's not a general restriction on re-trying in 5E. Unlike in 2E AD&D, where the rules specify that if you fail to open a given lock you can't try that lock again until and unless you gain a level.

Yeah, that...to me...is an example of a totally artificial rule needed because there's no meaningful consequences.

But...this was all hashed out in the "Why I Hate Skills" thread, so maybe I shouldn't be reviving it.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I disagree. It was locked before, it's still locked now, nothing has changed. There was no "consequence" to trying, in fact you gained information: now you know you can't pick the lock.

In my mind there has to be a risk taken before dice are rolled. Something to at least make you think, "Do I really want to do this?" Something that will make somebody without any skill say, "No thanks; not worth the risk." (With the side benefit that it dissuades me-tooism, without requiring artificial rules.)




Yeah, that...to me...is an example of a totally artificial rule needed because there's no meaningful consequences.

But...this was all hashed out in the "Why I Hate Skills" thread, so maybe I shouldn't be reviving it.

In this case would you say a roll won’t get it—-“quickly under presssure” but if you kill all opponents in the room 10-60 minutes left alone you would automatically get it—-

While NOT under pressure?

I am imagining two groups wanting a locked up magic wand. We are fighting over it. A successful check opens the chest right now. The wand could be used in this fight.

Failed roll means a roll won’t do it.

All enemies dead and the luxury of time (random encounters excepted) you would eventually open it without a roll?