D&D 5E Should there always be a chance of failure in D&D Next?

[ForeverSlayer]

I said no, but I'm not sure I understand the question completely.

For example, I think that people should be able to take 10/take 20 or the like in many circumstances. Those are circumstances where there is no stress and not a lot is happening. D&D also presumes the automatic success of most spells; you don't try to cast one and fail and many don't allow saves or the like. If you're trying to do something meaningfully tough, there obviously should be a chance of failure.

I disagree.

I can't stand the take 10/20 rules. I feel like if you need to do this then it's something that can be done in narrative.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I voted 'Other' because like others who have already posted, I think the question and available options are badly worded.

The question is actually simple and there are others here who get it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm in the camp of 'If you are making a roll you should have a chance at failure, otherwise, don't waste time rolling.'

 

[Ahnehnois]

The bold part is how I feel.

If a roll of the dice is not needed then it will just be described as part of the narrative.

If it requires a roll then there should be some chance of failure.
...
I disagree.

I can't stand the take 10/20 rules. I feel like if you need to do this then it's something that can be done in narrative.

I just see it as a guideline for what you can handwave. Do some quick mental math and see if the DC would fall within 10 of the bonus. I just imagine that everytime someone "does something in narrative", they're taking 10, whether it's taking 10 on a Dex check to brush their teeth or a Diplo check to say hello to a friend. Then again, some of my players insist on rolling Prof (Cook) every night to see how good their meal is going to be.

I agree that many things shouldn't require a roll and that rolls should only be used when there is a meaningful reason to determine success/failure; take 10 is a way of codifying when not to roll.

I'm not sure I understand your exception to that rule. Does it slow down play or make things make less sense to use it?

 

[Mengu]

I like some certainty. I would like a game where randomization does not have a dire effect on the probable outcome of events. Out of combat this means knowing what you are and aren't capable of accomplishing. In combat this means tactics have a stronger influence than random chance. I voted no. There should sometimes be zero chance of failure, much like there should sometimes be zero chance of success.

 

[Croesus]

The problem here is you are assuming that the "expert" is in 100% control.

Nobody should need to make a ride check for just riding a horse.

Now in this scenario, the rocks on the bottom could shift as the expert is crossing and cause the horse to become unbalanced or startled and cause the rider to try and control the animal.

You can be the best rider to ever exist but you can't control what goes on around you.

In theory, I agree. In practice, does an expert rider really fall off their horse 5% of the time when crossing a shallow stream? The problem is the liklihood of failure doesn't go below 5%, and that's too much for very unlikely events. Which gets us back to how the GM determines that a roll should be required.

I suspect one's preferences on this question really come down to how much luck one prefers in the game. I don't mind luck, so long as my character has reasonable opportunities to shift luck in my favor, even eliminating it altogether in some situations. But when my character has a chance of failure, no matter what he does, I quickly grow frustrated with the game. At that point, I feel the rules are running the game, not the players/GM.

 

[MarkB]

I disagree.

I can't stand the take 10/20 rules. I feel like if you need to do this then it's something that can be done in narrative.

I'm not particularly keen on Take 20, but I love Take 10 - it's a very simple way to allow people who are proficient to perform routine tasks reliably, without removing the roll for those who are less able.

 

[Fifth Element]

The bold part is how I feel.

If a roll of the dice is not needed then it will just be described as part of the narrative.

If it requires a roll then there should be some chance of failure.

Putting it this way seems to just be begging the question, though. Of course if you roll a die, there should be a chance of failure, otherwise the roll is pointless. You seem to agree with that. If there's no chance of failure, then you shouldn't roll the die, therefore if you roll the die there's a chance of failure. It's circular.

I can't stand the take 10/20 rules. I feel like if you need to do this then it's something that can be done in narrative.

But the take 10/20 rules are purely to help determine when something can be done in narrative. If you have a certain bonus, you will get that result if you roll often enough, and if there's no negative consequences to failure, just narrate it instead of rolling it out.

In summary, I don't think I quite get what you're getting at. Are you saying that if something required a roll at a low level, that it should always require a roll?

 

[Fifth Element]

I'm not particularly keen on Take 20

It's purely a time-saver. In situations where you can take 20, you could otherwise just keep rolling and rolling. You will eventually roll a 20, so just say take the time in-game and say you did rather than sitting there and rolling over and over.

 

[Dark Mistress]

I voted other, because some things should be so trivial as to not be able to fail. Like a carpenter of 20 years making a book shelf, they are just not going to mess that up. But I think the take 10 mechanic pretty much fixed that. So on things you have to roll that are not trivial then yes I think you should have a chance to fail.