What is "railroading" to you (as a player)?

[Micah Sweet]

That fails miserably when applied to RPGs, though. RAW doesn't prohibit long swords from setting off a secondary nuclear explosion after the d8 damage is dealt. Find me a single table where that would be considered allowed.

That's an extreme example, but there are many, many, many lesser examples that are similar. When it comes to RPG rules, if it's not written it's not allowed unless the DM chooses to allow it.

Or you discuss what you think should happen with the rest of the table and come to a conclusion, with the GM having the final say if needed. That's how we do it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

5e does have take 10 and take 20 doesn't it? just that people don't tend to remember they exist, or am i mistaken?

the thing about not allowing multiple attempts on the same check is because why wouldn't someone be giving their best shot to make it, if they had the time to make as many attempts as they desired that's when you'd use take 20, so unless circumstances change like levelling up or getting a new piece of equipment to assist, why would your second 'giving your best' attempt be any better than your first one?

It does not, I believe. That's a 3e thing. Not a bad rule though.

 

[Xamnam]

5e does have take 10 and take 20 doesn't it? just that people don't tend to remember they exist, or am i mistaken?

the thing about not allowing multiple attempts on the same check is because why wouldn't someone be giving their best shot to make it, if they had the time to make as many attempts as they desired that's when you'd use take 20, so unless circumstances change like levelling up or getting a new piece of equipment to assist, why would your second 'giving your best' attempt be any better than your first one?

It does have Take 10, in a way.

Passive Checks, P.175 (2014):

A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn't involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.

Here's how to determine a character's total for a passive check:

10 + all modifiers that normally apply to the check
If the character has advantage on the check, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5. The game refers to a passive check total as a score.

For example, if a 1st-level character has a Wisdom of 15 and proficiency in Perception, he or she has a passive Wisdom (Perception) score of 14.

The rules on hiding in the "Dexterity" section below rely on passive checks, as do the exploration rules in chapter 8.

 

[Bill Zebub]

the thing about not allowing multiple attempts on the same check is because why wouldn't someone be giving their best shot to make it, if they had the time to make as many attempts as they desired that's when you'd use take 20, so unless circumstances change like levelling up or getting a new piece of equipment to assist, why would your second 'giving your best' attempt be any better than your first one?

Totally agree. But, to me, that's another indication that the instinct to have somebody roll whenever they "attempt" something in which they have expertise is a bad model.

 

[Bill Zebub]

No, I think Players should make choices for their characters based on what their characters are experiencing and are capable of, not what the Player wants to happen (if there's a conflict), and I want the results of mechanics from either side to affect both PC and NPCs in some fashion.

If I'm parsing that correctly you are not talking about initial reactions but what happens after a character (NPC or PC) does something, such as "tries to intimidate".

But, logically, I don't know why we should separate action declarations from "undeclared" actions. If NPCs have a reaction roll, they must be reacting to something, even if no players have declared actions. E.g., what the PCs look like, what they are carrying, their body language, etc. Also any intrinsic stereotypes/prejudices.*

Wouldn't all that be true for the PCs as well? As a player I might want to kill the monsters and take their stuff, but perhaps my character would respond differently. Why shouldn't I use the dice to see how my character would respond?


*My next character is going to put a "Murderhobo Lives Matter" sticker on his shield. Just because I'm covered in blood and my backpack has looted weapons sticking out of it doesn't make me a bad person. I'm tired of monsters reacting as if I am.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It does have Take 10, in a way.

Passive Checks, P.175 (2014):

That's still not the same as, "I'm supposed to be an expert lock-picker, and there's no time pressure, so I'm just going to hang out here trying until I get it."

 

[Micah Sweet]

If I'm parsing that correctly you are not talking about initial reactions but what happens after a character (NPC or PC) does something, such as "tries to intimidate".

But, logically, I don't know why we should separate action declarations from "undeclared" actions. If NPCs have a reaction roll, they must be reacting to something, even if no players have declared actions. E.g., what the PCs look like, what they are carrying, their body language, etc. Also any intrinsic stereotypes/prejudices.*

Wouldn't all that be true for the PCs as well? As a player I might want to kill the monsters and take their stuff, but perhaps my character would respond differently. Why shouldn't I use the dice to see how my character would respond?


*My next character is going to put a "Murderhobo Lives Matter" sticker on his shield. Just because I'm covered in blood and my backpack has looted weapons sticking out of it doesn't make me a bad person. I'm tired of monsters reacting as if I am.

The laugh was for the last bit

Reaction rolls are more akin to passive checks in something like 5e than they are active ones. I feel the difference between the two is enough to warrant different mechanics, but YMMV.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The laugh was for the last bit

Reaction rolls are more akin to passive checks in something like 5e than they are active ones. I feel the difference between the two is enough to warrant different mechanics, but YMMV.

Most reaction rules I have seen aren't pass/fail the way a skill check is, but you roll on a table of results, with potential factors (racial prejudices, highest Charisma in the party, etc.) being a modifier on the roll. So the mechanics are already different. (And passive checks for PCs are a thing.)

I was making a goose/gander argument: why are reaction rolls necessary for NPCs but not PCs? Reaction rolls determine initial inclinations, and we are assuming that players need some guardrails to prevent them from acting in their own best interests rather than doing what their characters "would do", so why are they excused from this one?

Or, re-phrased, why do we trust players to make "good roleplaying" decisions in response active checks, but not to passive checks?

 

[Xamnam]

That's still not the same as, "I'm supposed to be an expert lock-picker, and there's no time pressure, so I'm just going to hang out here trying until I get it."

I was just trying to answer whether Take 10 or 20 exists in 5E at at all, to be clear, but yes, it doesn't model retrying until your best result/Take 20 specifically. I wish that was in there! I'm glad at least average result/Take 10 is present though, I use it a lot, and I'm annoyed that text got removed from the '24 book.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Most reaction rules I have seen aren't pass/fail the way a skill check is, but you roll on a table of results, with potential factors (racial prejudices, highest Charisma in the party, etc.) being a modifier on the roll. So the mechanics are already different. (And passive checks for PCs are a thing.)

I was making a goose/gander argument: why are reaction rolls necessary for NPCs but not PCs? Reaction rolls determine initial inclinations, and we are assuming that players need some guardrails to prevent them from acting in their own best interests rather than doing what their characters "would do", so why are they excused from this one?

Or, re-phrased, why do we trust players to make "good roleplaying" decisions in response active checks, but not to passive checks?

I'm not sure what that last part means. Reaction rolls are helpful for GMs. I guess you're right that Players could react out of character in a passive situation just as much as an active one, but I haven't had that be a problem yet.