I like that mindset! On the other hand, spectacular failures are often super entertaining. I like that there are some situations where the character really goes for it, a natural 1 is rolled, and hilarity ensues.I use the Alternative Ability Score variant rule first of all-- just wanted to start with that. I also tend to assume every character succeeds on what they are trying to do to a certain extent... and when I ask for ability checks (plus applicable skill) it usually tends to be for gaining additional information or success on top of what they've already gotten.
Now that will seem odd to some people when I say that... that the players are successfully getting stuff without needing to make checks... but here's my way of thinking from my perspective: I give out information to the players freely all the time-- all part of my descriptions. I describe the situation in front of them, and just by doing that the PCs have ostensibly "succeeded" on any number of invisible checks-- ones that didn't require rolls.
I describe an altar in a chamber. How do they know it is an 'altar' and why did I call it that? Because they succeeded whatever invisible Religion check would have been necessary to know it was an altar, and I just handed that info to the players free of charge. And now that the first level of info is out of the way... they are free to ask if there is any more info to be gained through any number of other checks-- and depending on the quality of the check I will give out additional info. And what this does is that it gets ME out of the mindset of saying "Oh well, you rolled a '2', you failed"... but instead thinking of it as "You gained no additional information over what you had already successful gained just by me describing the situation to you." In other words, the PC were already great... they just weren't superb in this particular instance.
And that way of thinking-- no PC ever truly "fails", they just don't succeed further than the baseline foundation of success that they got through how the scene has been presented... changes our player and DM dynamic. My players tend to be more interested in trying things because they know I'm not going to "enjoy it" when they roll poorly as though it's a Me vs Them situation and I get to cackle when they "screw up"... but rather that they know I WANT to give them more help and success, but will only do so if their PCs roll well enough to get it.
Sometimes I ask players if they want me to secretly roll for them, for just that reason. So they can keep acting as if they are being super sneaky...even when they aren't. It can be more fun that way, but the players have to be onboard.I've gotten more into the whole "don't call for the roll until needed".
Consider Stealth. The PC always thinks they are being steathy, don't they? They are doing their best, I assume. When they finally get into range of a creature which might hear, see, or even smell them ( ), then I have the player roll because at that moment is when it is actually important. Prior to that, they should think they are being quiet, unseen, or whatever.
All of these examples are good at highlighting the ways many of us choose to handle our checks. For example how I would handle it:I've gotten more into the whole "don't call for the roll until needed".
Consider Stealth. The PC always thinks they are being steathy, don't they? They are doing their best, I assume. When they finally get into range of a creature which might hear, see, or even smell them ( ), then I have the player roll because at that moment is when it is actually important. Prior to that, they should think they are being quiet, unseen, or whatever.
Other skills cause issues as well. Particularly with Perception. They whole "he failed, can I try?" thing. Breaking open a stuck door is also a problem. Now, with many things it is ok, but sometimes it just strains believability especially when you consider the swingyness of the d20.
The raging barbarian rolls Str with advantage, getting just a 1 and 3, failing the DC 15 check to open the door. Then, the sorcerer with 8 Str rolls a lucky 19, beating the DC and opens the door. Yes, this can be comical... the party looks to the barbarian, who shame-faced says, "Um, I weakened it for him..." and people snicker. But in general it doesn't really fly for me.
I guess, as @Charlaquin alludes to above, that many tables that you have encountered run 5e like they've run prior editions or like the person who taught them has run prior editions. That doesn't make it wrong or bad. Just maybe not as the 5e rules intend.That may be, but in actual play? I NEVER saw anyone using Stealth more like a saving throw in 5e or any other edition. It was always the player declared "I'll try to hide behind the standing stone", and boom the roll was immediate. I get your point, but my counterpoint is regardless of what the rules say or do not say about rolling procedure in regards to skills, switching it up this way with Stealth is a very different way from handling sneaking rolls I've ever seen at the table.
Huh? Maybe I'm misreading something here, but I didn't provide an example of deceiving a guard... but, for the sake of discussion, let's run with it.With your example of deceiving a guard... how has that played out at your table? Did the player say "I want to trick the guard into letting us pass by claiming we're the rotation duty?" and you said "sure, roll Deception" player rolled, succeeded, and you narrated happened? Did it begin with the player speaking in-character to the guard, then at a certain point in the conversation, you called for a roll, with the DC set irrespective of what the player said leading up to that?
What I'm driving at is the uniqueness of social skill checks compared to other skills, at least from what I've observed.
Discussing pile-on skill checks (that's my word for them) is a great example of table practices that can vary by skill. d20 at least made an effort to codify which skills could be "tried again" even if that particular implementation had issues. Whereas with 5e, like you say, there's no guidance given for that.... well, group checks, let's start there.I've gotten more into the whole "don't call for the roll until needed".
Consider Stealth. The PC always thinks they are being steathy, don't they? They are doing their best, I assume. When they finally get into range of a creature which might hear, see, or even smell them ( ), then I have the player roll because at that moment is when it is actually important. Prior to that, they should think they are being quiet, unseen, or whatever.
Other skills cause issues as well. Particularly with Perception. They whole "he failed, can I try?" thing. Breaking open a stuck door is also a problem. Now, with many things it is ok, but sometimes it just strains believability especially when you consider the swingyness of the d20.
The raging barbarian rolls Str with advantage, getting just a 1 and 3, failing the DC 15 check to open the door. Then, the sorcerer with 8 Str rolls a lucky 19, beating the DC and opens the door. Yes, this can be comical... the party looks to the barbarian, who shame-faced says, "Um, I weakened it for him..." and people snicker. But in general it doesn't really fly for me.
Yeah, I appreciate you endeavoring to come up with specific examples, because I think those are the most illustrative when we're talking about table practices. Even if it's hard to remember an exact situation, being able to aggregate your GM experience and distill how you handle skills into prototypical scenarios is still really useful.I have a bit of a hybrid approach to skills. I like the literal interpretation for things like jumping a gap. Just find the appropriate skill and attribute, and make the check. Though, something like negotiating a contract is an entirely different ballpark. Here I tend to loosen up and look to the player to drive some creativity amongst the narrative. Its not a simple skill check and done, but a series of negotiations between GM and player. These are pretty clear examples, but it can get a bit blurry in practice over the myriad of situations a game will encounter.
I recall a number of old school GMs in 3E that thought wealth by level was pure poppycock. That magic items are a luxury, not an entitlement.