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

[soviet]

One thing that can be fun if you have a good poker face is to give 2 or 3 conflicting bits of information on a failure, only one being true.

That's quite cool, I might use that.

 

[iserith]

If there is a chance of failure if a check is made, but not if an approach that makes sense is taken, the game/GM is punishing players when they want to make checks.

I am having difficulty parsing this sentence. Can you clarify?

 

[iserith]

Being vague with your action declaration usually forces the DM to call for checks to determine the results.

I wish Skills were optional just like Feats and Multiclassing so I could remove them from my games at once.

At certain tables with some DMs, doing anything that even remotely sounds like it could line up with a skill proficiency will see the DM ask for a roll. Sometimes they'll even break up an action declaration into multiple checks!

 

[Charlaquin]

Can't speak for @Charlaquin , but for me if I want to impart false or misleading information, the NPCs in question will just pass that stuff on to the PCs without even needing any checks in the first place, LOL. Then if the PCs don't bother checking up on the stuff they've been fed (an Insight check to gauge the honesty of the NPC in question at a minimum), that's on them.

Yes, this.

 

[abirdcall]

Some of those things in the OP I still consider failures. I do that all the time.

Open a stuck door? Fail and you open it but you make a lot of noise doing so. Or perhaps you get disadvantage to initiative if there are some enemies on the other side or something?

Picking a lock? Fail and you open it but you trigger the trap or you make noise or you leave evidence of tampering, etc.

Maybe a better term than 'failure' is 'consequence'.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Not at all.

And I'm saying that they don't actually need the advice people generally give them, they need very different advice, and that "don't roll unless there's a meaningful consequence for failure", which is generally the wording of the advice generally given, is very bad advice. It also happens, apperently, to be nearly the opposite of the advice you, at least, are meaning to give. Why talk about consequence for failure if that isn't actually what you mean?

That isn't consequence for failure, though. This whole rabbit hole we just went down would not have happened without "don't ask for a check unless there are (meaningful is often put here, but not always) consequences for failure".

I genuinely don't think anyone is intentionally asking for rolls when the roll cannot lead to multiple outcomes.

Better advice would be, "Make sure that the results of checks you ask for are something you've thought of already, or that you're thinking about them when you ask for the check, and make sure that there are at least two distinct outcomes. They can both be positive, both be negative, or be a mix, or even several along a spectrum, but they should be distinct."

Agreed. The check tells us how well the character performed, not what happened around them while they did the thing.

It's totally reasonable to say that a master of stealth simply will not fail simple stealth tasks. But it is also completely reasonable to introduce randomly selected variance to how "on" the master is while performing a task, and narrate the scene differently based on the result, even if the difference doesn't "matter".

IME, "you get to the top of the cliff, more winded than you feel like you should be, more than you know you would normally be. Why was that harder than it should have been?" leads to further characterization from the player. It doesn't matter that no mechanical difference occurs, it doesn't matter what the stakes are, players who are engaged in their character's mindset and care about the character and the fiction will care.

Punishing players for wanting to make a check, is, IMO, bad DMing. If there is no chance of failure if they describe a certain approach, great. If they want to roll anyway to see how well they do the thing, that is not a good reason to invent negative consequences for a low roll. The nature of the task shouldn't change because a player likes to use the d20 as part of the fiction-building that is play.

Right. I didn't mean that the reality shifts around the roll, I just meant that the details (like you describe being winded at the top of a climb) of the success depend on the roll. Nearly always story-stuff, not mechanical penalties. Of course, depending on the situation, when there IS negative consequences for failure, those would occur, same as they would for people who would only ask for a roll in those situations.

Or in other words, I'm fine with rolling all the time! It's just that only sometimes are there mechanical failures, other times it's only story failures (you stumble, but you make it!) I don't find that the game is slowed down, and sometimes it helps to build tension, or other useful things, while still pushing things forward.

 

[Charlaquin]

Not at all.

And I'm saying that they don't actually need the advice people generally give them, they need very different advice, and that "don't roll unless there's a meaningful consequence for failure", which is generally the wording of the advice generally given, is very bad advice.

I disagree. Even if the consequences of rolling under the target number (which the system refers to as “failure”) are only ever no progress, that’s still going to lead to a pretty decent gameplay experience; certainly a better one than one where checks with no consequence (remember that I am using the literal meaning of consequence here, “1. a result or effect of an action or condition. 2. Importance or relevance”) are frequently called for. Obviously progress with a setback on a failure, and similar techniques like progress on a failure but progress with an additional upside on success, are also useful tools. All of these things are consequences of failure.

It also happens, apperently, to be nearly the opposite of the advice you, at least, are meaning to give. Why talk about consequence for failure if that isn't actually what you mean?

It is literally what I mean. Rolling under the target number is defined in the game mechanics as “failing” the check. I’ve earlier cited the definition of consequence. I believe that the former should always result in the latter. Doing otherwise leads to a pretty unsatisfying gameplay experience.

That isn't consequence for failure, though. This whole rabbit hole we just went down would not have happened without "don't ask for a check unless there are (meaningful is often put here, but not always) consequences for failure".

It literally is a consequence for failure.

I genuinely don't think anyone is intentionally asking for rolls when the roll cannot lead to multiple outcomes.

As I’ve said twice now, I’ve seen it often. Most often, from DMs who are simply uncritically calling for checks whenever action is declared, without thinking through what the outcomes for success and failure will be. When failure is rolled, such DMs tend to simply narrate the results of eventual success, with the addition of some inconsequential detail like it being “really hard” or the character “barely managing to succeed” or “taking a really long time” when there isn’t actually any time pressure making that relevant.

Better advice would be, "Make sure that the results of checks you ask for are something you've thought of already, or that you're thinking about them when you ask for the check, and make sure that there are at least two distinct outcomes. They can both be positive, both be negative, or be a mix, or even several along a spectrum, but they should be distinct."

Sure. I think “only call for rolls when failure has a meaningful consequence” is a more efficient way to render that same sentiment, but I take no issue with this rephrasing.

 

[Charlaquin]

If there is a chance of failure if a check is made, but not if an approach that makes sense is taken, the game/GM is punishing players when they want to make checks.

If there’s no chance of failure when an approach that makes sense is taken, why would a check be made?

 

[Charlaquin]

Being vague with your action declaration usually forces the DM to call for checks to determine the results.

Which is precisely why I ask my players to state with reasonable specificity what they want to achieve and what their character does to try and bring that about.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Right. I didn't mean that the reality shifts around the roll, I just meant that the details (like you describe being winded at the top of a climb) of the success depend on the roll. Nearly always story-stuff, not mechanical penalties. Of course, depending on the situation, when there IS negative consequences for failure, those would occur, same as they would for people who would only ask for a roll in those situations.

Or in other words, I'm fine with rolling all the time! It's just that only sometimes are there mechanical failures, other times it's only story failures (you stumble, but you make it!) I don't find that the game is slowed down, and sometimes it helps to build tension, or other useful things, while still pushing things forward.

Absolutely. I was agreeing with you, btw. Sorry if that didn’t come across.