The Locked Door

[Totally Guy]

You are confronted with a locked door.

I roll to pick the lock. *Roll* Fail.

You are unable to pick the lock on this occasion.

I'll try again to pick the lock. *Roll* Fail.

You are unable to pick the lock on this occasion.

I'll try again to pick the lock. *Roll* Success!

With a soft click the door opens. Inside you see a Rant Golem...


Here's something that's been annoying me recently. Retrying skill checks. It feels like my roll doesn't matter, whether I take 4 rolls or 5 makes no difference in most cases.

When I next GM I'm going to make certain that every failure is meaningful and goes somewhere. So when the door lock pick check is failed I'll have an angry someone on the other side open it, or maybe there will be a guard show up a question why the lock is being picked. Maybe doorhandle drops off and clunks the guy on the head just as he finally unlocks it. Either way they'll be able to bypass the door without making another skill check due to failure events opening the door somehow.

If I can't find an interesting failure condition I'll not face them with a locked door.

This doesn't just go for doors. "I climb to the princesses bedroom", I want something more than, "Gee that wall sure is tall". Instead the noise the failed climber makes alerts the Evil Vizier or the Princess (depending on who was in the room).

Has anyone got any advice of experience with making failed rolls into an interesting complication rather than a "roll until you succeed"/"roadblock".

[kamikasei]

What's wrong with just having time sensitivity in your games? Sure, you can make as many attempts to pick that lock or climb that wall as you want. You can take twenty if you feel like it. Doing so will take a while. You might not be able to afford it.

I mean, looking at your examples, they're not about failure. If you try to pick a lock and there's an angry foe on the other side or a guard approaching, they're still there even if you succeed; if you succeed on the first try you just maybe get at the foe before he has a chance to ready himself, or get through and close the door before the guard turns the corner or comes within earshot. If you try to climb a wall, the noise is made whether you succeed or not (barring separate stealth checks). Success or failure in themselves are not the issue. There's no need for fumble rules.

[dsmiles]

I play by the 1e/2e rule that if you fail to pick the lock now, you can't re-try until your open lock skill improves.

Then Fighter usually Twin-Fisted-Monkey-Style's the door. No need to pick a lock when the door is broken in half. :smallbiggrin:

[Duke of URL]

What's wrong with just having time sensitivity in your games? Sure, you can make as many attempts to pick that lock or climb that wall as you want. You can take twenty if you feel like it. Doing so will take a while. You might not be able to afford it.

+1

If time is an issue, then each successive try costs something. If it isn't an issue, then just take 20 and be done with it.

[Asheram]

What you're suggesting, isn't that the classical Critical faliure?
I can sort of figure when you roll 10 below the target dc, but for a ordinary faliure? Naw.

[Totally Guy]

We did lots of take 20s last session. And I found if annoying as it feels like the problem is solved at the DM's whim rather than on player choices.

Time sensitivity is what I'm looking for but I guess I'm just abstracting it.

Our last session had no time pressures. I just wanted something exciting to happen.

Edit: Critical Failure? No! The failures caused something to happen that removed the obstacle. So stealth success.

[Saph]

See, I'd disagree. I think if you've got someone who's specialised in the Open Lock skill, then they should be able to bypass most locks effortlessly.

Remember that Open Lock is actually a pretty rare skill in 3.5. The only core class that gets it is the Rogue; the other 10/11 classes can only get it cross-class. So only a minority of parties are going to have someone with a high Open Lock skill; the rest are going to have to spend resources on Knock spells or just bash every door they come across.

I don't think it's a good idea to remove any skill check that doesn't come with a significant failure condition, because you're effectively penalising players who've chosen to specialise in it. What's wrong with having the Rogue breeze through a few dozen locked doors? The player gets to feel that they did something useful, and it makes their character creation choices actually matter. I'd get pretty frustrated if I played a Rogue with a bunch of thiefy skills which all turned out to be useless because the DM wanted to make skill checks more "interesting".

[Demented]

the rest are going to have to spend resources on Knock spells

Speaking of making rolls useless....

[kamikasei]

We did lots of take 20s last session. And I found if annoying as it feels like the problem is solved at the DM's whim rather than on player choices.
...
Edit: Critical Failure? No! The failures caused something to happen that removed the obstacle. So stealth success.

Wait, I don't follow. In the first scenario - you have obstacles which are within your means to overcome, but rather than simply try you're playing it safe and taking your time to ensure success - where's the DM's whim? Then in the second scenario, where whatever you do the obstacle goes away, how is that less a matter of the DM's whim?

[jmbrown]

Wizard: Golem, you will attack any intruder to this space. If someone doesn't speak the password before opening the door, approach it and beat the crap out them.

Rogue tries three times to pick lock. On the first try the golem moves up to the door. Door finally opens, golem's readied action to full power attack the first person he sees goes off.

[Thrawn183]

Frankly, those are doors you probably shouldn't be rolling for then. They're really just there for flavor. The rogue is good enough to pick them if he has enough time to fiddle, and there's no penalty for taking the time to fiddle? Then just say, "You are eventually able to pick the fancy lock on the red door, what do you do now?"

This is a perfect example of a DM calling for a roll in a case where the outcome is already decided.

[J.Gellert]

Frankly, those are doors you probably shouldn't be rolling for then. They're really just there for flavor. The rogue is good enough to pick them if he has enough time to fiddle, and there's no penalty for taking the time to fiddle? Then just say, "You are eventually able to pick the fancy lock on the red door, what do you do now?"

This is a perfect example of a DM calling for a roll in a case where the outcome is already decided.

+1 to that. Just don't roll pointless rolls.

[Anonymouswizard]

Wizard: Golem, you will attack any intruder to this space. If someone doesn't speak the password before opening the door, approach it and beat the crap out them.

Rogue tries three times to pick lock. On the first try the golem moves up to the door. Door finally opens, golem's readied action to full power attack the first person he sees goes off.

Or you use one of those wizard golems from DCC: the adventure begins, but you make it so that it has different spell-like abilities.

[1stEd.Thief]

There were 2 good points above: Time sensitivity and Noise.

Sure, you can take 20, but what if you need to make the check NOW, or are otherwise under pressure and can't take 10 / 20? Pick the lock on the shackles that are being lowered into a vat of sea-bass with laser beams by taking 20? DM gives you 12 or 18 seconds perhaps, but not long enough for 20... and pressure prevents taking 10 / 20 anyway.

Noise: You can bet by the 3rd or 4th failed try that whatever is on the other side of the door is ready with a 40 oz. of whoop-booty to unleash on your noisy self.

And again: sometimes it doesn't matter. Locked in the deepest depths of the Baron's "inescapable" dungeon until he finds the time to bother to torture you? Take all the time you need.

[Glass Mouse]

Frankly, those are doors you probably shouldn't be rolling for then. They're really just there for flavor. The rogue is good enough to pick them if he has enough time to fiddle, and there's no penalty for taking the time to fiddle? Then just say, "You are eventually able to pick the fancy lock on the red door, what do you do now?"

This is a perfect example of a DM calling for a roll in a case where the outcome is already decided.

+2. I was gonna write excactly this.

On the other hand, rolling a bunch of times does become exciting if you play by the instant failure/succes rule.
I mean, sure, you can try 4 or 5 times to open the fancy lock, but every time, there's a 5% chance that something nasty happens.

(yes, I know not everyone likes this rule, but if it suits your style, it can be pretty cool).

[Bouregard]

I roll to pick the lock. *Roll* Fail.

1d20

1-5: Whatever you used to pick the lock breaks and can not be used again to pick a lock

5-10: Whatever you used to pick the lock breaks and jams the lock (lost the tool, and you'll can't open the door now even with the normal key)

10-15: You'll make to much noise while attempting to pick the lock and someone comes to investigate, maybe the guard chooses to guard the door.

15-20: Nothing happens, try again

[Glass Mouse]

I roll to pick the lock. *Roll* Fail.

1d20

1-5: Whatever you used to pick the lock breaks and can not be used again to pick a lock

5-10: Whatever you used to pick the lock breaks and jams the lock (lost the tool, and you'll can't open the door now even with the normal key)

10-15: You'll make to much noise while attempting to pick the lock and someone comes to investigate, maybe the guard chooses to guard the door.


15-20: Nothing happens, try again

Wow, that's nasty. Maybe it can be measured in size of failure instead? Like,

Failure by 5: You'll make to much noise while attempting to pick the lock and someone comes to investigate, maybe the guard chooses to guard the door.

Failure by 10: Whatever you used to pick the lock breaks and can not be used again to pick a lock

Failure by 15: Whatever you used to pick the lock breaks and jams the lock (lost the tool, and you'll can't open the door now even with the normal key)

[ericgrau]

This is not a video game. Locked doors are almost never a permanent barrier. You can break them down, chop at the hinges, cast knock, destroy them with melee or spell damage or, yes, pick them. Locked doors are only a delay. If you're pressed for time, you roll each pressure-filled roll. Or the door becomes an effective barrier until the fight is over. If you're not pressed for time, you take your 20 and move on. If that feels too easy, try hacking the door to bits instead. Yeah, also easy. This is not a video game; doors are not a major obstacle to a band of thugs coming to break your stuff and your necks.

Oh, and stop picking on rogues. How about giving all casters automatic arcane spell failure instead, with mishaps? It's hard enough to play a rogue well even when skill checks automatically succeed. If I have the same chance to screw myself over royally as I do to gain some minor benefit, I'm better off not even trying and the class is worthless. If the above house rules appear, it's time to play a different class and handle doors and traps another way.

[Kylarra]

Pretty much all you'd do with such a thing is make people bypass skills as best they can with magic that doesn't require skillchecks. Why risk taking a rube goldberg-esque failure when you can nimbly sidestep the whole procedure?

[valadil]

This is a perfect example of a DM calling for a roll in a case where the outcome is already decided.

Yup. This is part of why I don't like playing rogues. Too much of what they do is jumping obstacles they're expected to jump.

If there's a rogue in my next game I'm going to rule that failure by 5 or more breaks your lockpick. Then I'm gonna make a room full of locked doors. Only one of them has a hallway behind it. The rest of are just mounted on the wall for aesthetic reasons.

[Gnaeus]

Last night I watched an episode of Mythbusters in which it took 2 men with experience opening locks 50+ minutes to open a door with a pair of improvised lockpicks made from a broken lightbulb. Finally, Adam "rolled his 20" and made it through.

Don't prevent people from taking 20 without a reason.

Don't break masterwork lockpicks (and seriously, does any rogue have any other kind?) unless there is some kind of pick breaking trap that the rogue had a chance to find and disarm. It is a masterwork thieves tool, not a wire hanger and a paperclip.

The rogue has one moment to really shine, and the DM breaks his lockpicks for spite, or has monsters stomp him for doing his thing, and the only thing you are doing is forcing the party to sideline the rogue and buy a wand of Knock.

[ericgrau]

^ Exactly. Don't nerf the rogue. He really doesn't need it.

And instead of making rogue challenges only if there's a rogue in the party, making him otherwise useless, just don't. Any smart dungeon maker should include locked doors and traps, and as said there are other ways to get by them. Rogues only make it easier. Don't screw that up by making the rogue way the harder way.

[Totally Guy]

Frankly, those are doors you probably shouldn't be rolling for then. They're really just there for flavor. The rogue is good enough to pick them if he has enough time to fiddle, and there's no penalty for taking the time to fiddle? Then just say, "You are eventually able to pick the fancy lock on the red door, what do you do now?"

This is a perfect example of a DM calling for a roll in a case where the outcome is already decided.

This is pretty much what I'm trying to say.

Roll die -> Failure -> Nothing happens. The Player doesn't even affect one iota of in-game world? Really? I don't like it.

Really I just picked doors because they've the most obvious 'Nothing happens' scenario. But I was just thinking that if the GM, can't think of a way make the outcome matter it shouldn't be rolled. For any skill.

I do take on board some of the points and am willing to compromise.

How about the GM explicitly states the failure scenario before it's rolled? Then it's about player choice again. If the GM can't think of one, the player is successful because there was no reason to roll it.

I just got bored of trying to break down doors over and over in the last session. Wasn't fun. I had to actively make the situation dangerous and ended up dying because of it. Then they all thought I was stupid for being reckless when all I wanted was to make something happen. I could roleplay playing or I could actually play.

[ericgrau]

Ya, and houseruling in danger will make you automatically reckless and death-prone, to greater party annoyance. First, take 20's and move on. Doors don't need to be exciting outside of combat. Second, it seems like the DM needs to make more interesting skill based challenges. Ask him to get creative on traps. You search? What do you find? And no, it's not "the trap". You find either the trigger plate or the dart shooting mechanism or some such. You disable device, what do you do? And no, it's not "the trap". You jam the pressure plate but the mechanism is still there, or you beat the DC handily, figure out how the trap works, use the mechanism to guestimate the location of the owner's bypass lever, search and find it, pull it, bring the party across and reactivate the trap, now cue wandering monsters. Muahahaha. Scout ahead of the party, take 10's on your stealth checks as you hunt for corners and other cover to hide behind, do some recon, and grant your party a bunch of buffing rounds plus a sneak attack for yourself (more if you win initiative). See other skill rules and DMG environment / dungeon rules. Etc.

[Another_Poet]

An easy fix is to use the rule that "if you fail by 5 or more the lock is jammed and cannot be picked."

Alternately have it be a problem on some doors and not others. Obviously if there is a trap on the lock or someone listening on the other side, there is a consequence for failure. One very expensive ironwood door in my campaign has this setup:

Three separate locks; each DC 22 Open Lock to open.

A failure on any lock springs a trap which destroys the lockpick. Assume one set of thieves' tools only has three picks. This trap can be noticed with a DC 20 Seach and disabled with a DC 22 Disable Device check. There is one such trap on each of the three locks.

Additionally, a failed Open Lock check on any one of the locks causes all three to revert to the locked position. This feature is built into the locks and cannot be disabled without completely mucking them up (making them unpickable).

[Sinfire Titan]

I roll to pick the lock. *Roll* Fail.

1d20

1-5: Whatever you used to pick the lock breaks and can not be used again to pick a lock

5-10: Whatever you used to pick the lock breaks and jams the lock (lost the tool, and you'll can't open the door now even with the normal key)

10-15: You'll make to much noise while attempting to pick the lock and someone comes to investigate, maybe the guard chooses to guard the door.

15-20: Nothing happens, try again


Why the EFF would you penalize a player for using their skills when the 3rd level Wizard can pick a DC 40 lock automatically?


Seriously. It takes a +30 modifier to the skill check to have a 55% chance of doing something a 3rd level character can do automatically. Why do people penalize their players for this?


More importantly, who uses Open Lock when Disable Device can accomplish the same task with a lower DC?

[ericgrau]

Disable device can jam the lock so it can't be opened anymore. That's not exactly what you want.

Also, yeah, that point about DC's another good point. Lock DCs are relatively high, as you're expected to take 20's. If you screw PCs for failed rolls, it will be often.

[Gnaeus]

This is pretty much what I'm trying to say.

Roll die -> Failure -> Nothing happens. The Player doesn't even affect one iota of in-game world? Really? I don't like it.

Maybe you don't like it, but many people (I would dare to say most) don't want their characters stymied by common obstacles in a heroic setting. It isn't that they aren't affecting the in-game world, it is that they have built a character with an appropriate skill set and that skill set virtually guarantees success against commonly encountered obstacles.

The Rogue is like Batman. Not the Wizard definition, the mundane character Batman. He is a guy with a bunch of skills that enable him to contribute without being super strong or setting things on fire.

If you are envisioning yourself as Batman, and you are caught sneaking around by some super villain with specialized skills, that is fine. You don't have to ALWAYS succeed. If, on the other hand, you break your finely crafted lockpicks trying to get into a 13 year old girl's diary that she picked up at the mall, it is a level of lame that destroys both your image of your character as a competent adventurer, and your ability to in fact contribute to the party. A well built rogue with the right skills should be able to do normal, roguish things (climb a rough wall, pick a simple lock, swim across a calm moat) virtually automatically.

Heck, in many parties, it is hard enough trying to get the melees not to smash the door in before the rogue gets a chance to try, without shafting the rogue for bothering to fill in all those skill points.

[BRC]

I find the best way to handle this is situational.Throw locked doors in their path, yes, but don't count on it being exciting, expect that they just take 20 and go through.

What's better, is to make the situation different. The PC's are being pursued by something they would rather not fight. There is a long hallway, plenty of room to get caught between the PC's and the exit. There is also a locked door leading to a better way out. The PC's can try to unlock the door and escape that way, but every attempt means the pursuit is getting closer and closer.

[Lamech]

Yeah... just let the rogue take 20. I mean its picking a lock, unless its trapped it won't break the lockpick. Now this will take a bunch of time, and that might be a problem. It might make noise. If it is trapped I suggest making it an alarm trap, that makes far more sense than damaging the picks; an alarm means you get the drop on the intruders, broken pick means that the door is broken, and the intruders know they will soon be attacked.

[Fishy]

Roll die -> Failure -> Nothing happens. The Player doesn't even affect one iota of in-game world? Really? I don't like it.

Really I just picked doors because they've the most obvious 'Nothing happens' scenario. But I was just thinking that if the GM, can't think of a way make the outcome matter it shouldn't be rolled. For any skill.


Problem: Rolls that don't have failure chances aren't interesting.

Solution 1: Give every roll a failure chance. The world's greatest thief has a 5% chance of causing his head to explode when he screws around with a lock.

Solution 2: Don't ask for rolls when you don't have a failure chance. The world's greatest thief can open any door whenever he wants, unless there is a bear chasing after him or a bomb that's about to go off.

Which of these sounds more fun?

[Saph]

Roll die -> Failure -> Nothing happens. The Player doesn't even affect one iota of in-game world? Really? I don't like it.

What on earth is wrong with it? As a player, I hate it when the DM decides that a failed roll should have bad consequences "just because". The whole point of intelligent use of skills is to use them in such a manner that one bad roll DOESN'T cause a disaster.


Really I just picked doors because they've the most obvious 'Nothing happens' scenario. But I was just thinking that if the GM, can't think of a way make the outcome matter it shouldn't be rolled.

Yes, but that doesn't mean you should stick arbitrary failure conditions on it! If you've got an auto-success, you don't waste time on it, any more than you call for a full set of Dex checks for getting out of bed and eating breakfast. The rogue picks the lock, the lock is open. It takes 5 seconds of real time. If you can't guarantee success on basic tasks, what's the point of being an expert in the first place?

[kamikasei]

Roll die -> Failure -> Nothing happens. The Player doesn't even affect one iota of in-game world? Really? I don't like it.

If he's trying to pick a lock in an environment where no one might notice his presence or activity for as long as he wants to take about the task, yeah. Why is such a lock in the adventure (or at least, being given 'screen time')?


But I was just thinking that if the GM, can't think of a way make the outcome matter it shouldn't be rolled.

Sure. If you're attempting something that you just have to try a few times in order to be sure you'll succeed, then you shouldn't be rolling unless seconds count and a failure has consequences because you're in the middle of combat or something similar.


How about the GM explicitly states the failure scenario before it's rolled? Then it's about player choice again. If the GM can't think of one, the player is successful because there was no reason to roll it.

I just got bored of trying to break down doors over and over in the last session. Wasn't fun. I had to actively make the situation dangerous and ended up dying because of it. Then they all thought I was stupid for being reckless when all I wanted was to make something happen. I could roleplay playing or I could actually play.

I think you're saying you played a session where you had a bunch of skill checks with no consequence for failure, one after the other, and felt you were just going through the motions? Yeah, that's bad DMing. In that case you should have just skipped to whatever you were guaranteed to be able to do, being done. But this has nothing to do with introducing fumbles or other contrivances to make failure consequential.

[Totally Guy]

Problem: Rolls that don't have failure chances aren't interesting.

Solution 1: Give every roll a failure chance. The world's greatest thief has a 5% chance of causing his head to explode when he screws around with a lock.

Solution 2: Don't ask for rolls when you don't have a failure chance. The world's greatest thief can open any door whenever he wants, unless there is a bear chasing after him or a bomb that's about to go off.

Which of these sounds more fun?

That's more like it. Solution 2. Easy.

Say yes or roll the dice.

If the GM can't find an interesting failure consequence, just say yes. And if there's a bear or a bomb, the GM will have an easy time thinking about failure consequences. This matters.

[averagejoe]

Yeah, I know if I was the lockpicking guy and my GM started introducing critical failures, I would either 1) make a guy with an adamantine hammer and select stone dragon maneuvers or 2) just build a wizard with a few wands of knock and invisibility, and then remove all failure from opening doors anyways. (Actually, I kinda want to do the first one anyways.)

If you want to introduce failure to skill rolls then make it interesting. Make the room slowly fill up with water, or better yet, acid. Have someone on the other side getting away with something the PC's want. Have the door be a trapdoor at the top of a thin shaft so the rogue has to try and brace themselves while picking the lock. You know, things that provide penalty for failure but also make the players feel cool for succeeding at. But you give them an unremarkable door and you want penalties for failure? Really? Should the fighter stab himself in the foot when he fails to hit a practice dummy? Should the monk have to make rolls to avoid tripping and falling when running over flat ground? Why penalize characters for being good at what they're supposed to be good at?

[Eldariel]

If he's trying to pick a lock in an environment where no one might notice his presence or activity for as long as he wants to take about the task, yeah. Why is such a lock in the adventure (or at least, being given 'screen time')?

It may have a trap attached or be of so high quality that the player can't actually pick it or simply be there to let the players know what they are dealing with; maybe it's an ornate lock that plays out some feature of the owner of the place they're trying to get into, maybe it's just there because nobody wouldn't leave a door unlocked, and locks reward the presence of a Rogue, etc. Plenty of reasons, really.

[arguskos]

Should the monk have to make rolls to avoid tripping and falling when running over flat ground?
Yes, because he's playing a monk and should know better. :smalltongue: /joke

As for the topic, I think many people are misunderstanding Glug's issue. It's not that he is going to flat out penalize someone for failing to open a plain wooden door, but more that the act of failing to open that door is going to produce SOME response that is appropriate for the situation, since otherwise, the door serves no purpose save to waste time. It's not about penalization, but about meaningfulness.

[Totally Guy]

As for the topic, I think many people are misunderstanding Glug's issue. It's not that he is going to flat out penalize someone for failing to open a plain wooden door, but more that the act of failing to open that door is going to produce SOME response that is appropriate for the situation, since otherwise, the door serves no purpose save to waste time. It's not about penalization, but about meaningfulness.

If only I had such eloquence for the first post...:smallsigh:

Thank you. :smallsmile:

[Jimp]

I find this a weird problem, I've never been in a game where failing to do something like unlock a door didn't have a series of events following as a result. It just seems like such a logical conclusion, rather than having everyone sitting there rolling until someone passes. A lot of the time it wasn't even my intervention as a DM that lead to the next event, it was the players. The rogue fails his lockpick and says to the party "I can't pick the lock, we'll need to try something else" or "I couldn't get it open, let's break it down". I've never experienced what you are describing with the "I failed? I'll roll again so." attitude. It might just be due to a 'game' mindset that the player/DM is rather than a more immersed 'ok, that didn't work, what else can I do?' mindset. Not to bring a game VS role play argument in, since that's not the point, but it sounds to me like it resembled a video game style situation where they could just keep picking the lock until they got it where as in a more 'real' situation not being able to pick the lock might make the person doing it think about what more they can do. Granted that a lot of this goes out the window if they have the time and lack of risk to just take 20 on the check.

[Glass Mouse]

Pretty much all you'd do with such a thing is make people bypass skills as best they can with magic that doesn't require skillchecks. Why risk taking a rube goldberg-esque failure when you can nimbly sidestep the whole procedure?

I guess this was for me and crit fumbles, so I'll answer (my apologies if I'm mistaken).

I play in two groups where this rule is invoked.

Group 1 doesn't really care about power levels. We're playing low wealth, low level, low power. Some players are better optimizers than others, and this is accepted. In this group we care a lot more about screen time than about coolness. And honestly, you get a pretty good moment of screen time if you fumble. Note, fumbles are mostly played for comedic effect, and definitely not to render a player useless. More, they are a tool for the GM to cause trouble for the entire party.

Group 2 are heavy roleplayers. In this group, the fumbles are pretty on the fly (kinda like every other rule, actually). A rolled 1 is a failure (unless it makes no sense for it to be), but not always a fumble. We do expect fumbles whenever we roll a 1 but it really depends on the situation and the GM's mood.

So we make the fumbles work in a context where a) it's used for comedic effect, and few people really want to be superman, and b) there is a high degree of flexibility.

Just thought I'd answer the ever-present question of "why the [beep] do people play with fumbles?!" (my personal answer, anyway).

Back to topic, now.

[Evard]

If it takes a player of mine more than 5 tries to pick a lock or do some other type of skill I tell them that their character is to impatient to do it anymore and they can't try again until they do something else for a while like getting in a fight or take a long rest.

Of course once in a 4e campy the rogue couldn't pick the lock (I purposely made that door's DC to high they were not suppose to get in there) and another character remembered that they had dynamite -_- they all died since they didn't run away from the door -_-;;;;;

[valadil]

Hmm. I didn't actually think the broken picks would slow down the rogue. I figured he'd just carry several dozen at all times. But telling him they're expendable would make him care about failure.

[Gnaeus]

If it takes a player of mine more than 5 tries to pick a lock or do some other type of skill I tell them that their character is to impatient to do it anymore and they can't try again until they do something else for a while like getting in a fight or take a long rest.

If I were an adventurer, and my lockpick expert spent 30 seconds (5 full-round actions) trying to pick a lock and then stood up and said "I'm too impatient to open this door right now, lets get in a fight or take a nap before I try it again" the LEAST I would do is kick his lazy behind out of my party and find someone who was serious about his job. Telling a player that the lock is too hard for him is one thing, telling him he is an irresponsible idiot is something else entirely. Not only is this pointlessly punishing the skill monkey, it is doing it in a really dumb way.

Edit: Do you deny your wizards and clerics spells because they are too impatient to pray or read their spellbooks? I mean that takes a whole HOUR.

[Crow]

Just take 20. If you can't get it then, you are not skilled enough to pick this lock.

The only time you shouldn't is when you have time sensitivity or in a battle, and in that case, each failure does mean something. Wasted time and greater risk of getting killed, repsectively.

[Jayabalard]

Maybe you don't like it, but many people (I would dare to say most) don't want their characters stymied by common obstacles in a heroic setting.It sounds like this might not be a thread that that those people have much to contribute to then, eh? I mean, taking tat attitude and arguing against the people who don't like is kind of like going into Simple Questions by Raw and arguing your own personal houserules.

[Rasman]

I play by the 1e/2e rule that if you fail to pick the lock now, you can't re-try until your open lock skill improves.

Then Fighter usually Twin-Fisted-Monkey-Style's the door. No need to pick a lock when the door is broken in half. :smallbiggrin:

I second door breaking OR you can always be smart about it and take the hindges off and open it backwards, assuming the door is facing the right way of course.

Frankly, this is what the whole "take 10/take 20" rule is for. It speeds up the process, but allows the dm to add "Something bad happens" into the mix for using that option. If you don't want reprocussions, then the loss is in the time it took to roll dice really, since time is a comodity really.

[holywhippet]

I think the skill results need to be handled reasonably given the circumstances. The DM should not alter the game world just because of a particular skill check result.

For example, if the player is trying to climb up to the princesses' bedroom and they botch their climb check the DM should check their notes to see what, if any, guards might have heard them. For that matter, they need to decide at what point the player might have lost their grip - maybe they weren't able to even get a few feet off the ground. For that matter, move silently is a different check entirely so even a successful climb check might not result in the player climbing undetected.

For unlocking a door, the DM should have in their notes who is near/behind the door and decide if they will hear the failed lockpicking attempt. The player might not even have managed to work on the lock, their poor result could be because they dropped their picks. On the other hand, if there is a small army of alert guards on the other side of the door and they can hear the player trying to open the lock then it's only fair they react. There should also be a good reason for the guards to be there and on alert.

[Pigkappa]

There is an easy way to solve the problem.

If the characters are certain that there are no guards nearby and there is no danger in picklocking the door, just tell them to consider taking 20.

If they don't know, they should be afraid. So, after two failed rolls, tell them to roll a Listen check and, whatever the result is, that they couldn't hear anything. Nothing happened to their character, and you can be amused by the players being worried out of game. If they go on lockpicking the door and fail 5 more times, roll a Listen check for each of them secretly, take the worst one, and tell that player that his character has heard something on the other side, but isn't really sure about what that is. Again, nothing particularly strange happened to the characters, but the players will be worried.

[bosssmiley]

I play by the 1e/2e rule that if you fail to pick the lock now, you can't re-try until your open lock skill improves.

Then Fighter usually Twin-Fisted-Monkey-Style's the door. No need to pick a lock when the door is broken in half. :smallbiggrin:

And that prolonged banging and crashing calls for extra Wandering Aggravation checks as the surly locals wonder WTH all that racket is. :smallwink:

Old D&D allowed re-tries, but balanced that with game mechanical consequences based on time elapsed in failed attempts (torches burn down, monsters happen by, etc...). Take too long on a lock/door/trap and other party members were liable to look for another route, or break out the crowbars and hammers, or split the party to explore further while the rogues geeked out on their new toy. That gave the players choices more meaningful than "I try again" or "I take 20".

[Lysander]

Time critical challenges for a rogue:

A team of powerful guards (above your CR) spots you from the other end of a long castle hall. They charge at you. If you can unlock this door in one try the party will have time to slip inside and lock it behind them.

The party's wizard is having a mid-air duel with a powerful enemy sorcerer. Your arrows are useless due to the sorcerer's Protection from Arrows. But what's that on top of a nearby guard tower: a catapult! The gate at the base of the tower is locked.

The party is fleeing from an immense horde of undead. They have the plot critical item they entered the unholy crypt to recover. What's that in the corner of the room on their way out: a locked treasure chest! If the rogue can spring it open it one try they can get whatevers inside. Otherwise they'll have to keep running or be overrun.

Etc. It should never be just entering a room, opening a box, moving on to the next room and the next box.

[Shardan]

If your DM never has a bad affect for failing a roll then he's doing something wrong. But if every failed skill roll in every minor situation results in random orc attack or something its doing something wrong too.

Maybe something on the other side of the door.wall hears the lock pick/climb attempt.. or maybe its just an empty room you're wasting time with. If you're too predictible either way, then the game becomes easy to read. When i first DMed i had a habit of making animated statues to the point that they stopped working because the players destryed every statue to make sure. Not every locked door should have something waiting on you.. and not every locked door should be empty.

[Sinfire Titan]

If your DM never has a bad affect for failing a roll then he's doing something wrong. But if every failed skill roll in every minor situation results in random orc attack or something its doing something wrong too.

Some rolls should not have additional failure results beyond the painfully obvious. Failing a Spot or a Listen check does not render your character Blind/Deaf for X rounds, failing a Knowledge check means you simply don't know what the hell it is, etc. Yet too many DMs (IMO) enforce these additional penalties. I've played under a DM who enforced them on Survival, ruling that a failed Survival chance resulted in your character risking their lives in a situation that could have been avoided with a Spot/Listen check or a Spell.

[Jayabalard]

Failing a Spot or a Listen check does not render your character Blind/Deaf for X roundsActually that often has a negative consequence, even if it isn't the one you're suggesting. So it fits into what Shardan was suggesting quite well.

[Worira]

I find this a weird problem, I've never been in a game where failing to do something like unlock a door didn't have a series of events following as a result. It just seems like such a logical conclusion, rather than having everyone sitting there rolling until someone passes. A lot of the time it wasn't even my intervention as a DM that lead to the next event, it was the players. The rogue fails his lockpick and says to the party "I can't pick the lock, we'll need to try something else" or "I couldn't get it open, let's break it down". I've never experienced what you are describing with the "I failed? I'll roll again so." attitude. It might just be due to a 'game' mindset that the player/DM is rather than a more immersed 'ok, that didn't work, what else can I do?' mindset. Not to bring a game VS role play argument in, since that's not the point, but it sounds to me like it resembled a video game style situation where they could just keep picking the lock until they got it where as in a more 'real' situation not being able to pick the lock might make the person doing it think about what more they can do. Granted that a lot of this goes out the window if they have the time and lack of risk to just take 20 on the check.

The thing is, the rogue is capable of picking the lock. He just takes a bit longer. Giving up after 6 seconds isn't more 'real' than trying until you get it right.

And as a general tip, if you don't want a game vs. roleplay argument, try to avoid suggesting that people who play differently than you have a video game mindset.