Why we should stop rolling dice. [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

BRC

2021-03-16, 04:44 PM

So in older editions there was a concept of "Taking 20", which is that, given no penalty for failure and no time pressure on a test like picking a lock, you could "Take 20", basically take some amount of in-game time and act as if you had rolled a natural 20.

That said, this concept is gone, and while I occasionally miss it, I feel it being gone is a good thing. Taking 20 is often pretty boring.
Part of this comes down to "What does a Skill roll represent".

If you fail to pick a lock, that could mean "You spent the duration of a standard lockpicking check trying to open the lock and failed", in which case you might be able to try again.

It could mean "This particular lock is beyond your skill to pick". You rolled low on the dice, indicating not that your character did a bad job of picking this lock at the moment, but that this lock is apparently quite hard to pick for whatever reason. Your skills are simply not up to the task.

Otherwise, I know of three good approaches for replacing "Take 20"

1) The "Push" system from Call of Cthulu. If you fail a skill check, and there are no immediate consequences for failure, you may "Push", attempting the skill check again, but if you fail the second time there WILL be consequences (For example, you get more aggressive with your lockpicking and jam the lock, or a Guard patrol will discover you trying to pick the lock. Either way, you get exactly one more chance.

2) Failing-Forwards. Similar to Pushing, in this case the GM will say "Okay, you fail, you can either give up your attempt, OR you can succeed, but suffer some consequence". For example, it will take your rogue 10 minutes to pick this lock, the test was to see 'Can you pick the lock before something bad happens'.
Or "You can pick the lock, but doing so will make it obvious the lock was picked to anybody who examines it".

3) The task is beyond the character's skill at the moment. If they want to re-attempt, they must change something about their approach. It's not simply a matter of trying again and again, the GM can say "If you want to try again, you must expend some resource, or gain advantage in some way"

Cikomyr2

2021-03-16, 04:45 PM

Tanarii

2021-03-16, 04:47 PM

Take ten times as long and automatically succeed.

The answer to your question is you aren't rolling in those situations. Or at least, the game rules don't expect you to.

If your DM is calling for them anyway, refer them to DMG chapter 8.

JonBeowulf

2021-03-16, 04:47 PM

My initial reaction upon reading the title was, "Why you should stop playing D&D". Fortunately for me, I read the post before replying.

DMs should only call for a die roll when the outcome is uncertain... which is why it's done all the time to resolve combat and why saving throws are a thing. Calling for one every time a character tries to do something is tedious (at best).

For my games, I don't waste anyone's time calling for a die roll if a skill DC is 10 (or less). If it's greater, then you roll. If you fail, well, you failed... burn some clock and try again. I may modify the DC based on your previous roll, but nothing is stopping you from giving it another shot (unless there is something stopping you from giving it another shot).

Unoriginal

2021-03-16, 04:50 PM

So your a sneaky rogue and you have a massive bonus to picking locks.
There is a shiny chest in front of you after a big battle and its locked.
The DM says roll to unlock the chest.... and you fail at the roll.

Well now what? Ive been in some campaigns that DMs say you need to figure out another way to get it open.... why?!
If you fail at one thing why not just try again, esp if its not life or death situation.
They should be able to try any number of times unless the picks break or something else changes in the scenario.

That being said, why roll dice? Why not just say you open the chest? Sure if the difficulty of the chest is really high, roll it out but still, given enough time it will open.

This is just one example that has happened a number of times be it a door or chest that it just makes me wonder what the heck are we rolling for when it comes to non-life or death checks that should be able to be repeated.

Thanks i needed to vent.

The 5e rules are pretty clear: a DM should only call for a roll if there is a doubt the PC can accomplish the task in the given time frame.

If it's a stressful situation and the PC is trying to open the lock in a hurry (ex: they have get the item they think is in it while fighting a dragon), then it makes sense to have a check. If there is no immediate threats but there is consequences for failing the check (ex: a guard patrol is going to come that way in a couple minutes), then it makes sense to have a check.

If there is no immediate threat nor consequences for re-trying, then the DM should not call for a roll, by the rules. So the books already cover what you're saying.

Now of course that's true whether the task can't be failed or whether it can't be succeeded.

stoutstien

2021-03-16, 04:51 PM

So your a sneaky rogue and you have a massive bonus to picking locks.
There is a shiny chest in front of you after a big battle and its locked.
The DM says roll to unlock the chest.... and you fail at the roll.

Well now what? Ive been in some campaigns that DMs say you need to figure out another way to get it open.... why?!
If you fail at one thing why not just try again, esp if its not life or death situation.
They should be able to try any number of times unless the picks break or something else changes in the scenario.

That being said, why roll dice? Why not just say you open the chest? Sure if the difficulty of the chest is really high, roll it out but still, given enough time it will open.

This is just one example that has happened a number of times be it a door or chest that it just makes me wonder what the heck are we rolling for when it comes to non-life or death checks that should be able to be repeated.

Thanks i needed to vent.

if this is your experience it sounds like your particular DM(s) doesn't understand when dice should be rolled in the first place and don't have a grasp of the purpose of the random variables they are designed to represent. Unfortunately it's a common holdover from other games and it can be super annoying.
Best bet is to refresher on the game rules starting with chap 7

Tanarii

2021-03-16, 04:56 PM

Because we like the noise they make.

(Someone had to go there.)

stoutstien

2021-03-16, 04:59 PM

Because we like the noise they make.

(Someone had to go there.)
I know that that was sarcasm but the same time I actually find the sound of plastic dice on a plastic table, like the white folding ones, to be torture. I just like it so much that it my old local I actually built four gaming tables and donated them just so I didn't have to listen to the sound. I tried giving out free dice trays but players are special

DarknessEternal

2021-03-16, 05:03 PM

The rules put forward in the DMG actually don't want you rolling dice in the described situation.

Cass

2021-03-16, 05:07 PM

You are right and I found myself guilty of this but it's like a bad habit and I notice some rolls were avoidable only after they fail and can just try again.
The first time I actually noticed me doing it was a gate in Castle Ravenloft that required DC 20 to be lifted and that caused a 10 minute contest among the party for who was going to lift it first.
Now I am more aware of it and I try to avoid this trap but it's such an ingrained DM habit that is hard to prevent. I also thought of some consequences like the Rogue being unfamiliar with the lock and unable to open it so they might need to use force to break it.
Taking 10 minutes to accomplish something in an hostile environment? Roll a dice to see if there's a random encounter.

Asisreo1

2021-03-16, 05:30 PM

In a situation where the PCs are expected to eventually succeed, the roll should determine how much times does it takes.

Situation:
"- I try to pick the lock!"
"- Roll for sleight of hand."
"- Hum... not great, 13."
"- It doesn't work. How much time are you willing to take to pick this lock before you give up?"
"- Well, I don't know is 10min enough?"
"- (GM do some quick computation, maybe one secret roll) It's been 10min, and no, it's not enough."
"- Fine, Bob, can you brute-force it with your Battleaxe or something?"

Alternatively, triggering traps or other punishment can help to failure ensure that the roll always matters.
It could be cool to have the time it takes to unlock something be equal to its DC.

So if the player is indifferent about time, you can still let them know that 13 minutes had passed before opening the lock. That may end certain spells or, if you're very strict, it may tick closer to a random encounter.

Tanarii

2021-03-16, 05:46 PM

Taking 10 minutes to accomplish something in an hostile environment? Roll a dice to see if there's a random encounter.Agreed, that's the price a player has to face. Decide to do it quick in one roll, or take ten times as long and face the consequences of spending your time resource? (Classically wandering monster checks, but also ticking time bombs, or time pool dice being added, etc)

If there's none of that going on, the dice can be skipped as long as there isn't an immediate consequence for failure, a state-change in the world. (Personally I don't think state-changes in the character are intended, but some people apparently classify those as "consequences for failure" too. c.f. knowledge checks to determine state-of-the-character learning, where failure changes your character to not have learned something.)

Avonar

2021-03-16, 06:09 PM

This comes down to the DM. If you fail to pick a lock, just saying "You don't do it" isn't a very interesting or fun response. Interesting reasons for failure is something I think is undervalued. Maybe the lock is very cleverly designed, and a small mistake caused it to seize up completely on you. Picking the lock is no longer an option, so find another way to get in. If the lock just needs time and time isn't an issue, then don't make a player roll for it, just tell them that it takes some time.

An equivalent might be a wizard trying to identify a ritual circle mid-combat. A failed arcana check doesn't mean they have no idea, it means that it's too complicated to decipher in just a few seconds and will need some time spent. After the fight, the wizard takes some time to study and figures out the information, no roll needed.

Waterdeep Merch

2021-03-16, 06:13 PM

My current DM saw recently that I had this fear of failure (and obsessive pursuit of success), and saw that it was negatively impacting the group's fun.

So he explained how he runs the story: PCs will "fail forward". That means that a failed lockpick is not about whether or not you can unlock the lock, but if you made noise, if you broke the lock, if you broke your lockpick, if you activated an alarm, etc...

Never let a fail roll stop the story.

Honestly, this is the best usage for these sort of time waster rolls I've heard. If it's necessary for story progression/reward, I'd rather just make bad rolls mean other complications arise than tell them to either try again or that they can't for some arbitrary reason. And I know how much my players hate missing possible treasure due to bad rolls.

KorvinStarmast

2021-03-16, 06:24 PM

Never let a fail roll stop the story. Nice post. good bottom line. :smallsmile:

Because we like the noise they make.
Guilty as charged, your honor.

Waterdeep Merch

2021-03-16, 06:28 PM

That really did inspire me to make a post on my Session Zero for an upcoming game, offering it as a choice for any failed skill or ability check. A player can choose to succeed instead, but there will be a negative consequence for it. I'm leaving it as a choice thing for purists, but I like the idea a lot.

greenstone

2021-03-16, 07:19 PM

I think the real issue is that the D&D books only do half the job when explaining the core mechanic of a roleplaying game.

To quote AngryGM (https://theangrygm.com/five-simple-rules-for-dating-my-teenaged-skill-system/): Rule #2: Only Roll When There is Chance of Success, A Chance of Failure, and A Risk or Cost of Failure

Here's my take on the core game mechanic.

1. The players tell the GM their goal and approach.

2. The GM establishes the chance of success and the cost of the attempt and the consequnces of the attempt.

2.a. Chance is 100%? Tell the players, "Your characters succeed." Pay the costs (time, money, resources, whatever).

2.b. Chance is 0%? Tell the players, "Your characters fail." Pay the costs (time, money, resources, whatever) and deal with the consequences.

2.c. Otherwise? Determine success using some method (in D&D, this is usually by rolling dice). Tell the players, "Success" or "Failure" as above.

For example:

The players want to get through the door. They have a time constraint - monsters patrol the dungeon and every minute they spend means possible random encounters.

Goal: Get through door.

Approach #1: Break the door.
The GM determines that a roll is called for, in this case STR.
Success means the goal is achieved (the characters are through the door). There isn't any cost to the characters, but the consequence is that a loud noise has alerted everyone in hearing (regardless of whether the goal was achieved).

Approach #2: Pick the lock.
The GM determines that no roll is called for, since there is no time pressure and the lock is within the skill level of the party. The goal is achieved. There is a cost to the characters of 10 minutes spent, which might involve a wandering monster roll. Any short duration spells they had up are now expired.

Approach #3: Cast a spell.
The GM determines that no roll is called for, since the spell always works. The goal is achieved (the characters are through the door). The characters pay the cost of a spell slot.

strangebloke

2021-03-16, 07:25 PM

Unoriginal

2021-03-16, 07:32 PM

In my first ever 5e game, I had a low strength cleric try to climb atop a five foot tall box.

The DM made me roll athletics to climb up. I rolled poorly and it took me six tries, and the DM made fun of me, but I did get up there. There was no time pressure, so no worry about rolling. Obviously no roll should have been required.

In fact, according to RAW, everyone has a default climb speed of half their movement and rolls should only be required if there's some amount of random chance involved, eg, uncertain footholds.

Indeed.

I suspect many DMs used to previous editions' climbing fail to notice how it's different in 5e.

I think the real issue is that the D&D books only do half the job when explaining the core mechanic of a roleplaying game.

To quote AngryGM (https://theangrygm.com/five-simple-rules-for-dating-my-teenaged-skill-system/): Rule #2: Only Roll When There is Chance of Success, A Chance of Failure, and A Risk or Cost of Failure

This is literally explained in the 5e core books.

The more I hear about AngryGM the less I like it.

Keravath

2021-03-16, 07:41 PM

5e does have the concept of taking 20. It just isn't called that.

DMG p237

"MULTIPLE ABILITY CHECKS
Sometimes a character fails an ability check and wants to try again. In some cases, a character is free to do so; the only real cost is the time it takes. With enough attempts and enough time, a character should eventually succeed at the task. To speed things up, assume that a character spending ten times the normal amount of time needed to complete a task automatically succeeds at that task. However, no amount of repeating the check allows a character to turn an impossible task into a successful one.
In other cases, failing an ability check makes it impossible to make the same check to do the same thing again. For example, a rogue might try to trick a town guard into thinking the adventurers are undercover agents of the king. If the rogue loses a contest of Charisma (Deception) against the guard's Wisdom (Insight), the same lie told again won't work. The characters can come up with a different way to get past the guard or try the check again against another guard at a different gate. But you might decide that the initial failure makes those checks more difficult to pull off."

If there are no consequences to failure then the task takes 10 times as long an automatically succeeds. However, a task that is impossible still can't be successful. This means if the task DC is higher than the character could achieve even with a rolled 20 then the task is impossible for that character and it can never be accomplished.

Thus, this rule is the equivalent of taking a 20 and having the task be successful while requiring 10x the usual time to complete it.

---

Passive scores play a similar role. In the OP example of a chest, after a battle, with no traps, encounters or other time pressure then the DM can check the character's passive lockpicking skill and if it is higher than the required DC then just narrate the successful opening of the chest. If the passive lockpicking skill isn't high enough then have the character roll a die to see whether they succeed quickly. If not, they still succeed but it takes much longer than they would have hoped.

Alternatively, the DM could skip the die roll altogether since there aren't any consequences and if the passive is high enough the lock is picked quickly while if it is not, the DM just narrates the lock being very challenging and taking a much longer time to open.

KorvinStarmast

2021-03-16, 08:03 PM

Indeed.

I suspect many DMs used to previous editions' climbing fail to notice how it's different in 5e.
.
Yep. I have seen that in numerous games

hitchhike79

2021-03-16, 08:15 PM

This forum is awesome.

I love posting on here and getting a great convo going with good rules references and examples from all of you.
Thanks

jjordan

2021-03-16, 08:16 PM

In a situation where the PCs are expected to eventually succeed, the roll should determine how much times does it takes.

Situation:
"- I try to pick the lock!"
"- Roll for sleight of hand."
"- Hum... not great, 13."
"- It doesn't work. How much time are you willing to take to pick this lock before you give up?"
"- Well, I don't know is 10min enough?"
"- (GM do some quick computation, maybe one secret roll) It's been 10min, and no, it's not enough."
"- Fine, Bob, can you brute-force it with your Battleaxe or something?"

Alternatively, triggering traps or other punishment can help to failure ensure that the roll always matters.
I like this approach. In some cases it's not a matter of IF you can do it but HOW LONG it will take you to do it and sometimes HOW WELL you do it.

Rynjin

2021-03-16, 08:26 PM

strangebloke

2021-03-16, 08:32 PM

Indeed.

I suspect many DMs used to previous editions' climbing fail to notice how it's different in 5e.

Yup. Worse when its an officially published module that does this. :smallfurious:

This is literally explained in the 5e core books.

The more I hear about AngryGM the less I like it.
Not going to claim he's flawless but you have to realize that he's 'GM' not 'DM'. His advice isn't tailored to 5e specifically, and even if it was, things from the basic rules do bear repeating, as we point out in this very thread.

Tanarii

2021-03-16, 11:11 PM

The more I hear about AngryGM the less I like it.
He has a lot of good points for a specific style of play. But when it's something you (the reader) disagrees with, his delivery makes him frustrating to read. Even when it's something you agree with that can be the case.

It's an entertaining Schtick that becomes irritating then goes back and forth between the two, provided you like juvenile trash talk in the first place. (Which I personally do.)

Unoriginal

2021-03-16, 11:53 PM

Cheesegear

2021-03-17, 12:10 AM

So your a sneaky rogue and you have a massive bonus to picking locks.
There is a shiny chest in front of you after a big battle and its locked.
The DM says roll to unlock the chest.... and you fail at the roll.

The DM says to roll to unlock the chest...In six seconds. You fail. It's going to take longer than that. Or, it might require a different solution - such as the Barbarian with a Crowbar.
If you fail the first roll, you then spend the next several minutes doing the thing.

For picking a lock, I might say that it's equal to a number of minutes equal to a d20 minus your Dex+Prof, where you add your Proficiency if you're proficient in Theives' Tools. But you do get it open. As a DM, the only thing you have to rule on is whether or not something happens in the time it takes you to get it open. Usually, it doesn't. So the chest is now open.

Well now what? Ive been in some campaigns that DMs say you need to figure out another way to get it open.... why?!

Potentially because they're trying to railroad you into seeing more of the content that they made.
"I didn't spend 20 minutes designing the basement, with the encounter, where the key is, for nothing."

If you fail at one thing why not just try again, esp if its not life or death situation.

You should be able to. But, additionally, most tables have a time limit. My missus wants me home by 10.30, so I don't wake her up when I stomp through the house coming home (also sexy times maybe?). Some people don't have time to waste on the same thing over and over and over again.

The consequences of your actions, changes the story. Move on. Failure, is an option. Failure should always be an option.
Not only that, but failure should be expected.

That being said, why roll dice? Why not just say you open the chest?

Because at a certain point you may have to accept that it's beyond your abilities.
At some point the STR-character has to pull out the Crowbar.
Or the Wizard casts Knock.
Or the Sorcerer just Shatters the door into next week.

Ideally, if you can't open the chest on the first - or second, or third - go, the DM should move on, and simply rule that you can't open it without a significant investment in time. Or, y'know, you can let another character open the lock using an alternative solution. Not all locks, need be picked.

If time isn't a factor, in what's happening, then sure. Open the door. It takes longer than you think. But you open it all the same. The rest of the party has their thumbs up their butts.

given enough time it will open.

No matter how high you roll, you cannot perform an impossible task.

This is just one example that has happened a number of times be it a door or chest that it just makes me wonder what the heck are we rolling for when it comes to non-life or death checks...

In my games, it would represent time. I'm fairly transparent in my games when I introduce ticking clock elements, since I have no interest in letting my players stock up on rations, and long resting after every encounter.

da newt

2021-03-17, 07:46 AM

How long does one attempt to pick a lock take? Is it one turn = 6 seconds? If so, then if you try 10 times it takes one minute and you auto succeed if your Dex + Proff are high enough vs the DC. (if my math is right, if you would succeed w/ a roll of 18 or better, then if you have 10 tries, you will succeed more than 80% of the time, and if a 16 or better = success then its 95%)

I had a job a while back where the one locksmith worked for me. From my observations of him, it seems to me that lockpicking is as much perseverance as skill (depending on the lock in question) and some locks you just drill.

IRL it seems to me most things are either things you can do, or things you can't (lift a heavy thing, know something, play a song well, do a backflip, make a persuasive argument, solve a math problem), and only a small portion of things fall into the sometimes I succeed, sometimes I fail category.

Gryndle

2021-03-17, 08:14 AM

Because we like the noise they make.

(Someone had to go there.)

i really wish this forum had a "like" button....

Kurt Kurageous

2021-03-17, 08:28 AM

Unavenger

2021-03-17, 08:32 AM

A friend is working on a rolling system that sort-of solves this: "Roll durations". Fundamentally, every roll has a "Duration" attached to it which explains why you're making that roll and what's attached to your success or failure.

Attack rolls or anything else that you can try again next round but something might have happened by then is an "Instance" which means you can keep doing it until you succeed, but something horrible might have happened by then.
Lockpicking, as in the example here, is "Immediate". Either you can do it now, or you fail to do it at all. Failing to open a lock doesn't just mean you don't do it this round: it represents not knowing how to open this particular lock at all.
Sneaking past some guards is "Continuous". Either you can do it until something massively changes the circumstances, or you fail and are caught immediately. Similarly, either the guards succeed at spotting you immediately, or they fail for the entire time until something changes the situation. No-one has to keep rolling each round.

Mind you, lock picking DCs have to be adjusted down if you want to apply this to something like 5e which already has different rules in place. In 5e, everything is implied to be an instance except for knowledges and insight which are immediate, so you can keep spamming rolls at something until you succeed.

GloatingSwine

2021-03-17, 08:32 AM

DMs should only call for a die roll when the outcome is uncertain...

DMs should only call for a roll when the outcome is uncertain and failure is interesting.

Lockpicking, as in the example here, is "Immediate". Either you can do it now, or you fail to do it at all. Failing to open a lock doesn't just mean you don't do it this round: it represents not knowing how to open this particular lock at all.

That's a really poor way of representing a manual task. Lockpicking isn't just a matter of knowledge, it's also a matter of manual dexterity, steady hands, and ability to focus. The dice roll is to determine whether you did all of those things all together at that moment.

The only time this sort of "if you don't pass first time you can never try again" roll makes sense is if the attempt makes the circumstances you were making the attempt in go away (defusing a bomb, not picking a lock).

The GM should know, from the DC and their knowledge of the character sheet, whether success is possible at all. If a 20 would be a success, then as long as you have infinite time don't roll a skill check but do mark the passage of time. If success would never be possible then just say so from the start.

KorvinStarmast

2021-03-17, 08:42 AM

truemane

2021-03-17, 08:43 AM

Back in the day when role-playing as an activity was relatively novel, and far more closely aligned with its wargame roots than it is now, the general philosophical framework of the activity was somewhat like a modern video game.

The 'thing' was that you were creating a set of characters and pitting them against a series of pre-arranged, objective obstacles. There was a dungeon. On paper. And you went into the dungeon with X expendable resources and tried to see what you could come out with. The 'fun' was how well you could meet those challenges with the resources you've assembled.

There were secret doors, and if you found them, great. If you didn't, too bad. There were chests with loot inside. If you found a way to get them open, great. If not, too bad. Whether or not you could find all the stuff and kill/evade all the bad guys and clear the dungeon kind of WAS the story. Modules at the time, most of the time, consisted of a paper thin narrative entry point and a nonsense monster hotel.

And we loved it. Because it was novel. There was no thing to do that was anything quite like it. We loved rolling dice. Rolling dice was the best. Any excuse to roll them was sufficient. Because there was no other way to get that perfect balance of personal agency within a bound comprehensible system. "Cops and Robbers" didn't have dice so the biggest kids always won and board games didn't let you pretend to get drunk and kiss girls. So when you failed to pick the lock, it was part of the game. Everyone went AW MAN and accepted it, or worked around it, it the same way we accept today that we only got 85% completion on a video game level.

(plus or minus X amount of generalization and oversimplification, of course, there was also no internet back then, and therefore no real universal experience of what the game was supposed to be or not supposed to be. Unless you happened to live in a large city, you basically only knew what you and your friends did, plus the occasional issue of Dragon magazine)

That basic foundation formed the basis for how the hobby was structured for years and years, long after various games moved into genres and settings where that framework didn't make anywhere near as much sense.

Lots of modern games have dispensed with this framework altogether (PtbA is the prime example), but modern D&D is very much built on the skeleton of what came before, so some of its basic traits are maladaptive in a modern context.

KorvinStarmast

2021-03-17, 08:48 AM

The 'thing' was that you were creating a set of characters and pitting them against a series of pre-arranged, objective obstacles. There was a dungeon. On paper. And you went into the dungeon with X expendable resources and tried to see what you could come out with. The 'fun' was how well you could meet those challenges with the resources you've assembled.

There were secret doors, and if you found them, great. If you didn't, too bad. There were chests with loot inside. If you found a way to get them open, great. If not, too bad. Whether or not you could find all the stuff and kill/evade all the bad guys and clear the dungeon kind of WAS the story. Modules at the time, most of the time, consisted of a paper thin narrative entry point and a nonsense monster hotel.

And we loved it. Because it was novel. There was no thing to do that was anything quite like it. We loved rolling dice. Rolling dice was the best. Any excuse to roll them was sufficient. Because there was no other way to get that perfect balance of personal agency within a bound comprehensible system. "Cops and Robbers" didn't have dice so the biggest kids always won and board games didn't let you pretend to get drunk and kiss girls. The whole post is good, but this element really evoked some strong memories. Thanks. :smallsmile: (The exploration pillar and the focus on treasure finding seems to have been lost somewhat)

Willie the Duck

2021-03-17, 09:33 AM

This forum is awesome.
I love posting on here and getting a great convo going with good rules references and examples from all of you.
Thanks
Glad we could provide helpful feedback! :smallbiggrin:

The more I hear about AngryGM the less I like it.

Not going to claim he's flawless but you have to realize that he's 'GM' not 'DM'. His advice isn't tailored to 5e specifically, and even if it was, things from the basic rules do bear repeating, as we point out in this very thread.

He has a lot of good points for a specific style of play. But when it's something you (the reader) disagrees with, his delivery makes him frustrating to read. Even when it's something you agree with that can be the case.
It's an entertaining Schtick that becomes irritating then goes back and forth between the two, provided you like juvenile trash talk in the first place. (Which I personally do.)

I love it when people quote Angry. I'm sad when people think these quotes are the sum of all he has to say. Angry is pretty good about laying out his justifications. Read them, then decide. Steel sharpens steel.
AngryGM is a blogger. Virtually all bloggers have strengths and weaknesses. Angry has some opinions I do not share. He also sometimes has arguments that have a start and an end, but he doesn’t fully craft the middle. He also sometimes tries to do a ‘hot take’ and that works about as well for him as it does for most everyone else. Mostly, though, he has fairly well written and reasonable GMing advice that at worst is covering ground I’ve already tread*. This is a good example, where he is writing gaming advice that is already in the book. On the other hand, there are a lot of D&D versions before this one that didn’t have this language! And, as strangebloke mentions, repeating already established things to make sure that they are well known (or just to reinforce that, yes indeed others in the gaming community consider this part of the rules text to be of importance). Generally, I agree with Kurt’s Proverbs reference, steel to sharpen steel, and one friend to sharpen another. We’re all in this together.
*It is always useful to remind oneself (https://xkcd.com/1053/) that not everyone knows what you do, that you most likely learned it by having someone else who already knew it explain it to you, and what you think ought to be obvious usually isn’t until you’ve known it. I don’t recall who said it, but they defined a pedant as “someone who calls another ‘ignorant’ for not knowing what they just learned” and I try never to be that guy.
That said, AngryGM has chosen a marketing strategy that has locked him into a delivery method I find distasteful. They have a gimmick, and it can be summed up with ‘isn’t it hilarious how much of a jerk I am?!’ and it is crazy effective, but self-limiting. It is noticeable, and thus people talk about it, and thus they get their moniker thrown around in a way that gives them name recognition that other gaming bloggers wish they had. I have members of my gaming groups who don’t do any of this forum stuff that have heard of ‘the AngryDM’ (typo theirs). However, a lot of people really don’t like that and don’t want to put up with the tone of their material. I know a lot of people will say something along the lines of ‘well ignore the tone, and listen to the argument put forth’ or similar. Well, that would make sense if this were high school debate, but AngryGM is a writer, and tone and delivery is part of his product, and if that product does not meet your needs, then you have no need to patronize their site. For me, in particular, I dislike it because I don’t think online gaming discussion needs more normalization of default-hostile discourse. But that’s just me. Overall, my take is that Angry has made their bed, and they can lie in it. If the decision to take on the jerkish façade (and I absolutely assume it is a façade) means some people will be turned away, well that is their decision.

Tanarii

2021-03-17, 09:47 AM

(plus or minus X amount of generalization and oversimplification, of course, there was also no internet back then, and therefore no real universal experience of what the game was supposed to be or not supposed to be. Unless you happened to live in a large city, you basically only knew what you and your friends did, plus the occasional issue of Dragon magazine)Clearly true, because my experience was you hated the dice, and did everything possible to convince the DM they weren't needed. Because the odds were usually so low.

The thief class had it the worst in this regard. But combat was also too dicey. (Ba dum Tish). And saving throws were the stuff of nightmares. General skills (except for the ones that massively increased thief skills to be equal to Dex checks) and NWPs were a mixed bag. On the one hand you could point to something to show you knew how to do it. OTOH hand it meant a chance of failure, instead of just describing how to do the thing. On the gripping hand, the odds were often far better than most other dice rolls, usually you took skills you had a 50% chance or better of succeeding at. Whereas attacks were usually less than that, and saving throws and thief skills were in the toilet.

The 5e DMG has great advice on how to run a game in a way that makes dice both scary and enjoyable at the same time, by emphasizing they shouldn't replace automatic success or failure. And provide rules for when not to waste time with constant rolling (passive checks, automatic success). Rolls should be a somewhat nail-biting moment each time they come out, but the DM needs to apply judgement and not shut down stuff that should just happen.

The biggest complaints in the 5e forum are about things that ignore this, or the hard coded rules for stuff that just happens. Most commonly climbing, jumping, and lifting. But also for some reason lockpicking and "knowledge" checks.

Cikomyr2

2021-03-17, 09:49 AM

This approach is one of the many reasons I stopped playing 5e. A particularly memorable time was when my Monk attempted to shift a heavy object, but rolled very low on his Str check. I said "Okay, so I try again".

"Well, you can't. You failed so it's too heavy for you to lift."

This started a bit of an argument, but eventually I let it go. I never regained my ability to take the world seriously/get immersed again, because at that point strength becomes completely arbitrary. The weight of the object doesn't matter, only that the 8 Str Elf rolled higher that one time. There is no trying again after failure, failing a task means you suck forever, the game world changing around you in some unspecified way "the lock is beyond your abilities", even though the DC very clearly falls within your ability to make, you just rolled a 1 that time.

Taking 10 and 20 were rules for a reason, and removing them is a design flaw. Yes, in this case it was bad GMing, a sin the OP's case, but rules like that exist to curtail GMing like that. Because nobody starts off as a good GM, in part the game is there to TEACH them how to be a good GM. The more your system relies on your GM being good (read: having experience with what makes a satisfying game session), the worse the experience of the average player is going to be.

How about we apply a little bit of context:

- maybe you hurt your back while trying to lift, that why you can't try again? maybe you discovered that you had the wrong footing, or you didn't get the right handle. Maybe your too big and didn't have the space to apply the right leverage? there are things in life that go beyond just how much muscle mass you have, and that's where the die roll comes into play in the story.

The whole idea that "all other players can also try" is, in my opinion, the crux of the problem here. Yes, it makes logical sense that everyone would have a go. But it doesn't make narrative sense to grind the story to a halt so everyone give it a go. One player had the idea, one player gets to try it. He succeeds or fails, the story continues. If the story DEPENDS on your succeeding this check, then you should succeed with consequence.

When you start with the idea that:

- One player only can try a check. Another player can sure as hell give him the help action tho.
- Making or failing that check is not going to cripple the game. In fact, it might make for more interesting play if you actually fail at things sometimes.
- Don't always go for the "optimal" option. Sometimes it's fun if the wizard gets to roll strength, or the barbarian rolls knowledge. Sure, they are more likely to fail, but it's not the end of the world if they do you know. Because for the one time they will succeed, it's just an excuse to come up with a fun story reason why in *this* case they managed to do something really hard. Maybe the Barbarian turns out to have ancient lore from his tribe? Maybe the Wizard managed to spot a weakness in the door that allowed him to more easily break the door?

and I fully understand if you have trouble accepting this mindset. I know I still have trouble getting there, but I have also noticed the group has plain more fun playing that way instead of optimizing and brute-forcing EVERY. SINGLE. CHECKS.

Willie the Duck

2021-03-17, 10:44 AM

Clearly true, because my experience was you hated the dice, and did everything possible to convince the DM they weren't needed. Because the odds were usually so low.
The thief class had it the worst in this regard. But combat was also too dicey. (Ba dum Tish). And saving throws were the stuff of nightmares.
My recollection of TSR-era (mostly a BX/BECMI hybrid with some 1e thrown in) combat was that your approach was never to engage unless you had prepared a setup where you had all the cards in your favor -- a perfectly setup battlefield with two rows of fighters and hirelings/henchmen (1 row of swords/etc. and one row of spears/polearms) in front of your casters and ranged, safely protected by 10' wide corridors; or alternately a situation where you could flank the enemy and all gang up on one enemy until they dropped and move on to the next. Fighters were basically that same as a monster of the same hp (possibly with a better AC or a magic item which did something amazing), so a toe-to-toe battle meant a very quick attrition of HP.

And yeah, the best way to play a TSR-era thief was to game the DM instead of trusting the dice. Especially in BECMI (post 1st printing) where they stretched the thief abilities from 14 levels to 36, meaning you approached 90+% in your skills well after dungeon-crawling stopped being the primary gameplay mode.

Kurt Kurageous

2021-03-17, 11:31 AM

If the decision to take on the jerkish façade (and I absolutely assume it is a façade) means some people will be turned away, well that is their decision.

Good observations in your entire post.

I have long since tired of his schtick, yet I read him like a student with a professor. I take notes, write down definitions, and try to find what might be useful in running my game, and what I might need to do differently when things are less than (fun) optimal.

He's been useful because he makes observations and suggestions on how to get good, then get better. Is he 'the greatest of all time?' Maybe not, but who's better and by what standard? Does he challenge assumptions and make me a better DM? Yes.

Keravath

2021-03-17, 11:45 AM

This approach is one of the many reasons I stopped playing 5e. A particularly memorable time was when my Monk attempted to shift a heavy object, but rolled very low on his Str check. I said "Okay, so I try again".

"Well, you can't. You failed so it's too heavy for you to lift."

This started a bit of an argument, but eventually I let it go. I never regained my ability to take the world seriously/get immersed again, because at that point strength becomes completely arbitrary. The weight of the object doesn't matter, only that the 8 Str Elf rolled higher that one time. There is no trying again after failure, failing a task means you suck forever, the game world changing around you in some unspecified way "the lock is beyond your abilities", even though the DC very clearly falls within your ability to make, you just rolled a 1 that time.

Taking 10 and 20 were rules for a reason, and removing them is a design flaw. Yes, in this case it was bad GMing, a sin the OP's case, but rules like that exist to curtail GMing like that. Because nobody starts off as a good GM, in part the game is there to TEACH them how to be a good GM. The more your system relies on your GM being good (read: having experience with what makes a satisfying game session), the worse the experience of the average player is going to be.

I'd just like to point out that the situation you describe is not a 5e rules issue - it is a DM issue. I think there have been several rules cited above to show that 5e includes the equivalent of taking 10 and 20 (passive scores and auto success). It is up to the DM to apply them. In addition, the maximum lifting capacity of a character is based on their strength score and is described in the PHB and is very simple.

PHB p176

"LIFTING AND CARRYING
Your Strength score determines the amount of weight you can bear. The following terms define what you can lift or carry.
Carrying Capacity. Your carrying capacity is your Strength score multiplied by 1 5 . This is the weight (in pounds) that you can carry, which is high enough that most characters don't usually have to worry about it.
Push, Drag, or Lift. You can push, drag, or lift a weight in pounds up to twice your carrying capacity (or 30 times your Strength score). While pushing or dragging weight in excess of your carrying capacity, your speed drops to 5 feet.
Size and Strength. Larger creatures can bear more weight, whereas Tiny creatures can carry less. For each size category above Medium, double the creature's carrying capacity and the amount it can push, drag, or lift. For a Tiny creature, halve these weights."

Even using the simple rules, a stength 8 character could at least momentarily move up to 240 pounds.

So in the situation described, if you had no time pressure, a strength check isn't needed to determine whether you can move the object - just the strength of the character and the weight of the item - though there could be added complications trying to get a good grip on it. In either case, unless the object was over 240 pounds or otherwise fastened down - then it wasn't too heavy for your character to lift.

It's too bad you decided not to like 5e based on how a particular DM decided to run their game. However, that's the way it works sometimes, different DMs do things differently. In this case you describe though, the issue was how the DM chose to run it and not the rules themselves.

KorvinStarmast

2021-03-17, 11:49 AM

Overall, my take is that Angry has made their bed, and they can lie in it. If the decision to take on the jerkish façade (and I absolutely assume it is a façade) means some people will be turned away, well that is their decision. I got his book, and it's funny how a lot of that façade was left on the cutting room floor. :smallcool:

stoutstien

2021-03-17, 12:13 PM

I got his book, and it's funny how a lot of that façade was left on the cutting room floor. :smallcool:

Aye. Meet him at at convention a few years back and generally he is very laid back other than when we got on the topic of player agency which is something that needs some shock value to get people to really think about it.

Tanarii

2021-03-17, 12:19 PM

And yeah, the best way to play a TSR-era thief was to game the DM instead of trusting the dice. Especially in BECMI (post 1st printing) where they stretched the thief abilities from 14 levels to 36, meaning you approached 90+% in your skills well after dungeon-crawling stopped being the primary gameplay mode.
Even in 5e this remains true, if your DM uses DC 15 Medium as their "average difficulty" value, even if checks are only made in high stress / one time scenarios and when results are interesting. The game becomes making sure you only ever have to roll for things that put together high stat with proficiency.

It's not mother may I, but when your odds of success under stress are going to typically be 25%-35% (-1 to +1 vs DC 15), you're going to do whatever you can to avoid being in that situation.

stoutstien

2021-03-17, 12:24 PM

Even in 5e this remains true, if your DM uses DC 15 Medium as their "average difficulty" value, even if checks are only made in high stress / one time scenarios and when results are interesting. The game becomes making sure you only ever have to roll for things that put together high stat with proficiency.

Expertise and roll augmentations are also practically required if that's the case. Don't roll if 15 isn't your minimum value is something that I've heard and it makes me sad.

KorvinStarmast

2021-03-17, 12:31 PM

Expertise and roll augmentations are also practically required if that's the case. Don't roll if 15 isn't your minimum value is something that I've heard and it makes me sad. If the roll is important:
Get someone to Help (Advantage)
Get guidance laid on you
Get bardic inspiration laid on you ...

The 7 Ps apply ...

truemane

2021-03-17, 12:35 PM

The whole post is good, but this element really evoked some strong memories. Thanks. :smallsmile: (The exploration pillar and the focus on treasure finding seems to have been lost somewhat)
My personal theory is that the people who really dig those things have, over the years, drifted more toward video games (and/or, in more recent years, boardgames like Gloomhaven), as that's a more fertile and more efficient platform for those activities.

stoutstien

2021-03-17, 12:40 PM

If the roll is important:
Get someone to Help (Advantage)
Get guidance laid on you
Get bardic inspiration laid on you ...

The 7 Ps apply ...

Aye. The issue turns into over specialized PCs that actively avoid making checks they can't basically auto pass. Makes for poor game play experience IMO.
I've been using a 3 roll system with good results so the barbarian taking the lead in a tense conversation so it doesn't just automatically mean combat.

Tanarii

2021-03-17, 12:54 PM

Expertise and roll augmentations are also practically required if that's the case. Don't roll if 15 isn't your minimum value is something that I've heard and it makes me sad.
Not minimum 15, average 15. Minimum would be unplayable, unless that translated into "DM doesn't use ability checks".

I'm an advocate for average 10, with a range of 5-15 being normal. That means the typical check will be 75-25%, with people who are good at something at first level adding 20% to it, and people who are exceptional (high level adventurers) being able to do amazing things that require even higher DCs.

stoutstien

2021-03-17, 01:04 PM

Not minimum 15, average 15. Minimum would be unplayable, unless that translated into "DM doesn't use ability checks".

I'm an advocate for average 10, with a range of 5-15 being normal. That means the typical check will be 75-25%, with people who are good at something at first level adding 20% to it, and people who are exceptional (high level adventurers) being able to do amazing things that require even higher DCs.

You'd be surprised what habitat players pick up at toxic tables.

I settled with 11 as my middle value with a stand range of 5-14 and a Max value of 25. That combined with 3 rolls per check (need 2 passing to succeed and +/- 1 for advantage and disadvantage) softened the curve and also made over specializing a waste.
It was that or use 2D10 but what's the fun in that.

I remember looking at the DMG rules for ability checks and thinking why not just flip a coin?

Tanarii

2021-03-17, 01:07 PM

I remember looking at the DMG rules for ability checks and thinking why not just flip a coin?
Worse, it's only a coin flip when your proficient and have an ability score of 14, put together. (Or at very high levels, 20 or proficiency.)

Unavenger

2021-03-17, 01:31 PM

That's a really poor way of representing a manual task. Lockpicking isn't just a matter of knowledge, it's also a matter of manual dexterity, steady hands, and ability to focus. The dice roll is to determine whether you did all of those things all together at that moment.

In some games, yes. In other games, it's to represent not whether you can do it right now, but whether you'll ever be able to do it, or at least whether you'll ever be able to do it without going away and coming back to the problem later.

Realism-wise, in general, people who do physical penetration testing or otherwise know how to open a lock can get through a lock first or second try, and people who don't can't get through at all. And, from what I've seen, if you do know what you're doing but a specific lock eludes you, you won't be able to get through it with more time - if you can't do it in a minute, you generally won't be able to do it in an hour either.

More to the point, if you aren't in a situation where the number of instance rolls you need to make matters, then treating it as an instance roll is pointless, which is why 3.5 has Taking 20 and 5e has the ability to succeed automatically absent any time pressure (which is de facto the same thing most of the time). In this case, the instance roll just becomes an immediate roll, except in 3.5, rather than rolling 1d20, you roll... 20, and in 5e, you just succeed even if you've never used a lockpick before in your life, have the dexterity of a beached whale, and are trying to get into the most secure lock in existence.

Finally, sometimes whether you're able to do a task at all is dependent on luck - if you don't work out the trick to it, you won't manage it however many times you try. You might try a lock 50 times, missing the thing you need to do every single one of those times, because you don't understand how that lock works, but you have managed to work out how another lock works, despite both locks being roughly the same difficulty in general.

For example, I suck at lockpicking, and if you give me a terrible lock that's vulnerable to a standard attack against the tumblers, I'll have no idea what to do. If you give me an equally, but differently, terrible lock that's vulnerable to a self-impression attack, I'll have it open in about thirty seconds. Some people will know how to open a standard lock but won't know what a self-impression attack means. I will never be able to open one lock, and they'll never be able to open the other lock, which isn't possible under the everything-is-instance model that 5e uses.

Keravath

2021-03-17, 01:55 PM

The whole post is good, but this element really evoked some strong memories. Thanks. :smallsmile: (The exploration pillar and the focus on treasure finding seems to have been lost somewhat)

When 1gp=1xp and xp is only awarded for treasure and killing monsters ... players become very motivated to explore and find treasure since exploring gives both the treasure and the things protecting it. :)

Decoupling treasure from xp means that the main role of acquiring treasure is buying things for your character, not advancing your character - so the treasure can have a bit less focus than previously.

The emphasis then switches to magic items and monsters ... and then 5e introduced attunement as a way to limit how many magic items were useful at the same time thus reducing a bit the focus on acquiring magic items since if you have 3 great magic items - you'll most likely want to sell or trade extras that come along since you probably can't make good use of them (though non-attunement items do have a greater value as a result).

Dark.Revenant

2021-03-17, 01:57 PM

Sheesh guys, this is why degrees of failure are a thing.

Fail that lockpicking check by 1–5? It's tricky and will require futzing with it for a while; roll 3d6 and that's how many minutes it takes.
Fail by 6–10? It's simply beyond you; you'd have to repeatedly try over the course of days to learn how to pick it.
Fail by 11+? You break your pick and jam up the lock while you're at it.

Rynjin

2021-03-17, 02:00 PM

I'd just like to point out that the situation you describe is not a 5e rules issue - it is a DM issue. I think there have been several rules cited above to show that 5e includes the equivalent of taking 10 and 20 (passive scores and auto success). It is up to the DM to apply them. In addition, the maximum lifting capacity of a character is based on their strength score and is described in the PHB and is very simple.

PHB p176

"LIFTING AND CARRYING
Your Strength score determines the amount of weight you can bear. The following terms define what you can lift or carry.
Carrying Capacity. Your carrying capacity is your Strength score multiplied by 1 5 . This is the weight (in pounds) that you can carry, which is high enough that most characters don't usually have to worry about it.
Push, Drag, or Lift. You can push, drag, or lift a weight in pounds up to twice your carrying capacity (or 30 times your Strength score). While pushing or dragging weight in excess of your carrying capacity, your speed drops to 5 feet.
Size and Strength. Larger creatures can bear more weight, whereas Tiny creatures can carry less. For each size category above Medium, double the creature's carrying capacity and the amount it can push, drag, or lift. For a Tiny creature, halve these weights."

Even using the simple rules, a strength 8 character could at least momentarily move up to 240 pounds.

So in the situation described, if you had no time pressure, a strength check isn't needed to determine whether you can move the object - just the strength of the character and the weight of the item - though there could be added complications trying to get a good grip on it. In either case, unless the object was over 240 pounds or otherwise fastened down - then it wasn't too heavy for your character to lift.

It's too bad you decided not to like 5e based on how a particular DM decided to run their game. However, that's the way it works sometimes, different DMs do things differently. In this case you describe though, the issue was how the DM chose to run it and not the rules themselves.

That DM was "one of the many reasons", as I said, not the only. I played a solid 6 campaigns for 5e. One to 12th, one to 10th, one that started at 5th and ended at 7th, one I came in at 4th and ended at 8th, another that started at 5th and went to 8th, and a smattering of oneshots and short-lived PbP attempts.

I never had as much fun with it as I had playing any other system I'd tried before it (Pathfinder, Savage Worlds, FFd6, Mutants and Masterminds 2e and 3e; it was a pretty small list at the time), so I stopped playing it.

Having competed in power lifting about 40 years ago, I'll say that verisimilitude - wise this makes some sense.
Granted, I wasn't there and am not sure why your DM made that call, but that's the point of the abilty check - why was the check being made? What was the consequence of failure? What was the time pressure? Etc.

If you had suggested, for example, that you get guidance from the Cleric and try again, or that you get a party member or an NPC to help you, that might change the circumstances where another try was a viable option. (Hard to say, and again, as I wasn't you DM I am not sure what went into all of that).

Take 10 and Take 20: fine for the games they were built for, certainly.

It was the lid to a sarcophagus, in Out of the Abyss. No time pressure, no consequence for failure. Ultimately not a big deal, but as I expected it set a very bad precedent for how failed checks were to be run later. I got fed up with this particular GM (love the guy, he was my best friend in high school, but terrible DM) when their obsession with "consequences for failure" grew to the point that they implemented a lasting injury system for 5e, where you roll on an injury table every time you get downed.

As the only melee-oriented character in the party, I saw which way the wind was blowing from there, and had it confirmed to me when I went down in the first fight afterward (as I did in nearly every single important combat, because shockingly enough, even a Barbarian can't tank everything on his own, and everyone else in the party was too busy jerking off half the time to actually do anything helpful in combat) and started losing fingers.

Lots of issues with that game. Some were the DM, many were the players, but enough of it was the system that I basically gave 5e an ultimatum: gimme a fun game in 6 months or I'm out. It technically delivered, and I'm still playing with that group over 4 years later now, twice a week...but everyone, including myself, still prefers to play other systems (primarily Pathfinder for long campaigns).

So basically, all 5e did was introduce me to a consistent group for playing other games.

Pex

2021-03-17, 02:29 PM

I love it when people quote Angry. I'm sad when people think these quotes are the sum of all he has to say. Angry is pretty good about laying out his justifications. Read them, then decide. Steel sharpens steel.

A point made (by Angry) is the game comes to a screeching halt every time a die is cast. Do you consider that, DMs?

If I forget the rule about no cost of failure = no roll if skilled, the difference between the roll and the target is the number of additional rounds it will take for success.

A DM who doesn't understand that they can adjudicate automatic success or failure for a player-declared intent and approach might as well stop DMing until they learn how to run a RPG. They are trying to act like a video game, not a RPG. RPG with a GM is a superior choice for entertainment than a video game because we can adjudicate ANYTHING the player can think of, whereas the computer is limited by the extent of it's programming.

The quip about "the noise they make" is true. If your DM does such a poor job of allowing player agency, then the only way you feel like you are doing something is when you roll. Eventually you connect "having fun" with the act of rolling.

Part of the problem are DMs who insist there must always be a chance of failure for everything or else there's no "challenge". Arguments to the contrary are irrelevant to them. Your only choice are keep playing despite it or walk away, but walking away will not change their mind. You'll avoid a bad game, but they'll continue to think you're a munchkin.

Players aren't off the hook either. Some keep asking what to roll after announcing they want to do something. Maybe it's because of these DMs in the past or just their own thinking. 5E to its credit does go over this and tells players/DMs there are times no rolls are needed, but I do think they should have been more explicit and kept the Take 10/Take 20 language. It's not elegant, but some people need that explicit gamespeak to get the point across.

To clarify I'm not blaming 5E. 5E did its job in this case. :smallwink:

KorvinStarmast

2021-03-17, 02:33 PM

I got fed up with this particular GM (love the guy, he was my best friend in high school, but terrible DM) when their obsession with "consequences for failure" grew to the point that they implemented a lasting injury system for 5e, where you roll on an injury table every time you get downed. We did that last one for a while in one campaign, and I grew to hate it.

As the only melee-oriented character in the party, I saw which way the wind was blowing from there, and had it confirmed to me when I went down in the first fight afterward (as I did in nearly every single important combat, because shockingly enough, even a Barbarian can't tank everything on his own, and everyone else in the party was too busy jerking off half the time to actually do anything helpful in combat) and started losing fingers. Tone deaf DM. Sorry to hear that, but so it goes.

... and I'm still playing with that group over 4 years later now, twice a week...but everyone, including myself, still prefers to play other systems (primarily Pathfinder for long campaigns).

So basically, all 5e did was introduce me to a consistent group for playing other games. A silver lining to the cloud, glad to hear that you all have a game you enjoy together! :smallsmile:

Kurt Kurageous

2021-03-17, 02:41 PM

Part of the problem are DMs who insist there must always be a chance of failure for everything or else there's no "challenge". Arguments to the contrary are irrelevant to them. Your only choice are keep playing despite it or walk away, but walking away will not change their mind. You'll avoid a bad game, but they'll continue to think you're a munchkin.

Players aren't off the hook either. Some keep asking what to roll after announcing they want to do something. Maybe it's because of these DMs in the past or just their own thinking. 5E to its credit does go over this and tells players/DMs there are times no rolls are needed, but I do think they should have been more explicit and kept the Take 10/Take 20 language. It's not elegant, but some people need that explicit gamespeak to get the point across.

To clarify I'm not blaming 5E. 5E did its job in this case. :smallwink:

Remember AD&D Magic User spell failure percentages?!? They stopped after a certain INT score. Clearly DMs who insist on chances of failure don't know that they have been wrong forever.

I bet every long running DM has had players roll without the DM saying to roll. This is a bad habit that I think comes from versions where a 20 guaranteed success. And that's not true in 5e for everything.

Cikomyr2

2021-03-17, 02:51 PM

Part of the problem are DMs who insist there must always be a chance of failure for everything or else there's no "challenge". Arguments to the contrary are irrelevant to them. Your only choice are keep playing despite it or walk away, but walking away will not change their mind. You'll avoid a bad game, but they'll continue to think you're a munchkin.

Players aren't off the hook either. Some keep asking what to roll after announcing they want to do something. Maybe it's because of these DMs in the past or just their own thinking. 5E to its credit does go over this and tells players/DMs there are times no rolls are needed, but I do think they should have been more explicit and kept the Take 10/Take 20 language. It's not elegant, but some people need that explicit gamespeak to get the point across.

To clarify I'm not blaming 5E. 5E did its job in this case. :smallwink:

Disagreed. The problem is that some DM lack the imagination that the failure caused by the roll may have something less related to the roll cause the failure. A good thief who needs to open a lock will open the lock. It's just that he may wake the cat while doing so. Because that's what happen when you roll a 4, Steve.

Unoriginal

2021-03-17, 02:53 PM

Disagreed. The problem is that some DM lack the imagination that the failure caused by the roll may have something less related to the roll cause the failure. A good thief who needs to open a lock will open the lock. It's just that he may wake the cat while doing so. Because that's what happen when you roll a 4, Steve.

What if the DC is 10 and the thief has +9 to the check?

Cikomyr2

2021-03-17, 03:00 PM

What if the DC is 10 and the thief has +9 to the check?

He catches the cat, alert no one, but while he holds it down the cat claws him for 1d4 damage.

Roll initiative Steve

Rynjin

2021-03-17, 03:17 PM

A silver lining to the cloud, glad to hear that you all have a game you enjoy together! :smallsmile:

Yeah! And to be clear, I don't actually think 5e is a bad game; it's just "the best game I hate". It's objectively well designed in a lot of ways, but the ways it isn't (and some of the ways it is) just don't appeal to me.

Disagreed. The problem is that some DM lack the imagination that the failure caused by the roll may have something less related to the roll cause the failure. A good thief who needs to open a lock will open the lock. It's just that he may wake the cat while doing so. Because that's what happen when you roll a 4, Steve.

Why do people do this? Why put so much weight on the number of the roll and not the result?

ad_hoc

2021-03-17, 03:22 PM

This is already how 5e works.

Ability checks should only be made when there is drama to be had.

The outcome needs to be in doubt AND there needs to be meaningful consequences for failure.

Don't waste time making rolls on things that aren't interesting. Move on and get to the good stuff.

Cikomyr2

2021-03-17, 03:28 PM

Why do people do this? Why put so much weight on the number of the roll and not the result?

Because... we roll dice to have fun? It's not a deterministic game? It's okay to have bad results sometimes as long as you are having a good time with friends?

Kurt Kurageous

2021-03-17, 03:45 PM

Don't waste time making rolls on things that aren't interesting. Move on and get to the good stuff.

Upvote this!

Rynjin

2021-03-17, 03:46 PM

Because... we roll dice to have fun? It's not a deterministic game? It's okay to have bad results sometimes as long as you are having a good time with friends?

What's the point of having skill check bonuses if you're going to CREATE failure where there was none? It makes no sense. Failure can be fun (one of my favorite gaming moments is a TPK), but it needs to make sense in context, not just "hey I know you exceeded the check DC by 7 points but the DIE ROLL was ow, so you suffer". You know being good at things is also fun sometimes too, right?

Cikomyr2

2021-03-17, 05:24 PM

What's the point of having skill check bonuses if you're going to CREATE failure where there was none? It makes no sense. Failure can be fun (one of my favorite gaming moments is a TPK), but it needs to make sense in context, not just "hey I know you exceeded the check DC by 7 points but the DIE ROLL was ow, so you suffer". You know being good at things is also fun sometimes too, right?

Because you rolled a nat 1 at the table and everyone probably screamed of horror. It's funnier that way matey. The high skill check is meant to help you achieve really hard DCs, not to guarantee the lack of negative results against routine ones.

Tanarii

2021-03-17, 05:37 PM

Because you rolled a nat 1 at the table and everyone probably screamed of horror. It's funnier that way matey. The high skill check is meant to help you achieve really hard DCs, not to guarantee the lack of negative results against routine ones.
That's exactly what it is, without a house rule. There are no critical failures or natural 1s auto fail or the like.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-03-17, 06:46 PM

That's exactly what it is, without a house rule. There are no critical failures or natural 1s auto fail or the like.

I agree. Natural 1s only matter for attack rolls and death saves (by default). Anything else is a (horrible, IMO) DM decision. There is discussion of this on DMG 242:

Rolling a 20 or a 1 on an ability check or saving throw doesn't normally have any special effect. However, you can choose to take such an exceptional roll into account when adjudicating the outcome. It's up to you to determine how this manifests in the game. An easy approach is to increase the impact of the success or failure. For example, rolling a 1 on a failed attempt to pick a lock might break the thieves' tools being used...

Note the bolded word. That's the failure gets worse if and only if there was a failure to begin with. A success is a success. A 1 is not a failure, if the total is high enough. A 1 is just the worst possible success you could have managed. The dice represent the random factors in play. In some cases, the random factors are irrelevant. In which case why in the world are you even rolling the dice? There's no chance of failure!
-------

On topic, here's a passage from the absolutely most important chapter of the rules when it comes to DMing (DMG chapter 8, emphasis added):

Many DMs find that using a combination of the two approaches [rolling dice for everything and ignoring the dice whenever possible] works best. By balancing the use of dice against deciding on success, you can encourage your players to strike a balance between relying on their bonuses and abilities and paying attention to the game and immersing themselves in its world.

Remember that dice don't run your game--you do. Dice are like rules. They're tools to help keep the action moving.

...

When a player wants to do something, it's often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character's ability scores...Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure.

It goes on to mention that there are two threshold questions before you call for a roll:
* Is it so easy as to be unlikely (or implausible for the character) to fail? This is the "a 1 is a success" case.
* Is it so difficult or implausible in the situation as to be impossible? This is the "a 20 is a failure" case.

Only if both are false should you think of calling for a roll.

Cikomyr2

2021-03-17, 07:49 PM

That's exactly what it is, without a house rule. There are no critical failures or natural 1s auto fail or the like.

No. That's another ability, it's the Rogue Reliable Talent.

JNAProductions

2021-03-17, 07:53 PM

No. That's another ability, it's the Rogue Reliable Talent.

That increases your minimum to 1+Mod to 10+Mod (on the checks it affects), but if you're rocking a +9 to an ability check or save and the DC is only 10, you pass. Unless you're suffering from something like Bane or an ability like Cutting Words, you cannot fail.

Witty Username

2021-03-17, 09:39 PM

Not minimum 15, average 15. Minimum would be unplayable, unless that translated into "DM doesn't use ability checks".

I'm an advocate for average 10, with a range of 5-15 being normal. That means the typical check will be 75-25%, with people who are good at something at first level adding 20% to it, and people who are exceptional (high level adventurers) being able to do amazing things that require even higher DCs.

I have been messing with DC 11 for everything, it works pretty well surprisingly. It keeps investment relevant without gating characters out of the attempt.

P.S IMO, Time should always be a factor, whether it is rations or torches, the duration of active spells or the use of random encounters. So rolling instead of taking 10 times longer will always have an upside.

CountDVB

2021-03-17, 09:54 PM

I came with an interesting idea.

The following formula: 8 + proficiency bonus + stat modifier + circumstance die.

Now what are circumstance die? It's where you roll a d6 twice, with the first roll representing good luck and the second roll negtive luck. Subtract the result of the bad luck roll from the good luck roll and you take the answer and plug it into the equation.

An example: Let's say you have a profiency bonus of 3 and your stat modifier for this current roll is 3.

So right now the formula is 8 + 3 + 3 + circumstance die or 14 + circumstance result.

Now you roll the d6 twice. Your "good luck" roll is 3 and your "bad luck" roll is 1, so 3 - 1. This means the answer or circumstance result is 2 so it's 14 + 2 = 16 for your result.
Now what if we reversed the results, as in "good luck" of 1 and a "bad luck" of 3 and thus 1 - 3? Well, then the circumstance result is -2. So it becomes 14 - 2 = 12.

Now, what about advantage and disadvantage? Well, if you have advantage, you add 3 to your good luck result and if disadvantage, you add it to your bad luck result.

Let's go back to our original roll. If we rolled with advantage, then our "good luck" roll goes from 3 to 6. So it's now 6 - 1 which is now 5, meaning our above result rolled with advantage is 14 + 5 = 19.
However, if we rolled with disadvantage, then the "bad luck" roll goes from 1 to 4. meaning 3 - 4 and thus -1, so the result rolled with disadvantage, it is thus 14 -1 = 13.

I hope I explained that well. What do ya'll think?

Pex

2021-03-17, 10:05 PM

Part of the problem are DMs who insist there must always be a chance of failure for everything or else there's no "challenge". Arguments to the contrary are irrelevant to them.

He catches the cat, alert no one, but while he holds it down the cat claws him for 1d4 damage.

Roll initiative Steve

Because... we roll dice to have fun? It's not a deterministic game? It's okay to have bad results sometimes as long as you are having a good time with friends?

Because you rolled a nat 1 at the table and everyone probably screamed of horror. It's funnier that way matey. The high skill check is meant to help you achieve really hard DCs, not to guarantee the lack of negative results against routine ones.

I rest my case.

greenstone

2021-03-17, 10:19 PM

Don't waste time making rolls on things that aren't interesting. Move on and get to the good stuff.

That's a great phrase. I'm grabbing that for my sig.

KaussH

2021-03-17, 11:08 PM

Don't waste time making rolls on things that aren't interesting. Move on and get to the good stuff.

The issue with this concept is that we dont all agree with what the " good stuff" is.
Some people feel that we should have no traps, locks, and should magicly show up at the start of dungeons since travel is boring.

Now that said, a lot of times you can storyline results " since you are prof in x, you know why"

But it can also be nice for feel. Take the " rolled a 4" example. Dc 11, charicter has +9. They clearly make it. So you may say " for a moment you think the lock is going to defy you, but all at once the bit of rust flakes off and the lock pops open"
If the roll a 1.... " a bit of oil makes your picks slip. Your going to get it open, but its going to take a long bit. "

If they rolled a 10 " you pop this lock like you have been doing this your whole life."

More atmosphere.

Now keep in mind this is is how i might do it if things are live. Aka someone might care they are breaking in.

If this was an untrapped chest in the pcs room ( or any safe spot) it would be more " are you taking your time? If so no roll needed, your just that good."

And yes, some of us like to roll dice, add numbers, hear the clatter. There are a number of games ( looking at you gumshoe) that have very limited dice rolls and some times it.. looses something.

Cheesegear

2021-03-18, 02:10 AM

Part of the problem are DMs who insist there must always be a chance of failure for everything or else there's no "challenge".

I think if there's no chance of failure, then there's no game. However, as per the DMG, not everything needs a roll. Do you really need to roll a DC 5 Athletics check when the Fighter's Athletics was already +5 starting at Level 1, and has only gotten higher, since? No. The Fighter does it. That's why I make a point of asking my players early on to tell me when they can't roll less than 5 on any given Skill. And at Level 8 or 9 I start asking who can't fail a DC 10 in a Skill, etc.
I also use Passive Investigation, and Passive Insight a lot. Just tell me when you're good at a Skill, please. It'll make the game go faster.

I think the bigger issue, is DMs who insist that there must always be consequences for failure. But that's me...I mean, DMs who disproportionately punish players for failure. Most of the...Time...The only consequence for failure should be time. And a lot of the...Time...Especially in published modules, that's not even a consequence.
Unless the players are diplomacy'ing their way out of a combat, in which case they fail, and the combat happens like it was going to, anyway - 'failure' in this case, is that the story progresses how the DM planned it to in the first place.
Dip****s who want 'critical miss tables' need their head checked.

Some keep asking what to roll after announcing they want to do something. Maybe it's because of these DMs in the past or just their own thinking.

I get real angry at dogpiling.
Player A: "Oh, Player B failed? Can I roll?"
Player C: "I'll roll too."
Player D: "If everyone else is rolling, I will too."

No. No. Everyone stop. If I wanted a group check, I would've asked for one. If you all want to roll, then Player B can roll once, with Advantage, as per you Helping.

Asmotherion

2021-03-18, 02:44 AM

So your a sneaky rogue and you have a massive bonus to picking locks.
There is a shiny chest in front of you after a big battle and its locked.
The DM says roll to unlock the chest.... and you fail at the roll.

Well now what? Ive been in some campaigns that DMs say you need to figure out another way to get it open.... why?!
If you fail at one thing why not just try again, esp if its not life or death situation.
They should be able to try any number of times unless the picks break or something else changes in the scenario.

That being said, why roll dice? Why not just say you open the chest? Sure if the difficulty of the chest is really high, roll it out but still, given enough time it will open.

This is just one example that has happened a number of times be it a door or chest that it just makes me wonder what the heck are we rolling for when it comes to non-life or death checks that should be able to be repeated.

Thanks i needed to vent.

Well, you probably had crappy DMs.

Most skills can be re-tried. Failing just means you didn't manage to do it in 6 secconds/on the first try. On a natural 1, yeah, the lockpick may have broken inside the keyhole, and needing an other way to oppen. Which is a common house-rule, but not a rule.

Otherwise, this is relevant in situations where time is of the essance, like unlocking a chest in a room full of guards. In other cases, people usually take 10, or take 20 if they have the time (not sure if take 10/20 is still a thing in 5e, but it's generally common enough to implement)

To your question, "why roll dice", is to provide both an interactive factor to the game, instead of playing it like a static card game, and also add an element of unpredictability and suspence via the random factor. It's what makes a diference between a binary option that determines success or failure besed on a static stat, or choosing to simulate the fact that people of all skill levels sometimes fail at the simplest tasks, while other times succed at things that are way above their capabilities.

ProsecutorGodot

2021-03-18, 04:50 AM

Because... we roll dice to have fun? It's not a deterministic game? It's okay to have bad results sometimes as long as you are having a good time with friends?

Best to gauge your table rather than assume all rolling is fun. I personally don't want to have to stop and roll for every locked door that we decide to pick it kick open. For lockpick, our Monk has proficiency but not expertise, it makes sense to roll sometimes because we're in a dangerous environment and her bonus isn't completely out of this world. When our fighter pulls out her enchanted battering ram though to kick a door down, that +21 modifier is almost always enough on its own, however it had its own consequences that don't need to be invented on the spot.

We thought differently our first time playing. We wanted random, wet introduced a fumble table for skills and attacks. As if the world wanted to highlight this error, we nearly killed ourselves before eventually TPKing due to inexperience on top of all the "random" self sabotage.

It probably seems a bit like rambling here, so to summarize - inventing or adding failure states because you want an expectation of suspense is generally a bad idea. If you want to do something like that, make it a player choice, like giving a party that struggles with doors an enchanted battering ram that ends up louder than a knock spell but is guaranteed to open most doors. This keeps their agency in play, don't surprise them with failure when they know they've succeeded.

Onos

2021-03-18, 05:13 AM

So your a sneaky rogue and you have a massive bonus to picking locks.
There is a shiny chest in front of you after a big battle and its locked.
The DM says roll to unlock the chest.... and you fail at the roll.

Well now what? Ive been in some campaigns that DMs say you need to figure out another way to get it open.... why?!
If you fail at one thing why not just try again, esp if its not life or death situation.
They should be able to try any number of times unless the picks break or something else changes in the scenario.

That being said, why roll dice? Why not just say you open the chest? Sure if the difficulty of the chest is really high, roll it out but still, given enough time it will open.

This is just one example that has happened a number of times be it a door or chest that it just makes me wonder what the heck are we rolling for when it comes to non-life or death checks that should be able to be repeated.

Thanks i needed to vent.

The most basic rule of a tRPG is roughly: if there's both a potential success state and a potential failure state to an action, call for a roll. Otherwise, don't. Sounds like your GM may need to brush up on how to run a good game.

DwarfFighter

2021-03-18, 06:52 AM

That being said, why roll dice? Why not just say you open the chest? Sure if the difficulty of the chest is really high, roll it out but still, given enough time it will open.

It is very kind of your GM to allow repeated attempts, but his try-until-you-pass attitude says to me that he just going by procedure. If he knew what he was doing, you wouldn't be rolling to pick the lock for the 15th time!

In this situation I feel there are better options when the initial roll fails, like...

1. The lock is undefeatable. No further tries allowed.
2. The Rogue struggles a bit with the lock, and finally opens it. However, something has gone wrong. Perhaps his lock pick set has been damaged and he cannot use them for picking any more locks (harsh, but lockpicks are replaceable). Or somehow a fragile piece of treasure within is damaged as the Rogue jostles with the lock. Or an alarm is sounded.
3. The lock eventually yields after an embarassing amount of time, giving the other PCs plenty of opportunity to ask "Is it OK?" and "Can you manage?" like every damn time you had to program you parents VCR.

-DF

Tanarii

2021-03-18, 07:30 AM

3. The lock eventually yields after an embarassing amount of time, giving the other PCs plenty of opportunity to ask "Is it OK?" and "Can you manage?" like every damn time you had to program you parents VCR.
Ha! That's be a great comedy bit to use against a DM at any table that didn't know and use the ten times as long rule on a regular basis, and wanted rerolls.

(Of course, I wouldn't play at such a table in the first place.)

EggKookoo

2021-03-18, 08:54 AM

Don't waste time making rolls on things that aren't interesting. Move on and get to the good stuff.

So, funny thing about this. I agree that rolls should only be called for if there's a chance of interesting failure or success. Rolls come when success or failure A) isn't a given and B) changes the options in front of the players/characters. If the player can reasonably try again, and just keep trying until a success is rolled, what's the point of the rolls? Except perhaps as a tool to determine how long it takes to complete it, which can be useful, but it's not really the same thing.

But... In my previous and current campaigns -- ones I've been DMing -- I find my players actually don't like it when I tell them they can just do a thing. Even more than when I tell them they can't do a thing (which isn't often, because they have some sense of what's feasible in the game). There's a light in their eyes when they are faced with a task, and that light dims ever so slightly when I say "yeah, you can just do that." I mean, not always. If the player feels as though it's something he could reasonably do, I don't get that reaction. But in those cases the player is less saying "I try to do X" and more "I probably can just do X, right?"

At least at my table, the players feel like they earn it more when I have them roll, even for little things. It's an art, to be sure. I pepper in "you can just do that" here and there, but more and more I'm starting to learn toward having them roll for almost everything, even if an argument could be made in the abstract that the task in question is essentially a guaranteed success (I mean, as long as no one at the able is actually making that argument at the time). The players get frustrated when they fail, but when they succeed they feel like that success is theirs, not something given to them by me because I felt like it.

jjordan

2021-03-18, 09:22 AM

Unoriginal

2021-03-18, 10:13 AM

I rest my case.

Have to agree.

I would not keep playing with a DM who think that *being good enough to not fail* should be rewarded by an HP loss and then a fight.

It's a clear sign that DM does not Care about anything but their idea of what must happen at the table.

Cikomyr2

2021-03-18, 10:38 AM

Have to agree.

I would not keep playing with a DM who think that *being good enough to not fail* should be rewarded by an HP loss and then a fight.

It's a clear sign that DM does not Care about anything but their idea of what must happen at the table.

a fight against a *cat* is not a fight. It's an encounter. It's about giving you a complication because you rolled a freakkin' 1, without preventing you from achieving your objective. the 1d4 damage is meant to be fun flavor representing the cat resisting your attempt at silencing it, I would not do it on a level 1 rogue with barely 8 hp. But I would do it on a level 5+ rogues who have 20+ hp and can afford to have a claw scratch his face. Then you have the best thief of the thieves' guild with a nasty scar who just *wont* talk about "how he got these scars".

That's how you create character, it's these little story bits thrown in the pot.

A weaker rogue who wouldn't succeed on a roll of a 1 to 4 would probably just make noise and not be fast enough to prevent the cat from making noise, but still unlock the lock. Because there's no way in hell I am preventing a rogue from advancing his story or mission because of a failed roll.

Kurt Kurageous

2021-03-18, 10:47 AM

No. That's another ability, it's the Rogue Reliable Talent.

Yeah, true. But I nerfed rogues by using passives (aka take 10) for everyone. My game has not collapsed, and players still wanna rogue.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-03-18, 10:49 AM

a fight against a *cat* is not a fight. It's an encounter.

A fight against a cat is a total waste of everyone's time! And saying that a cat can deal enough damage to kill a commoner...this isn't 3e. Cats, like most tiny creatures, deal at most a flat 1 damage. And doing so without a hit roll is an insult to the character's competence.

And was the cat clearly described as being there before they picked the lock? Because Schrodinger's cat belongs in a box thought experiment, not in a game.

Rolling a 1 on a success should have no negative consequences. They succeeded. They get what they wanted. And shouldn't have even had to roll--there is no chance of failure, so the random element (the dice) have no role. Rolling a 1 on a failure might make that failure worse. Or not. I personally would go with not, other than descriptively. Just like rolling a 20 on a failure means that you shouldn't have rolled unless you're doing degrees of failure (where a 20 on a failure is less bad than anything else). And even then.

Willie the Duck

2021-03-18, 10:56 AM

Tangent - Since we're using lockpicking as the example skill I am amused that people think of fantasy-medieval locks as modern pin and tumbler locks which are picked using rakes and similar devices when they were actually very different and defeated using different tools.

How do we know they aren't? After all, they are fantasy-medieval, not medieval. Perhaps they all look like the gate key from The Princess Bride, the chastity belt key from Robin Hood: Men in Tights*, or so forth. Of all the many anachronisms that games like D&D can have, this certainly wouldn't be the most glaring.
*hey, never noticed the keys-in-Cary-Elwes-movies trend before, wonder if there is a third.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-03-18, 10:59 AM

How do we know they aren't? After all, they are fantasy-medieval, not medieval. Perhaps they all look like the gate key from The Princess Bride, the chastity belt key from Robin Hood: Men in Tights*, or so forth. Of all the many anachronisms that games like D&D can have, this certainly wouldn't be the most glaring.
*hey, never noticed the keys-in-Cary-Elwes-movies trend before, wonder if there is a third.

Personally, I'd say that locks in my universe range from very modern-style locks (dwarves, pre-extinction gnome work) to crude medieval-style locks (most other people) to arcane thought-sensitive ones that don't look anything like what most would consider a lock. Don't try to use lockpicks on that last category.

stoutstien

2021-03-18, 11:05 AM

How do we know they aren't? After all, they are fantasy-medieval, not medieval. Perhaps they all look like the gate key from The Princess Bride, the chastity belt key from Robin Hood: Men in Tights*, or so forth. Of all the many anachronisms that games like D&D can have, this certainly wouldn't be the most glaring.
*hey, never noticed the keys-in-Cary-Elwes-movies trend before, wonder if there is a third.

FR isn't even medieval. Depending on the lore you are looking at it's closer to a progress that was divergent before that level of civilization was reached.

CapnWildefyr

2021-03-18, 11:13 AM

Chaosmancer

2021-03-18, 11:13 AM

The issue with this concept is that we dont all agree with what the " good stuff" is.
Some people feel that we should have no traps, locks, and should magicly show up at the start of dungeons since travel is boring.

Now that said, a lot of times you can storyline results " since you are prof in x, you know why"

But it can also be nice for feel. Take the " rolled a 4" example. Dc 11, charicter has +9. They clearly make it. So you may say " for a moment you think the lock is going to defy you, but all at once the bit of rust flakes off and the lock pops open"
If the roll a 1.... " a bit of oil makes your picks slip. Your going to get it open, but its going to take a long bit. "

If they rolled a 10 " you pop this lock like you have been doing this your whole life."

More atmosphere.

Now keep in mind this is is how i might do it if things are live. Aka someone might care they are breaking in.

If this was an untrapped chest in the pcs room ( or any safe spot) it would be more " are you taking your time? If so no roll needed, your just that good."

And yes, some of us like to roll dice, add numbers, hear the clatter. There are a number of games ( looking at you gumshoe) that have very limited dice rolls and some times it.. looses something.

This is exactly what I do, with atmosphere. Because nothing in the world is more boring than

"I try and break down the door"
"Roll Athletics"
"Okay, 13"
"You fail."
"Okay, I try to break down the door again"
"Roll Athletics"
"Okay, 11"
"You fail."
Okay, I try to-"

And, yes, I did have a DM who did this. We wasted like 15 minutes on a door, because there was no where else to go except to turn around and leave the adventure.

Additionally, though, we have players who have figured out the system, and that is almost equally boring.

"Okay, Jon has the highest strength, so he'll make the check"
"And I'm assisting, so Advantage"
"And here is guidance"

"Okay, Matt has the best charisma, so he'll make the check"
"And I'm assisting, so Advantage"
"And here is guidance"

"Okay, so Jon has the best dex, so he'll make the check"
"And I'm assisting-"

And, again, yes, every check, every time in every circumstance. And I'm guilty of it too, because failure means things grind to a halt a lot of the time, so we mitigate failure at every turn.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I get real angry at dogpiling.
Player A: "Oh, Player B failed? Can I roll?"
Player C: "I'll roll too."
Player D: "If everyone else is rolling, I will too."

No. No. Everyone stop. If I wanted a group check, I would've asked for one. If you all want to roll, then Player B can roll once, with Advantage, as per you Helping.

Yeah, sometimes this gets under my skin too. I generally allow no more than one other person to try, and then only if it is something really important.

Flipside though, I also despise Group Rolls for things like Stealth. When a single result of 5 means that my rogue with +18 stealth is seen, that drives me nuts.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a fight against a *cat* is not a fight. It's an encounter. It's about giving you a complication because you rolled a freakkin' 1, without preventing you from achieving your objective. the 1d4 damage is meant to be fun flavor representing the cat resisting your attempt at silencing it, I would not do it on a level 1 rogue with barely 8 hp. But I would do it on a level 5+ rogues who have 20+ hp and can afford to have a claw scratch his face. Then you have the best thief of the thieves' guild with a nasty scar who just *wont* talk about "how he got these scars".

That's how you create character, it's these little story bits thrown in the pot.

A weaker rogue who wouldn't succeed on a roll of a 1 to 4 would probably just make noise and not be fast enough to prevent the cat from making noise, but still unlock the lock. Because there's no way in hell I am preventing a rogue from advancing his story or mission because of a failed roll.

See, here is the thing though, as a player, I am not amused by you trying to scar my character with a cat attack just because you think it is funny and you think a 1 should matter.

Sure, some tables would have a hoot about that, I've played with guys who just have to insist on having a critical fail table, but for some of the rest of us? We don't appreciate your attempts to make us look incompetent and stupid, it doesn't lighten the tone, it annoys us.

Kurt Kurageous

2021-03-18, 11:37 AM

This is exactly what I do, with atmosphere. Because nothing in the world is more boring than

"I try and break down the door"
"Roll Athletics"
"Okay, 13"
"You fail."
"Okay, I try to break down the door again"
"Roll Athletics"
"Okay, 11"
"You fail."
Okay, I try to-"

And, yes, I did have a DM who did this. We wasted like 15 minutes on a door, because there was no where else to go except to turn around and leave the adventure.

Additionally, though, we have players who have figured out the system, and that is almost equally boring.

"Okay, Jon has the highest strength, so he'll make the check"
"And I'm assisting, so Advantage"
"And here is guidance"

"Okay, Matt has the best charisma, so he'll make the check"
"And I'm assisting, so Advantage"
"And here is guidance"

"Okay, so Jon has the best dex, so he'll make the check"
"And I'm assisting-"

And, again, yes, every check, every time in every circumstance. And I'm guilty of it too, because failure means things grind to a halt a lot of the time, so we mitigate failure at every turn.

As a long time DM, I often deal with the fallout of choices other DMs made on players were theirs and now are at my table.

Among the very worst was a player that asked "what do I see" every time they entered a new room/scene. This was because their previous DM asked for a perception check in every room, and a low roll meant you didn't see ANYTHING (like, the walls, the floor, the moving objects...). It took about a year before they accepted the results of their passive perception. Sure stuff could be hidden, just not EVERYTHING.

Unoriginal

2021-03-18, 11:47 AM

a fight against a *cat* is not a fight. It's an encounter. It's about giving you a complication because you rolled a freakkin' 1, without preventing you from achieving your objective. the 1d4 damage is meant to be fun flavor representing the cat resisting your attempt at silencing it, I would not do it on a level 1 rogue with barely 8 hp. But I would do it on a level 5+ rogues who have 20+ hp and can afford to have a claw scratch his face. Then you have the best thief of the thieves' guild with a nasty scar who just *wont* talk about "how he got these scars".

That's how you create character, it's these little story bits thrown in the pot.

That's not *me* creating a character, it's *you* deciding what my character is like because you decided that I still have to roll for a check my character cannot fail and to make the consequences be an household pet inflicting long-term scaring.

See, here is the thing though, as a player, I am not amused by you trying to scar my character with a cat attack just because you think it is funny and you think a 1 should matter.

Sure, some tables would have a hoot about that, I've played with guys who just have to insist on having a critical fail table, but for some of the rest of us? We don't appreciate your attempts to make us look incompetent and stupid, it doesn't lighten the tone, it annoys us.

Indeed.

If it's how your players like it, well, everyone has fun differently, but if I went to a new table and this was the expected standard, I would just take my stuff and leave.

Keravath

2021-03-18, 12:02 PM

Yeah, true. But I nerfed rogues by using passives (aka take 10) for everyone. My game has not collapsed, and players still wanna rogue.

Kind of depends on what you mean by "passives". Passive checks are for tasks done repeatedly, ones for which there are no immediate consequences of failure or ones where the DM doesn't want the players to roll dice which might give something away.

Reliable talent guarantees a minimum roll of 10 when the character rolls the die and not everything can be resolved with a passive check (unless you have decided just to do passives for everything by anyone under any circumstances and only ask for a roll when the passive has already failed) even for situations which aren't repeated or do have consequences.

Kurt Kurageous

2021-03-18, 02:11 PM

Kind of depends on what you mean by "passives". Passive checks are for tasks done repeatedly, ones for which there are no immediate consequences of failure or ones where the DM doesn't want the players to roll dice which might give something away.

Reliable talent guarantees a minimum roll of 10 when the character rolls the die and not everything can be resolved with a passive check (unless you have decided just to do passives for everything by anyone under any circumstances and only ask for a roll when the passive has already failed) even for situations which aren't repeated or do have consequences.

My pre-written scenes have passive gates that start with skill proficiency. The following was derived from a bit from Angry, so I can't take full credit.

In this scene the party encounters a body discovered next to a wagon in my prequel adventure to CoS. The party approaches and asks what are they able to figure out. I tell them everything their passive skill entitles them to, and they can roll if they want more. In many cases, rolling is not necessary because the DCs are below the relevant skill passive score. If no one is proficient in the skill, they don't learn anything until they actively try to figure something out. "I'm checking to see if they are still alive."

(Medicine) The person is definitely dead; DC10 and has deep slashing and piercing wounds underneath torn clothes. The body appears intact despite bite wounds. DC15 The person was dead before they hit the ground, evidenced by a lack of more blood on the ground despite torn arteries. DC20 The attacker was no animal despite the wounds.

(Investigation) The body has defensive wounds on the arms. An ordinary shortsword lies next to the body. DC10 The victim was right-handed and not particularly skilled with a sword. DC15 The body faces away from the wagon, indicating they might have been defending it or someone in the wagon. DC20 The attackers ambushed from a hide uphill from the road.

(Survival) The tracks here are from one or more bare-footed humanoids. DC10 The tracks are most likely from humans. DC 15 Three distinct sets of tracks lead towards the Misty Woods.

(Perception) There's a blood spray around the body. DC15 There is no other blood present. DC20 The person's hands don't look like those of a commoner. Perhaps a middle class? Merchant?

You can anticipate what the players will do, so write for it.

Key point is do not hide campaign critical information behind a die roll. An unskilled player/character can get the gist of what happened here without rolling well. Make the reward for having the skill at least partially automatic.

Chaosmancer

2021-03-18, 04:05 PM

As a long time DM, I often deal with the fallout of choices other DMs made on players were theirs and now are at my table.

Among the very worst was a player that asked "what do I see" every time they entered a new room/scene. This was because their previous DM asked for a perception check in every room, and a low roll meant you didn't see ANYTHING (like, the walls, the floor, the moving objects...). It took about a year before they accepted the results of their passive perception. Sure stuff could be hidden, just not EVERYTHING.

I've run into similar things. Takes a long time to break the defensive measures of people mistreated by other GMs.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-03-18, 05:41 PM

I've run into similar things. Takes a long time to break the defensive measures of people mistreated by other GMs.

It's one reason I love playing with new players. In fact I'd rather teach a bunch of totally new folks (or mostly new folks) rather than deal with ingrained bad habits. And lots of those I've taught have gone on to be DMs themselves.

It's also a reason why I try to make very few mechanical changes. Custom stuff, sure. But the gameplay is pretty stock. And when I do deviate, I try to call it out.

JoeJ

2021-03-18, 08:23 PM

He catches the cat, alert no one, but while he holds it down the cat claws him for 1d4 damage.

Roll initiative Steve

Do you also give spellcaster a 1 in 20 chance to take damage when they cast a spell, or is it only characters using skills?

ProsecutorGodot

2021-03-18, 08:34 PM

Do you also give spellcaster a 1 in 20 chance to take damage when they cast a spell, or is it only characters using skills?

Roll me a d20 real quick Steve, I want to make sure you don't have a random finger spasm while casting Disintegrate there.

KorvinStarmast

2021-03-18, 10:35 PM

No. No. Everyone stop. If I wanted a group check, I would've asked for one. If you all want to roll, then Player B can roll once, with Advantage, as per you Helping. How nice, a DM who actually knows what's in the rulebook. +1. :smallcool:

A fight against a cat is a total waste of everyone's time! ... Because Schrodinger's cat belongs in a box thought experiment, not in a game. Thanks, I needed that.
FR isn't even medieval. Closer to Renaissance.

Additionally, though, we have players who have figured out the system, and that is almost equally boring.

"Okay, Jon has the highest strength, so he'll make the check"
"And I'm assisting, so Advantage"
"And here is guidance"

"Okay, Matt has the best charisma, so he'll make the check"
"And I'm assisting, so Advantage"
"And here is guidance"

"Okay, so Jon has the best dex, so he'll make the check"
"And I'm assisting-"
That's called teamwork. I encourage team work. The game mechanically incentivizes teamwork and your players figured that out. This isn't a problem, it's the game working as built.

Chaosmancer

2021-03-19, 07:37 AM

That's called teamwork. I encourage team work. The game mechanically incentivizes teamwork and your players figured that out. This isn't a problem, it's the game working as built.

It is teamwork, but it is such a standard operating procedure that the game might as well change the resolution from 1d20 +mod to 2d20kh1 +1d4 +mod.

I don't think the intent of the game was to have advantage and guidance on every single check, but that ends up happening unless I start actively pushing back on that

Keravath

2021-03-19, 09:04 AM

It is teamwork, but it is such a standard operating procedure that the game might as well change the resolution from 1d20 +mod to 2d20kh1 +1d4 +mod.

I don't think the intent of the game was to have advantage and guidance on every single check, but that ends up happening unless I start actively pushing back on that

It's up to the DM to determine whether either advantage or guidance are possible and let the players know.

Trying to open an unprotected/untrapped/unlocked stuck door in a dungeon - then sure, they get a couple of characters and guidance to make the roll.

Standing in an audience hall trying to convince the lord of the manor not to lock you up? Well - if the lord will only let one person speak at a time then no help and if you think the characters can cast anything at all during a conversation without it being noticed and probably incurring a much higher DC than the d4 of guidance could compensate for ... well that is on the DM.

Basically, there are situations where help is possible and some where it is not. There are situations where guidance is possible and some where it is not. The DM controls the story and the narrative and lets the players know when their team work plan works and when it does not and when they have to get more inventive to earn a bonus on the die roll.

KorvinStarmast

2021-03-19, 11:20 AM

It is teamwork, but it is such a standard operating procedure that the game might as well change the resolution from 1d20 +mod to 2d20kh1 +1d4 +mod.
If you read the rule book, you will find that in some cases "help" can't be offered (but enhance ability, the spell, has no such limitation so there's your advantage right there if your players are really into geting the most out of their abilities) and you as the DM can also assign circumstantial disadvantage where it makes sense, which will cancel out advantage.

As to you being upset, or frustrated, that your players are using the tools available and are applying a modicum of systems mastery: add time pressure, add other elements of challenge, make nested traps, etc. Here's an example that I'll borrow from a little military experience:

A minefield is an obstacle, which if the troops approaching it have certain equipment is less of one.
A minefield, which is under observation by armed troops with rifles, MGs, mortars, and maybe some air assets, is a much tougher obstacle.

Traps: if they are observed (see the usual reference to Tucker's Kobolds here) you add a whole new dimension of difficulty and problem solving.

Raising your DM game: that's an option you have as a DM. (And it's a part of DMing that is really appealing, or so I have found. It's a place where the DM gets a kind of fun that is unique to that position in the game)

MoiMagnus

2021-03-19, 11:48 AM

and you as the DM can also assign circumstantial disadvantage where it makes sense, which will cancel out advantage.

Though a circumstantial disadvantage doesn't cancel out the advantage from helping. It cancels ALL the advantages.

In fact, even without considering circumstantial disadvantages, systematic helping cancels all the effects of circumstantial advantages. You no longer care about having favourable circumstances if you already have a systematic way of obtaining advantages through game mechanics, which is kind of sad IMO.

Bohandas

2021-03-19, 12:08 PM

When I saw the thread title I initially thought it was going to be about RNG apps

So in older editions there was a concept of "Taking 20", which is that, given no penalty for failure and no time pressure on a test like picking a lock, you could "Take 20", basically take some amount of in-game time and act as if you had rolled a natural 20.

That said, this concept is gone, and while I occasionally miss it, I feel it being gone is a good thing. Taking 20 is often pretty boring.

This runs up against Grod's Law. "You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use". You can totally still take 20, it just wastes the table's time now because you have to keep rolling until you actually get one.

Tanarii

2021-03-19, 12:09 PM

In my personal experience, the few times when it's possible to cast Guidance and/or for another character to help AND the players don't take the option to spend ten times as long from their "time" resource bank ... I'm happy to give it to them.

They're not that common, and they're not that important a challenge. Even in a dungeon delve. If I put in a simple trap or lock that's just by itself with nothing else going in 5e, that's not meant to be a challenge. It's ambiance.

If it was possible to Help/Guidance with Passive Perception or Stealth while exploring, it'd be a bigger issue.

This runs up against Grod's Law. "You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use". You can totally still take 20, it just wastes the table's time now because you have to keep rolling until you actually get one.5e's automatic success rule is superior to 3e's take 20. Because the DM can rule it works even if you couldn't succeed on a 20 by rolling, if they like. In other words, you don't even need to stop and do the math.

The biggest problem with it is that it's hidden in the DMG, so folks like the OP's DM, the person you quoted, and apparently you, don't know that "take 20" still exists in a superior form.

JoeJ

2021-03-19, 12:16 PM

This runs up against Grod's Law. "You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use". You can totally still take 20, it just wastes the table's time now because you have to keep rolling until you actually get one.

No, taking 20 (it's still in the rules, although it's no longer called that) doesn't use dice and doesn't take any extra table time at all, just time for characters within the game.

JNAProductions

2021-03-19, 12:32 PM

No, taking 20 (it's still in the rules, although it's no longer called that) doesn't use dice and doesn't take any extra table time at all, just time for characters within the game.

They're talking about "Taking 20" by rolling dice until you actually get a 20.

Taking 20, actually, is fine for table time. But rolling until you happen roll a 20, because there's no rush and no penalty for failure, is not.

JoeJ

2021-03-19, 12:48 PM

They're talking about "Taking 20" by rolling dice until you actually get a 20.

Taking 20, actually, is fine for table time. But rolling until you happen roll a 20, because there's no rush and no penalty for failure, is not.

Rolling until you actually get a 20 is not the rule, though. The rule (DMG p. 237) is that you don't roll dice at all, you just assume the task succeeds, requiring 10 times as long as a single attempt would. Of course, this doesn't work if the task was impossible to begin with.

JNAProductions

2021-03-19, 12:54 PM

Rolling until you actually get a 20 is not the rule, though. The rule (DMG p. 237) is that you don't roll dice at all, you just assume the task succeeds, requiring 10 times as long as a single attempt would. Of course, this doesn't work if the task was impossible to begin with.

Yes. I know.

Bohandas was talking about tables where that doesn't happen-they were talking about tables where you just keep rolling until you succeed, despite there being no penalty for failure and no time pressure.

Tanarii

2021-03-19, 12:55 PM

They're talking about "Taking 20" by rolling dice until you actually get a 20.

Taking 20, actually, is fine for table time. But rolling until you happen roll a 20, because there's no rush and no penalty for failure, is not..No, they weren't. They were talking about "Take 20" not being a rule in 5e.

Which, while technically correct by the name not existing, isn't correct in that there's a rule that covers the concept.

Unoriginal

2021-03-19, 01:23 PM

They're talking about "Taking 20" by rolling dice until you actually get a 20.

Taking 20, actually, is fine for table time. But rolling until you happen roll a 20, because there's no rush and no penalty for failure, is not.

Bohandas and BRC were clearly saying that 5e had no "take time to auto-succeed a possible task" rule (and stating/implying you need to keep rolling over and over to achieve the same result), which is incorrect as the people responding to them pointed out.

JNAProductions

2021-03-19, 01:24 PM

Bohandas and BRC were clearly saying that 5e had no "take time to auto-succeed a possible task" rule, which is incorrect as the people responding to them pointed out.

Hm. I didn’t read it that way-but I can see that reading now that it’s pointed out.

Okay, my bad. Apologies for the confusion.

Pex

2021-03-19, 02:18 PM

5e's automatic success rule is superior to 3e's take 20. Because the DM can rule it works even if you couldn't succeed on a 20 by rolling, if they like. In other words, you don't even need to stop and do the math.

The biggest problem with it is that it's hidden in the DMG, so folks like the OP's DM, the person you quoted, and apparently you, don't know that "take 20" still exists in a superior form.

I find 3E's Take 20 is superior because different DMs have different opinions of what conditions for an autosucess apply, etc, etc, etc. Let the player choose what things his character is good at. The DM still has control. You cannot jump to the moon just because you have expertise in Athletics, are level 20, have 20 ST, and you Take 20.

However, I will grant that is totally unfair to warriors in Pathfinder when they made the spell Interplanetary Teleport. :smallsigh:

Kurt Kurageous

2021-03-19, 02:51 PM

Though a circumstantial disadvantage doesn't cancel out the advantage from helping. It cancels ALL the advantages.

In fact, even without considering circumstantial disadvantages, systematic helping cancels all the effects of circumstantial advantages. You no longer care about having favourable circumstances if you already have a systematic way of obtaining advantages through game mechanics, which is kind of sad IMO.

S'why I limit who can help. If a PC is proficient in the skill, they can help the rolling player's character. This limits the ways a party can help.

Tanarii

2021-03-19, 04:06 PM

I find 3E's Take 20 is superior because different DMs have different opinions of what conditions for an autosucess apply, etc, etc, etc. Let the player choose what things his character is good at. The DM still has control. You cannot jump to the moon just because you have expertise in Athletics, are level 20, have 20 ST, and you Take 20.

However, I will grant that is totally unfair to warriors in Pathfinder when they made the spell Interplanetary Teleport. :smallsigh:
If that's a complaint about what constitutes success/failure and a lack of example tables, it doesn't automatically dismiss my point, which is that you don't need to stop and check the numbers, except in that there may not be a predetermined number on an example table or in the module or in their notes. Regardless, DMs probably do judge what's possible by taking ten times as long by comparing a DC (if there is one) to if the character can do it by rolling a 20. But it's not a required step in 5e. It is if you Take 20, which means it automatically requires either consulting a chart or determining the DC to resolve.

DigoDragon

2021-03-19, 04:11 PM

My understanding with limiting dice rolls had really kicked off when I started playing PbP games. Online dice rollers are terrible with random-ness, and I've maintained that the RNG on this forum in particular has it out for me personally. :smalltongue: There's one PbP game in particular where I was consistently rolling so poorly that simple one-on-one fights would become long, drawn out slogs cause I could never hit. The adventure would grind to a halt because I couldn't make a single check to find clues, or make a knowledge check to recall a piece of lore. Even on skills I had a very good % chance to succeed. It got uncanny.

My poor GM, Celestia bless his heart, was fighting so hard to get around any situation where dice were needed. It eventually came down to just giving me info if I asked the right questions, and getting through combat by either judging my strategy or secretly rolling everything himself (he'd just roll actual dice and then arbitrate the results online). When you have a player with a +11 bonus and they can't make a DC15 check after four tries, you have to rethink how to run the game. :smallredface:

Long story short (too late) I have come to understand that less is better to keep the story moving. Roll just for the important situations that success is very much up in the air. Or if the players really likes the sound dice make. Don't take that from them.

Pex

2021-03-19, 04:25 PM

If that's a complaint about what constitutes success/failure and a lack of example tables, it doesn't automatically dismiss my point, which is that you don't need to stop and check the numbers, except in that there may not be a predetermined number on an example table or in the module or in their notes. Regardless, DMs probably do judge what's possible by taking ten times as long by comparing a DC (if there is one) to if the character can do it by rolling a 20. But it's not a required step in 5e. It is if you Take 20, which means it automatically requires either consulting a chart or determining the DC to resolve.

5E doesn't eliminate a step; it only changes where the DC is. 3E has a table. 5E has the DM make it up.

JoeJ

2021-03-19, 04:39 PM

5E doesn't eliminate a step; it only changes where the DC is. 3E has a table. 5E has the DM make it up.

The DM makes up the challenge in 3e as well. Only then can they use the table to look up what number that challenge equals.

Tanarii

2021-03-19, 04:46 PM

5E doesn't eliminate a step; it only changes where the DC is. 3E has a table. 5E has the DM make it up.Thats my point. The DM doesn't have to make up a DC in this particular case. They just have to decide it's possibly if they take ten times as long. That's not the same thing as making up a DC, referencing the character ability modifier and possible proficiency bonus, and adding 20.

Man_Over_Game

2021-03-19, 05:43 PM

So your a sneaky rogue and you have a massive bonus to picking locks.
There is a shiny chest in front of you after a big battle and its locked.
The DM says roll to unlock the chest.... and you fail at the roll.

Well now what? Ive been in some campaigns that DMs say you need to figure out another way to get it open.... why?!
If you fail at one thing why not just try again, esp if its not life or death situation.
They should be able to try any number of times unless the picks break or something else changes in the scenario.

That being said, why roll dice? Why not just say you open the chest? Sure if the difficulty of the chest is really high, roll it out but still, given enough time it will open.

This is just one example that has happened a number of times be it a door or chest that it just makes me wonder what the heck are we rolling for when it comes to non-life or death checks that should be able to be repeated.

Thanks i needed to vent.

It's a pretty complicated subject. Dice are there to create randomness, as randomness is fair and doesn't generally require additional feedback from the surrounding world (what's the lighting level, how nervous are you, how cold is it, etc.), as all of those things that would determine the difference between success and failure are "included" in the random dice roll.

Except you lose out on developing the story. Instead of knowing whether or not you can clear a jump, you have to guess, and guessing doesn't really make you feel like a hero. You now have to justify why you're failing, instead of having to acknowledge your faults beforehand. If you could choose to fail, it'd be a lot more immersive and engaging to do so. So you ditch the dice.

Except you lose out on developing the game. Since you know whether you're going to succeed or fail, there's no real reason to pay attention to the little events that can change the story. You're no longer caught by surprise, and you no longer have to adapt. You'll feel more heroic as everything else becomes more...boring. More predictable.

Personally, I've always liked the idea of having a system that almost always has you choose whether you succeed or fail, but dice are rolled to determine how taxing that success is. You know exactly how far you can throw that boulder or how far you can jump, but do you know if you're going to throw out your back doing it?

And, if after the roll is determined, and you decide it's not worthwhile, you still get the chance to make that choice, conserve your energy and your time, and say explicitly why you failed.
"I go to pick the lock, but I realized halfway through that they replaced some of the internal parts with dwarven make. I think I can jury-rig something, but my tools would probably be scrap afterwards. Grog's got a hammer, right?"

Could even do something like this with 5e, if someone wanted to. Something like:

Add +5 to all DCs, players can see the d20 before deciding to "Commit" to the skill check and spending Hit Dice to cover the difference.

Chaosmancer

2021-03-19, 07:51 PM

It's up to the DM to determine whether either advantage or guidance are possible and let the players know.

Trying to open an unprotected/untrapped/unlocked stuck door in a dungeon - then sure, they get a couple of characters and guidance to make the roll.

Standing in an audience hall trying to convince the lord of the manor not to lock you up? Well - if the lord will only let one person speak at a time then no help and if you think the characters can cast anything at all during a conversation without it being noticed and probably incurring a much higher DC than the d4 of guidance could compensate for ... well that is on the DM.

Basically, there are situations where help is possible and some where it is not. There are situations where guidance is possible and some where it is not. The DM controls the story and the narrative and lets the players know when their team work plan works and when it does not and when they have to get more inventive to earn a bonus on the die roll.

I agree, but you end up getting pushback sometimes, and not every skill check is social. Lots of exploration checks that would this applies to.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you read the rule book, you will find that in some cases "help" can't be offered (but enhance ability, the spell, has no such limitation so there's your advantage right there if your players are really into geting the most out of their abilities) and you as the DM can also assign circumstantial disadvantage where it makes sense, which will cancel out advantage.

As to you being upset, or frustrated, that your players are using the tools available and are applying a modicum of systems mastery: add time pressure, add other elements of challenge, make nested traps, etc. Here's an example that I'll borrow from a little military experience:

A minefield is an obstacle, which if the troops approaching it have certain equipment is less of one.
A minefield, which is under observation by armed troops with rifles, MGs, mortars, and maybe some air assets, is a much tougher obstacle.

Traps: if they are observed (see the usual reference to Tucker's Kobolds here) you add a whole new dimension of difficulty and problem solving.

Raising your DM game: that's an option you have as a DM. (And it's a part of DMing that is really appealing, or so I have found. It's a place where the DM gets a kind of fun that is unique to that position in the game)

Forcing disadvantage just to cancel Help seems like adversarial DMing, and not my style. And, if I can think of a legit reason it doesn't work, then I push back, like knowledge checks a lot of the time, but there are far far more circumstances where that doesn't work, and it is a pet peeve of mine.

Like, I'm not upset to the point of being mad, just like... seeing someone slurp soup. It is annoying and not how people are supposed to do it, but it is also a thing that a lot of people do.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Though a circumstantial disadvantage doesn't cancel out the advantage from helping. It cancels ALL the advantages.

In fact, even without considering circumstantial disadvantages, systematic helping cancels all the effects of circumstantial advantages. You no longer care about having favourable circumstances if you already have a systematic way of obtaining advantages through game mechanics, which is kind of sad IMO.

Yeah, this is more along the lines of it. No one needs to get too clever about trying to disable the trap or anything, just have someone say "I use the help action". Automatic advantage unless I cancel it out. It isn't bad per se, just annoying.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My understanding with limiting dice rolls had really kicked off when I started playing PbP games. Online dice rollers are terrible with random-ness, and I've maintained that the RNG on this forum in particular has it out for me personally. :smalltongue: There's one PbP game in particular where I was consistently rolling so poorly that simple one-on-one fights would become long, drawn out slogs cause I could never hit. The adventure would grind to a halt because I couldn't make a single check to find clues, or make a knowledge check to recall a piece of lore. Even on skills I had a very good % chance to succeed. It got uncanny.

My poor GM, Celestia bless his heart, was fighting so hard to get around any situation where dice were needed. It eventually came down to just giving me info if I asked the right questions, and getting through combat by either judging my strategy or secretly rolling everything himself (he'd just roll actual dice and then arbitrate the results online). When you have a player with a +11 bonus and they can't make a DC15 check after four tries, you have to rethink how to run the game. :smallredface:

Long story short (too late) I have come to understand that less is better to keep the story moving. Roll just for the important situations that success is very much up in the air. Or if the players really likes the sound dice make. Don't take that from them.

Yeah, I've had that experience. I know there is bias involved, but when I have a rogue who can never successfully hide despite expertise and a magic item, there might be something going on with the die roller.

Not that real dice are perfect either, but digital dice really get bad sometimes.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's a pretty complicated subject. Dice are there to create randomness, as randomness is fair and doesn't generally require additional feedback from the surrounding world (what's the lighting level, how nervous are you, how cold is it, etc.), as all of those things that would determine the difference between success and failure are "included" in the random dice roll.

Except you lose out on developing the story. Instead of knowing whether or not you can clear a jump, you have to guess, and guessing doesn't really make you feel like a hero. You now have to justify why you're failing, instead of having to acknowledge your faults beforehand. If you could choose to fail, it'd be a lot more immersive and engaging to do so. So you ditch the dice.

Except you lose out on developing the game. Since you know whether you're going to succeed or fail, there's no real reason to pay attention to the little events that can change the story. You're no longer caught by surprise, and you no longer have to adapt. You'll feel more heroic as everything else becomes more...boring. More predictable.

Personally, I've always liked the idea of having a system that almost always has you choose whether you succeed or fail, but dice are rolled to determine how taxing that success is. You know exactly how far you can throw that boulder or how far you can jump, but do you know if you're going to throw out your back doing it?

And, if after the roll is determined, and you decide it's not worthwhile, you still get the chance to make that choice, conserve your energy and your time, and say explicitly why you failed.
"I go to pick the lock, but I realized halfway through that they replaced some of the internal parts with dwarven make. I think I can jury-rig something, but my tools would probably be scrap afterwards. Grog's got a hammer, right?"

Could even do something like this with 5e, if someone wanted to. Something like:

Add +5 to all DCs, players can see the d20 before deciding to "Commit" to the skill check and spending Hit Dice to cover the difference.

That is an interesting idea, I don't know if it would work for DnD, but I might try and implement that in a different way.

Very interesting idea

KorvinStarmast

2021-03-20, 06:53 PM

Like, I'm not upset to the point of being mad, just like... seeing someone slurp soup. It is annoying That got a cackle out of me. :smallcool:

Chugger

2021-03-21, 05:24 AM

OP is right. It's really stupid if there is just a dumb chest sitting there on the ground. It's not trapped - it's just locked. And there is no army of bugbears coming or anything like that. Someone tries to pick the lock ... and fails the first time. Then Mr. DM comes down all ham-handed and sez, "NOPE, NO WAY DUDE - YOU DO NOT GET TO JUST TRY TO PICK IT AGAIN!!!" The barbarian has to bash it open because DM is a jerk - and the delicate stuff inside, the potions and the gems - get broken. And the DM snickers.

I'm gone from an irrational table like that. You do not get to be my DM when that's how you run things. It's petty and nasty and small-minded ... no, it's much worse than that. I'll get banned if I use the proper words for it.

For crying out loud, good DMing is a balancing act. You don't have to invoke the old Roll 20 rule - cuz yeah that can get out of hand, too. You don't always need a rule. Do they need to get the chest open? Yeah. Without the map that's etched on a mirror in there, the adventure comes to a grinding halt. So just let them roll again - or say you need to take x minutes to rethink your approach - but then yes, you get to try again. And again, if needed. Sometimes you have to punt the rules and just do what is right for that particular moment in the game. This isn't hard, people. It really isn't. If a DM is that afraid of things getting out of hand, because of fear of precedent setting leading to player abuse, they really need to rethink how they run a table.

EggKookoo

2021-03-21, 06:28 AM

OP is right. It's really stupid if there is just a dumb chest sitting there on the ground. It's not trapped - it's just locked. And there is no army of bugbears coming or anything like that. Someone tries to pick the lock ... and fails the first time. Then Mr. DM comes down all ham-handed and sez, "NOPE, NO WAY DUDE - YOU DO NOT GET TO JUST TRY TO PICK IT AGAIN!!!" The barbarian has to bash it open because DM is a jerk - and the delicate stuff inside, the potions and the gems - get broken. And the DM snickers.

Again, I don't think it's that simple and it varies by table. A while ago in my current campaign, the PCs -- about 3rd level IIRC -- went to this gated estate in the middle of the night in a quiet part of town. They wanted in, and the gate was locked. There was no one really watching them, most people were asleep, and there was no immediate time constraint. I still had the artificer roll to pick the lock. I'd tried the "you have plenty of time so you just do it" trick a lot in an earlier campaign and I think the player fun suffered a bit for it. DM fiat gets a lot of flaming but it can happen in a "positive" way, too, where the PCs succeed just because the DM felt like it. In some ways that's worse than the PCs failing just because the DM felt like it. At least in the latter case, the PCs were (probably) attempting something impossible.

The artificer succeeded, and the player felt like he owned that success more than if I had just let him do it. The player (somewhat new to TTRPGs) asked what would have happened if he had failed. I said it would have turned out the lock design was more intricate and tricky than he had anticipated, and he wouldn't have really understood it (not unreasonable at 3rd level). The party would have had to try another approach to getting into the estate.

Chaosmancer

2021-03-21, 10:54 AM

Again, I don't think it's that simple and it varies by table. A while ago in my current campaign, the PCs -- about 3rd level IIRC -- went to this gated estate in the middle of the night in a quiet part of town. They wanted in, and the gate was locked. There was no one really watching them, most people were asleep, and there was no immediate time constraint. I still had the artificer roll to pick the lock. I'd tried the "you have plenty of time so you just do it" trick a lot in an earlier campaign and I think the player fun suffered a bit for it. DM fiat gets a lot of flaming but it can happen in a "positive" way, too, where the PCs succeed just because the DM felt like it. In some ways that's worse than the PCs failing just because the DM felt like it. At least in the latter case, the PCs were (probably) attempting something impossible.

The artificer succeeded, and the player felt like he owned that success more than if I had just let him do it. The player (somewhat new to TTRPGs) asked what would have happened if he had failed. I said it would have turned out the lock design was more intricate and tricky than he had anticipated, and he wouldn't have really understood it (not unreasonable at 3rd level). The party would have had to try another approach to getting into the estate.

But, I think what gets to the heart of the problem is when there aren't a lot of other approaches. A door at the end of a hallway only really has two approaches, break it down or pick the lock. And the time this scenario affected me the most, none of the doors were locked, they were just stuck.

So.. we had a single approach. Break down the door. And if we failed... we tried again.

And, I think a better way to phrase the issue, is that DMs need to stop calling for rolls every time an action would move the story forward. If forward progress requires a roll, then you can get stymied by a lack of luck, which leads to a lack of progress.

And we all know this, most of us, on these forums, but the game isn't quite there in letting everyone roll. Sure, it says "roll when the outcome is uncertain" but, that doesn't cover the problem area. Because whether or not I can break down the door in a single moment is uncertain. What isn't uncertain is that I'm going to keep trying until I succeed, because the other option is to back track.

Pex

2021-03-21, 12:09 PM

Again, I don't think it's that simple and it varies by table. A while ago in my current campaign, the PCs -- about 3rd level IIRC -- went to this gated estate in the middle of the night in a quiet part of town. They wanted in, and the gate was locked. There was no one really watching them, most people were asleep, and there was no immediate time constraint. I still had the artificer roll to pick the lock. I'd tried the "you have plenty of time so you just do it" trick a lot in an earlier campaign and I think the player fun suffered a bit for it. DM fiat gets a lot of flaming but it can happen in a "positive" way, too, where the PCs succeed just because the DM felt like it. In some ways that's worse than the PCs failing just because the DM felt like it. At least in the latter case, the PCs were (probably) attempting something impossible.

The artificer succeeded, and the player felt like he owned that success more than if I had just let him do it. The player (somewhat new to TTRPGs) asked what would have happened if he had failed. I said it would have turned out the lock design was more intricate and tricky than he had anticipated, and he wouldn't have really understood it (not unreasonable at 3rd level). The party would have had to try another approach to getting into the estate.

That's when you teach the player rolling to open the lock is not only about if he can open it at all but also how long it takes to do it. You can't say anyone can open every lock everywhere given infinite time. You can declare certain locks be "If you fail this roll you can never open it this way." These are special plot point locks. The King's Vault. The Lich's Chest Where He Keeps His Phylactery. Asmodeous's Cell Where He Holds All Three Regalia Of Good Artifacts.
In this case, if he failed it meant he opens the gate but maybe the party was spotted. Not automatically spotted, but it earned the guards a Perception check. However, you are correct in that players also need to learn their characters can do things without rolling. Risk of failure is important for there to be a game, but not everything requires that risk.

EggKookoo

2021-03-21, 01:27 PM

In this case, if he failed it meant he opens the gate but maybe the party was spotted. Not automatically spotted, but it earned the guards a Perception check.

That's a way to do it and one I've used myself. It's a good middle ground between auto-success and failing at something the PC could reasonably retry. But strictly speaking we're moving beyond a skill check with it.

Edit: Let me rephrase that. I guess it's not really moving beyond a RAW check, it's just creative application of the consequences of a failure. But letting a PC pick a lock despite failing the associated check is a bit of a gray area.

However, you are correct in that players also need to learn their characters can do things without rolling. Risk of failure is important for there to be a game, but not everything requires that risk.

Like I said earlier in the thread, it's an art. Auto-success is useful. Players do get "dice fatigue" and if you call for check after check, it's good to see if an opportunity for an auto-success is warranted. But it can also be a trap, to hand out auto-successes too generously. To paraphrase, well, you, it becomes another form of mother-may-I?

PhoenixPhyre

2021-03-21, 02:11 PM

. To paraphrase, well, you, it becomes another form of mother-may-I?

Uh, how? Player asks to do something. DM decides how it resolves, possibly calling for a roll. That is the most basic rule of D&D. In that sense, everything in D&D is Mother may I. Nothing happens unless the DM says it does, and no rule can overrule the DM. That's even stated directly in the DMG.

The player never has control over whether a check is called for, except by choosing what to do.

EggKookoo

2021-03-21, 02:24 PM

Uh, how? Player asks to do something. DM decides how it resolves, possibly calling for a roll.

I get that. I'm just saying that in my experience the success of the action is felt as more owned by the player when the player makes a roll, than when the DM declares an auto success. If a player says "I want to do X" and as a DM I say "well, sure, you would probably just be able to do that so it succeeds," the player's/PC's success is dependent on my decision. If I ask for a roll even in cases where one could argue auto-success, the player succeeds because they took a chance and won.

I'm not saying the DM should never allow auto success. I'm saying I found it became a temptation to do it too often, because why not? Which in turn sapped some feeling of agency from the players. Once I shifted back toward when in doubt, asking for a roll, my players became more engaged in those actions. Both in terms of increased frustration when they failed easy things but also increased satisfaction when they succeeded.

ad_hoc

2021-03-21, 03:43 PM

MaxWilson

2021-03-21, 03:53 PM

I get that. I'm just saying that in my experience the success of the action is felt as more owned by the player when the player makes a roll, than when the DM declares an auto success. If a player says "I want to do X" and as a DM I say "well, sure, you would probably just be able to do that so it succeeds," the player's/PC's success is dependent on my decision. If I ask for a roll even in cases where one could argue auto-success, the player succeeds because they took a chance and won.

How differently we feel. My perspective is that the feeling of empowerment comes not from rolling dice, but from being able to predict in advance what the odds are, without having to ask the DM. Trivial example: if a player knows (either from an explicit rule or from experience) that non-hostile NPCs will comply with simple, low- or no-cost requests ("pass me the salt please", "do you have the time?") unless they have a specific reason not to do so, because helping is just easier than justifying why you won't, then the players can formulate plans that involve simple requests (e.g. find your target (off duty enemy messenger-boy), Disguise Self/disguise kit to look like one of the enemy, load up your arms with ammunition boxes and drop a box in front of him, ask him to pick it up and carry it a few steps for you into a nearby building, and then as soon as you're inside, jump him and take his code book) without having to play Mother May I in the middle (plan, ask the DM a hypothetical question, change plans, ask the DM another question, etc.). It leads to a smoother flow and greater feelings of empowerment.

IME nothing about that experience improves if a die-roll is added for something that should be auto-success ("grab that box for me, will ya?"/"Roll a DC 2 Persuasion check" is just a waste of time). Die rolls will be involved at other points in the plan (can you knock him out by surprise? does he even have a code book on him?) and those are important for, among other things, proving that the DM is willing to allow events to go either way (if the DM just fiats that "no, he doesn't have a code book" that feels very different than the DM shrugging and saying, "Okay, let's see if he has a code book--on a 4-6 he does" and then rolling a d6, because it shows that the DM isn't railroading you). But die rolling in and of itself is not what creates feelings of empowerment--consistency and predictability do.

EggKookoo

2021-03-21, 03:54 PM

Why not just move on to something more exciting and dramatic instead?

The game necessarily has contrasts in intensity. Some things the players are dealing with are Big Huge Deals with a lot of drama. Some things are smaller moments that still matter the scheme of things. Skipping everything that's not maximum dramatic intensity turns the game into a bunch of cut-scenes. Little moments spin off into bigger moments, and those little moments need to be treated with significance.

Again, yes, I do let players just succeed. Quite a lot, actually. But usually those are just wrapped up in narrative transitions. Like, the party takes a coach across the city. I usually just describe the noneventfulness of the trip and pick up the "game" at their arrival. If I need to describe something significant during the trip, it might actually be a moment of actual gameplay, in which case I might be calling for rolls.

da newt

2021-03-21, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by EggKookoo View Post
"To paraphrase, well, you, it becomes another form of mother-may-I?"

This is a fine point - EVERYTHING in this game is 'another form of mother-may-I?' where the DM/GM is fulfilling the role of Mom. Some Mom's are easy and want you to succeed, some are completely unbiased, some want you to fail so that they can win and will do whatever it takes to ensure you do, and everything in between.

The real skill / challenge as DM/GM is to find the sweet spot between 'I'm rooting for you' and 'I give zero fox' while avoiding the natural human inclination of 'I wanna win.' It's a balancing act that requires empathy, flexibility, and nuance.

Taevyr

2021-03-21, 04:03 PM

This argument reminds me of my biggest pet peeve with Kingmaker: having a char with maxed lockpicking in the party so I wouldn't need to miss out on any gear/items stored in chests, only to fail at opening one every so often due to bad rolls.

That's, to put it simply, bad game design: good game design would either

1) Have locked chests open automatically once you invested the necessary points, so your investment feels worthwhile
2) Make a distinction between locked chests containing collection/completionist items which open once you have the required investment, and radiant chests which may fail.

And of course this differs between cRPG's and tabletop: tabletop has a GM to arbitrate degrees of succes (or failure) when either one is guaranteed, but he still wants a roll to see what happens, while a cRPG can't do that. But neither benefits from gating key plot elements, or collectibles that players are pushed to collect, behind arbitrary rolls.

When a player invests heavily in a skill, they likely want that skill to be worth something. A 20 STR character wants to feel strong while playing. An expertised historian shouldn't need to roll to know the general history of his birth country. An artificer proficient with smith's tools shouldn't fail at crafting a decent suit of armor, provided he has the materials. And while a roll may help distinguish degrees of succes, they shouldn't cause them to fail at any of that.

EggKookoo

2021-03-21, 05:37 PM

How differently we feel. My perspective is that the feeling of empowerment comes not from rolling dice, but from being able to predict in advance what the odds are, without having to ask the DM. Trivial example: if a player knows (either from an explicit rule or from experience) that non-hostile NPCs will comply with simple, low- or no-cost requests ("pass me the salt please", "do you have the time?") unless they have a specific reason not to do so, because helping is just easier than justifying why you won't, then the players can formulate plans that involve simple requests (e.g. find your target (off duty enemy messenger-boy), Disguise Self/disguise kit to look like one of the enemy, load up your arms with ammunition boxes and drop a box in front of him, ask him to pick it up and carry it a few steps for you into a nearby building, and then as soon as you're inside, jump him and take his code book) without having to play Mother May I in the middle (plan, ask the DM a hypothetical question, change plans, ask the DM another question, etc.). It leads to a smoother flow and greater feelings of empowerment.

But again I think all I'm saying really is that given a choice between succeeding because the dice were on their side and their stats were high enough, or succeeding because the DM, in his subjective and arbitrary opinion, felt like skipping the roll and declaring "yes," my players, at least, feel like the former is more of an earned success for them than the latter.

A year ago I would haven't thought this. I would have thought, of course the players would want me to skip past asking for a roll and just letting them succeed. Why wouldn't they? And so I did it a lot. And occasionally I wouldn't. And when I wouldn't, and the player rolled and failed, the player would get annoyed or frustrated and that would confirm my opinion. I mean, why am I setting out to annoy the players? But then I noticed that when they roll and succeeded, they got ecstatic. Their eyes lit up. The other players cheered them on. They won D&D, at least for a few seconds. The post-session talk would often come around to one of those clutch rolls and the antics that flowed from them (yes, predominantly combat but not always). And looking back, I realized they often talked about their failed rolls, too.

They never talked about moments where I just let them succeed. I don't think it felt like a success when I did that.

I don't want to create the impression this is all-or-nothing. I let them auto-succeed a lot. But less than I used to. Granted, it helps that they're up to about 5th level now and the game feels at least a little less swingy than at 1st or 2nd. Auto success tends to come more now during that kind of "describe your day" gameplay, where we're not quite in a state of downtime but we're also not playing moment-by-moment in any sense. My reliance on dice ramps up once we're in any kind of serious "adventuring" mode.

Pex

2021-03-21, 05:42 PM

That's a way to do it and one I've used myself. It's a good middle ground between auto-success and failing at something the PC could reasonably retry. But strictly speaking we're moving beyond a skill check with it.

Edit: Let me rephrase that. I guess it's not really moving beyond a RAW check, it's just creative application of the consequences of a failure. But letting a PC pick a lock despite failing the associated check is a bit of a gray area.

Like I said earlier in the thread, it's an art. Auto-success is useful. Players do get "dice fatigue" and if you call for check after check, it's good to see if an opportunity for an auto-success is warranted. But it can also be a trap, to hand out auto-successes too generously. To paraphrase, well, you, it becomes another form of mother-may-I?

Oh, definitely Mother May I. That's why I want DC tables with Take 10/Take 20. That's one thing 3E did right with skill use, but that's a whole other can of purple worms. :smallyuk: Since we don't have that we need to adjust. I do and have acknowledged 5E goes over this. 5E did its job. The problem is in teaching DMs and players to accept there doesn't always need to be a chance of failure and when it applies.

MaxWilson

2021-03-21, 05:55 PM

But again I think all I'm saying really is that given a choice between succeeding because the dice were on their side and their stats were high enough, or succeeding because the DM, in his subjective and arbitrary opinion, felt like skipping the roll and declaring "yes," my players, at least, feel like the former is more of an earned success for them than the latter.

A year ago I would haven't thought this. I would have thought, of course the players would want me to skip past asking for a roll and just letting them succeed. Why wouldn't they? And so I did it a lot. And occasionally I wouldn't. And when I wouldn't, and the player rolled and failed, the player would get annoyed or frustrated and that would confirm my opinion. I mean, why am I setting out to annoy the players? But then I noticed that when they roll and succeeded, they got ecstatic. Their eyes lit up. The other players cheered them on. They won D&D, at least for a few seconds. The post-session talk would often come around to one of those clutch rolls and the antics that flowed from them (yes, predominantly combat but not always). And looking back, I realized they often talked about their failed rolls, too.

They never talked about moments where I just let them succeed. I don't think it felt like a success when I did that.

I don't want to create the impression this is all-or-nothing. I let them auto-succeed a lot. But less than I used to. Granted, it helps that they're up to about 5th level now and the game feels at least a little less swingy than at 1st or 2nd. Auto success tends to come more now during that kind of "describe your day" gameplay, where we're not quite in a state of downtime but we're also not playing moment-by-moment in any sense. My reliance on dice ramps up once we're in any kind of serious "adventuring" mode.

Ah, okay, I see what you are saying. Yes, some players (not all) love the "rolling dice" part of D&D.

Witty Username

2021-03-21, 06:11 PM

How do people feel about automatic failure, as opposed to automatic success?
For example, the lock on the king's vault cannot be picked, or the smooth wall is actually unclimbable.

ProsecutorGodot

2021-03-21, 06:23 PM

How do people feel about automatic failure, as opposed to automatic success?
For example, the lock on the king's vault cannot be picked, or the smooth wall is actually unclimbable.

You don't roll for something you have no chance of succeeding on.

No amount of athletics will move a mountain, no amount of history/arcana will allow the farmer background Fighter PC to recall eldritch knowledge and no amount of persuasion will seduce the dragon.

JoeJ

2021-03-21, 06:26 PM

and no amount of persuasion will seduce the dragon.

Then how do you explain all those half-dragons running around?

Chaosmancer

2021-03-21, 06:31 PM

How do people feel about automatic failure, as opposed to automatic success?
For example, the lock on the king's vault cannot be picked, or the smooth wall is actually unclimbable.

Very tricky.

The player's might be aware (as I am) that DC 25 is "nearly impossible" which puts god tier things around DC 30... a player with a +17 is going to be more than a little miffed that the King's vault is 'unpickable'

The Vault of Secrets in the center of Vecna's domain? That they might be okay with being unpickable.

It is a tricky situation.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-03-21, 06:50 PM

Very tricky.

The player's might be aware (as I am) that DC 25 is "nearly impossible" which puts god tier things around DC 30... a player with a +17 is going to be more than a little miffed that the King's vault is 'unpickable'

The Vault of Secrets in the center of Vecna's domain? That they might be okay with being unpickable.

It is a tricky situation.

Note: DC 25 isn't "nearly impossible." That's DC 30. The highest listed DC in the DMG. An example of a DC 30 check is that breaking Dimensional Shackles is a DC 30 STR (Athletics) check.

DC 25 is just Very Hard. An example of that is controlling a Sphere of Annihilation (without the corresponding item) is a DC 25 INT (Arcana) check, as is identifying a 9th level spell as it is being cast.

Rynjin

2021-03-21, 07:08 PM

How do people feel about automatic failure, as opposed to automatic success?
For example, the lock on the king's vault cannot be picked, or the smooth wall is actually unclimbable.

I could almost respect the honesty in basically telling your players straight up "Yeah, I'm railroading you and none of your choices matter". Almost.

ProsecutorGodot

2021-03-21, 07:18 PM

I could almost respect the honesty in basically telling your players straight up "Yeah, I'm railroading you and none of your choices matter". Almost.

Just to pose a hypothetical, a low level party has managed their way into an area that is pretty dangerous. Lets say it's an Evil Archmages tower.

Should this tower, for inexplicable reasons, only have traps and failsafes that a low level adventuring party can reliably defeat? Isn't it at all possible that there are a handful of things in this tower that are simply inaccessible at your current skill level?

My point being, it's very possible for players to "freedom of choice" their way into a situation they are entirely unprepared to handle, I'm not sure railroading has much to do with it.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-03-21, 07:22 PM

I could almost respect the honesty in basically telling your players straight up "Yeah, I'm railroading you and none of your choices matter". Almost.

Player: I want to jump to the moon.
DM: your attempt fails [no roll]
Player: you're railroading me!

------

Player: I want to know the secret plot of the BBEG. That's an Intelligence check, I got a 35.
DM: Sorry, you don't have access to that because he hasn't told anyone. And you've never met him, or anyone who has met him. DC Nope.
Player: you're railroading me!

------

Player: I want to persuade the king to step down and give me his throne.
DM: You've done nothing to make that possible. Your attempt fails. You can roll Charisma (Persuasion) to see if you can mitigate it so he just takes it as a joke rather than a mortal insult.
Player: You're railroading me!

Ability checks don't let you do the impossible. If something truly is impossible or wouldn't make any sense in that world/scenario, rolling is wrong. There is no uncertainty to resolve.

Pex

2021-03-21, 09:14 PM

How do people feel about automatic failure, as opposed to automatic success?
For example, the lock on the king's vault cannot be picked, or the smooth wall is actually unclimbable.

It's fine and appropriate. The problem to watch out for is the DM who uses it as a means of railroading The One True Way to solve the adventure and/or abusing his authority to lord it over the players he has all the power. Players who have only known such DMs don't know any better and can have a hard time getting out of the habit. They're unable or unwilling to think outside the box or take the initiative in doing stuff.

Used well autono can also be a clue to something when a player knows his character should be able to do something but can't.

MaxWilson

2021-03-21, 09:54 PM

How do people feel about automatic failure, as opposed to automatic success?
For example, the lock on the king's vault cannot be picked, or the smooth wall is actually unclimbable.

I probably wouldn't make the vault unpickable because their tech isn't that good, but I would make it as good as money can buy (call it DC 30), with seven locks (seven DC 30 checks required), and with active defenses in between (guards and/or golems depending on the magical resources of the kingdom, in between the first lock and the following six).

For walls, well, I've never been happy with 5E's rules for climbing, period. But I don't think I've ever yet created a wall that was literally unclimbable. For a sheer cliff made of smooth, polished glass I'd make it DC 40 to climb at full speed (one check per 10' climbed, so potentially 3+ checks needed per round), or DC 30 to climb at 10' per minute. Failing by 1-5 means you simply make no progress, otherwise you slip and fall.

(Similarly, for locks a failure by 6+ means you're stymied, out of ideas, but a failure by 1-5 lets you retry.)

So I'm totally okay with impossible, just not for either of those two examples. Persuading a normal mother to sell her child into slavery is impossible though. Not just DC 100 but literally impossible, unless you change the circumstances first somehow (e.g. hypothetically, persuading her through false witnesses and illusions and sky-high Deception rolls that the child is guilty of killing and eating his younger siblings might make it possible to persuade her to sell him into slavery, or it might just drive her insane).

Composer99

2021-03-21, 11:10 PM

The guidelines I use for automatic success are:
- If a creature would have to make a check, but the DC is so low they can't fail even if they roll a 1, it's an automatic success.
- If the rules say it's automatic, it's automatic.
- If it's impossible to fail because of the circumstances, it's automatic.
- As per DMG, if there are no consequences to failure other than time spent, and no time pressure, it's automatic.

For instance:
- You can't fail to spot, say, a black dragon flying in a clear daytime sky only a few hundred feet up.
- You don't roll to squeeze into a space suitable for a creature one size smaller - you do it, following the rules in the Combat chapter.
- If you have an ability score of 20 and expertise and are 17th-20th level, you automatically succeed on anything with a DC of 17 or less.
- You've nicked a strongbox from the dungeon and brought it back to town, and take a crack at opening it during downtime. If it doesn't have a DC so high you can never crack it, you are getting through that thing.
- With your Constitution of 16, if it takes you 3 minutes to pelt through a smoke-filled tunnel, you are getting through that tunnel unless something tries to slow you up.

How do people feel about automatic failure, as opposed to automatic success?
For example, the lock on the king's vault cannot be picked, or the smooth wall is actually unclimbable.

Sure. Like with automatic success, it depends on the situation.

The guidelines I use are:
- If a creature would have to make a check, but the DC is so high they can't reach it even if they roll a 20, it's impossible.
- If the rules say it's impossible, it's impossible.
- If it's impossible because of the circumstances, it's impossible.

For instance:
- In a world with one Sun, it's impossible to see it at night with your natural eyesight.
- It's impossible to fool a nearby creature with truesight into believing you are really a polymorphed dragon who will eat them if they don't do what you want.
- A Constitution score of 16 allows you to hold your breath for 4 minutes. It's impossible to hold your breath for half an hour with that Constitution score (or any Constitution score).
- If a room is devoid of anything secret or interesting, it's impossible to find such things, no matter how hard you search.
- If you are making an ability check without proficiency and a dump stat, and can't or didn't get guidance or Bardic Inspiration, you aren't succeeding on that DC 25 check.

Very tricky.

The player's might be aware (as I am) that DC 25 is "nearly impossible" which puts god tier things around DC 30... a player with a +17 is going to be more than a little miffed that the King's vault is 'unpickable'

The Vault of Secrets in the center of Vecna's domain? That they might be okay with being unpickable.

It is a tricky situation.

Eh, I think you're overthinking it. The king's vault might have been designed by master elven locksmiths and blessed by priests of a god of secrets (for a hefty donation). That should be pretty unpickable, +17 or no +17.

Or it might be the best work the big city human locksmiths can manage, with no enchantments (except maybe someone adding alarm every eight hours). Eminently pickable. Probably, say, DC 20 + 1d6-1, tops. Even a 3rd-level PC with 16 Dex and expertise with thieves' tools (+7 mod) has a shot at that.

It depends on the king, the setting, and the PC's own capabilities. Same with any other thing that might or might not be impossible.

I could almost respect the honesty in basically telling your players straight up "Yeah, I'm railroading you and none of your choices matter". Almost.

It frankly appears as if you ought to recalibrate what it is you take "railroading" to mean.

Rynjin

2021-03-22, 03:26 AM

Just to pose a hypothetical, a low level party has managed their way into an area that is pretty dangerous. Lets say it's an Evil Archmages tower.

Should this tower, for inexplicable reasons, only have traps and failsafes that a low level adventuring party can reliably defeat? Isn't it at all possible that there are a handful of things in this tower that are simply inaccessible at your current skill level?

My point being, it's very possible for players to "freedom of choice" their way into a situation they are entirely unprepared to handle, I'm not sure railroading has much to do with it.

"This is beyond your abilities" is significantly different from "this cannot be done". If all the doors in the evil archmage's lair have DC 35 locks, and your Rogue only has a +14 Disable Device, then yes, it is beyond their abilities.

If you had never thought about the locks before this moment and just say "yeah it's impossible", that's railroading.

The lock is the less egregious example in this case because it could be argued that setting the DC for locks to a number beyond a PCs capabilities is similarly railroading, even if it does preserve more verisimilitude. The wall is what really got me though. "Sheer wall it's impossible". Doesn't matter how high the PC's Climb skill (Athletics in 5e?), what mundane solutions they may have (grappling hooks, pitons, etc.), or even magic that explicitly does make it possible (Spider Climb), "it's impossible". It's literally just saying "I don't want you to go here" but being really mealy mouthed with it. Just say "I don't want you guys to go there yet" at that point.

Chaosmancer

2021-03-22, 06:09 AM

Note: DC 25 isn't "nearly impossible." That's DC 30. The highest listed DC in the DMG. An example of a DC 30 check is that breaking Dimensional Shackles is a DC 30 STR (Athletics) check.

DC 25 is just Very Hard. An example of that is controlling a Sphere of Annihilation (without the corresponding item) is a DC 25 INT (Arcana) check, as is identifying a 9th level spell as it is being cast.

Ah, I got those mixed up.

Eh, I think you're overthinking it. The king's vault might have been designed by master elven locksmiths and blessed by priests of a god of secrets (for a hefty donation). That should be pretty unpickable, +17 or no +17.

Or it might be the best work the big city human locksmiths can manage, with no enchantments (except maybe someone adding alarm every eight hours). Eminently pickable. Probably, say, DC 20 + 1d6-1, tops. Even a 3rd-level PC with 16 Dex and expertise with thieves' tools (+7 mod) has a shot at that.

It depends on the king, the setting, and the PC's own capabilities. Same with any other thing that might or might not be impossible.

I might be overthinking it a little, but "pretty unpickable" isn't unpickable.

Like, how many times have you seen in movies someone hacks the "unhackable" system? The vault you described with magical blessings and such should be a challenge, even with a +17, but it shouldn't be impossible. Because +17 represents a skill bordering on god-like.

Looking into Unique NPCs, Belashyrra the Eberron Daelkyr that created beholders has a +14 Arcana. Bel an Archdevil and former Lord of the Nine has a +15 deception and persuasion. Zariel's intimidation is a +18.

So, if you can't imagine even a ruler of a plane of existence getting through it, then the game says it can be impossible, but that is the level of specialization that a +17 represents by RAW. You are that good. You would need something on a cosmic scale to stymie your skills.

Now, another way around this could be that while your skill is god-like, you tools aren't. You could have the vault melt any metallic substance placed inside of it. That would make it unpickable with your tools. But, that would just mean that the players would need to get clever to get the right sort of tools for the job, not that they don't have the skill to do so.

EggKookoo

2021-03-22, 08:35 AM

Like, how many times have you seen in movies someone hacks the "unhackable" system? The vault you described with magical blessings and such should be a challenge, even with a +17, but it shouldn't be impossible. Because +17 represents a skill bordering on god-like.

One thing I have had to (and sometimes still must) disabuse myself of is the notion that a TTRPG like D&D works like a movie or novel or somesuch. It simply doesn't. You're not playing out a movie-as-a-game. You're playing a game. Any resemblance to an author-driven narrative is coincidental.

A lot of grief comes from players, mostly DMs, not getting this.

KorvinStarmast

2021-03-22, 08:45 AM

It's a balancing act that requires empathy, flexibility, and nuance. Which makes it super double hard for people with weak people skills. Seen it, lived it, and sometimes the game just dies as a consequence. Other times, the DM accepted some coaching and grew as a person.

and no amount of persuasion will seduce the dragon.

Then how do you explain all those half-dragons running around?
/em *Yakov Smirnov voice*:
In Faerun, Dragon seduces you! :smalleek

Composer99

2021-03-22, 08:59 AM

I might be overthinking it a little, but "pretty unpickable" isn't unpickable.

Like, how many times have you seen in movies someone hacks the "unhackable" system? The vault you described with magical blessings and such should be a challenge, even with a +17, but it shouldn't be impossible. Because +17 represents a skill bordering on god-like.

Looking into Unique NPCs, Belashyrra the Eberron Daelkyr that created beholders has a +14 Arcana. Bel an Archdevil and former Lord of the Nine has a +15 deception and persuasion. Zariel's intimidation is a +18.

So, if you can't imagine even a ruler of a plane of existence getting through it, then the game says it can be impossible, but that is the level of specialization that a +17 represents by RAW. You are that good. You would need something on a cosmic scale to stymie your skills.

Now, another way around this could be that while your skill is god-like, you tools aren't. You could have the vault melt any metallic substance placed inside of it. That would make it unpickable with your tools. But, that would just mean that the players would need to get clever to get the right sort of tools for the job, not that they don't have the skill to do so.

Yyeeaaaah no.

(1) These are hypotheticals being constructed and bandied about for the sake of argument. When you get down to it, if a DM says "this vault has the following properties A,B,C that make its lock unpickable", then at that DM's table, that vault's lock is unpickable - even if a DM at a different table would rule otherwise.

(2) Speaking of overthinking, I'll put it to you that trying to parse out "it's not actually unpickable" from the use of a single adjective that, in and of itself, is not particularly meaningful one way or another is overthinking things. This is a conversational discussion, not a legal debate.

(2) I would put it to you that game mechanics are not a good way to decide whether a creature's capabilities are god-like, in the in-fiction sense, or not. Especially in 5e, where the designers deliberately capped game statistics in such a way as to flatten the numbers across the board and cut out a lot of discrete abilities for the sake of simplicity. (Contrast, say, Tiamat constructed using the 3.X Deities & Demigods rules versus her 5e statblock.)

Xervous

2021-03-22, 09:12 AM

/em *Yakov Smirnov voice*:
In Faerun, Dragon seduces you! :smalleek

Hopefully one of the more cultured breeds. It would be a tad unsettling to have a white dragon bringing in the corpses of lesser liked subjects in a manner reminiscent of an overgrown house cat leaving gifts.

Scratch that, I’d probably die if it was a chatterbox brass, choosing the quick end of “do you ever shut up?” over enduring the endless word vomit.

Composer99

2021-03-22, 10:03 AM

/em *Yakov Smirnov voice*:
In Faerun, Dragon seduces you! :smalleek

Okay, we can wrap up the thread now, KorvinStarmast just won it. :smallbiggrin:

Unoriginal

2021-03-22, 10:13 AM

Having a box or a door that is impossible to lockpick isn't railroading. For starter, there are many ways of making such a device without a key-lock system, even without magic.

MoiMagnus

2021-03-22, 10:30 AM

For starter, there are many ways of making such a device without a key-lock system, even without magic.

Yeah, if you only consider "actual lockpicking" in lockpicking, many locks cannot be lockpicked. If by lockpicking you mean "any physical way to bypass the lock that doesn't require raw strength", there is already significantly less of those devices that are impossible to bypass.

KorvinStarmast

2021-03-22, 10:38 AM

You're playing a game. Any resemblance to an author-driven narrative is coincidental.

A lot of grief comes from players, mostly DMs, not getting this. Yes, and DMs who worry too much about plot can trip over this. I have, certainly.

I’d probably die if it was a chatterbox brass, choosing the quick end of “do you ever shut up?” over enduring the endless word vomit. [/color] Laughed, I did. :smallbiggrin:

Having a box or a door that is impossible to lockpick isn't railroading. For starter, there are many ways of making such a device without a key-lock system, even without magic. There is one such in the Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan that my players recently figured out, but it took them a bit of very old school 'how about we try this' before they figured out a way to get it open.

Chaosmancer

2021-03-22, 09:40 PM

One thing I have had to (and sometimes still must) disabuse myself of is the notion that a TTRPG like D&D works like a movie or novel or somesuch. It simply doesn't. You're not playing out a movie-as-a-game. You're playing a game. Any resemblance to an author-driven narrative is coincidental.

A lot of grief comes from players, mostly DMs, not getting this.

Sure, but "does the thing everyone says is impossible because the heroes are that good" is still deeply ingrained in the culture of DnD

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yyeeaaaah no.

(1) These are hypotheticals being constructed and bandied about for the sake of argument. When you get down to it, if a DM says "this vault has the following properties A,B,C that make its lock unpickable", then at that DM's table, that vault's lock is unpickable - even if a DM at a different table would rule otherwise.

(2) Speaking of overthinking, I'll put it to you that trying to parse out "it's not actually unpickable" from the use of a single adjective that, in and of itself, is not particularly meaningful one way or another is overthinking things. This is a conversational discussion, not a legal debate.

(2) I would put it to you that game mechanics are not a good way to decide whether a creature's capabilities are god-like, in the in-fiction sense, or not. Especially in 5e, where the designers deliberately capped game statistics in such a way as to flatten the numbers across the board and cut out a lot of discrete abilities for the sake of simplicity. (Contrast, say, Tiamat constructed using the 3.X Deities & Demigods rules versus her 5e statblock.)

I know it is hypothetically, but you seem to be missing the larger point.

If the party walks up to an abandoned warehouse, and the DM saying "the lock is unpickable" then that feels kind of bad, if you're 11th level characters and the rogue has a massive bonus. It feels arbitrary. Sure, it is the DM's Game and they can make any lock unpickable that they want, but I would still advise that DM not to do that.

Now, if the players are level 5, and they hear about the King's Vault, made by Master Craftsmen from enchanted Adimantium and blessed by the Clergy of the Locked Tome... they are going to see that as a challenge they can't meet. If they are level 17? They are going to go, "Aha, a fine test of our skills". Because the Spellcasters are literally reshaping the world and turning into dragon's, that vault doesn't sound like a challenge beyond the player's capabilities.

However, even at level 17, if they hear about Vecna's Secret Vault in his Divine Realm, even a level 17 character is going to think... I might not be able to do that.

It is matching the skill to the story more than telling DMs they can't declare things unreachable in the moment. Hence why I responded to the idea of auto-fails with some grains of salt. You can do it, and sometimes it makes sense to do it, but you have to be careful about what you declare impossible because at a certain point, the player's are being told by the game that they are good enough to do what you are telling them they can't. Whether it is break down an iron door, or break down the vault of the Storm Giant King. Player skill and level means a lot in what should and shouldn't be possible for them.

And despite the game designers capping skills, they still statted god-like beings. If my character is as good at lockpicking as a former Archduke of Hell is at making deals, then I'm going to go under the assumption that I need more than the King's Vault to truly stop me.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Having a box or a door that is impossible to lockpick isn't railroading. For starter, there are many ways of making such a device without a key-lock system, even without magic.

Sure, but we have to remember the original question "How do you feel about auto-failures?"

Auto-Failing to lockpick a door because it doesn't have a lock isn't the same as "You can't pick the lock on the door, it is too hard" which, when you are a high level rogue... is going to fly in the face of your understanding of the world.

Witty Username

2021-03-23, 01:08 AM

"This is beyond your abilities" is significantly different from "this cannot be done". If all the doors in the evil archmage's lair have DC 35 locks, and your Rogue only has a +14 Disable Device, then yes, it is beyond their abilities.

If you had never thought about the locks before this moment and just say "yeah it's impossible", that's railroading.

The lock is the less egregious example in this case because it could be argued that setting the DC for locks to a number beyond a PCs capabilities is similarly railroading, even if it does preserve more verisimilitude. The wall is what really got me though. "Sheer wall it's impossible". Doesn't matter how high the PC's Climb skill (Athletics in 5e?), what mundane solutions they may have (grappling hooks, pitons, etc.), or even magic that explicitly does make it possible (Spider Climb), "it's impossible". It's literally just saying "I don't want you to go here" but being really mealy mouthed with it. Just say "I don't want you guys to go there yet" at that point.
I will admit to a possibly poor example with the wall, what I was trying to get at was if people's opinions on auto success were similar to auto failure.

My thought on the wall example was a smooth vertical wall, which in D&D 3.5 couldn't be climbed (according to the srd, I thought I remembered it as a DC 40 check but maybe I was wrong or it was one of the epic level handbook things) and I could see the argument that that couldn't be done without some specialized equipment at the very least. I didn't intend for spells like spider climb (or knock in case of the king's vault) to be a factor because the discussion up to that point was about skill checks not spells that replace them.

Frogreaver

2021-03-23, 04:05 AM

So your a sneaky rogue and you have a massive bonus to picking locks.
There is a shiny chest in front of you after a big battle and its locked.
The DM says roll to unlock the chest.... and you fail at the roll.

Well now what? Ive been in some campaigns that DMs say you need to figure out another way to get it open.... why?!
If you fail at one thing why not just try again, esp if its not life or death situation.
They should be able to try any number of times unless the picks break or something else changes in the scenario.

That being said, why roll dice? Why not just say you open the chest? Sure if the difficulty of the chest is really high, roll it out but still, given enough time it will open.

This is just one example that has happened a number of times be it a door or chest that it just makes me wonder what the heck are we rolling for when it comes to non-life or death checks that should be able to be repeated.

Thanks i needed to vent.

Players often misconstrue what DC's represent. The DC to pick a lock doesn't simply represent how well made the lock is. Instead it represents the sum total of all parameters that would affect the picking of the lock - time being one of the most notable factors that is often left out of setting the DC.

So in your lockpicking example. If a rogue says they are going to try to pick a lock I am making an assumption about how long they are willing to take, probably a few minutes. In which case if the lock is extremely difficult to pick I'm setting an extremely high DC if not ruling their attempt impossible. Even if I rule auto-fail for this situation that doesn't mean the lock is unpickable. It simply means that under their current set of circumstance that it was. The key is to give the player information about what circumstance he could change to possibly succeed. In this instance I'm going to tell the player that he's sure if he spends a day working with the lock he will be able to pick it and that there would be a small chance he could have it open in an hour. Now he has an actual decision to make.

In the event that I set a high DC and the rogue failed I would not allow another check unless he changed the circumstances around the check. The reasoning for this is that the uncertainty I'm resolving with the check isn't whether the rogue can open the lock on this attempt, the uncertainty I'm resolving is whether he's going to be able to pick the lock quickly.

One could theoretically have the uncertainty be around whether the rogue will succeed this attempt, in which case repeated attempts would be reasonable - but I find the game plays much better when the uncertainty skill checks resolve isn't generally about whether it works "this time".

EggKookoo

2021-03-23, 05:29 AM

Sure, but "does the thing everyone says is impossible because the heroes are that good" is still deeply ingrained in the culture of DnD

Right. The difference is, Luke got his torpedoes into the vent shaft on the Death Star only because everyone else had tried before him and failed, and there were only seconds left before the Rebel base was destroyed. It served the needs of narrative drama. In a game, Luke would have done it because he got a good roll, which can happen at any point during the encounter, isn't predictable, and isn't based on narrative drama.

So in both cases, Luke pulls off the heroic thing. He's guaranteed to in the story, and at a point of maximum drama. He's not guaranteed to in the game, but if he does it will still create a case where he did something people thought were impossible (or at least very unlikely). After the fact, a story a game can look nearly identical.

Many DMs build their content around "Luke destroying the Death Star at a dramatic moment" which typically gets them into trouble. There's just no way to ensure their games will run that way, and sometimes they resort to railroading or the like to get it there. It's bad DMing and I think in general we all understand that.

A regular player that has the mindset that his PC is a narrative hero who does "impossible" things with some kind of reliable predictability is falling into the same trap.

MoiMagnus

2021-03-23, 05:39 AM

Right. The difference is, Luke got his torpedoes into the vent shaft on the Death Star only because everyone else had tried before him and failed, and there were only seconds left before the Rebel base was destroyed. It served the needs of narrative drama. In a game, Luke would have done it because he got a good roll, which can happen at any point during the encounter, isn't predictable, and isn't based on narrative drama.

In 5e, Luke probably has the Lucky feat, with a GM applying the interpretation where using Lucky on a disadvantaged roll (no targetting system) allows to pick any of the 3 dice rolled (so disabling the targetting system actually increased his chances of success). Arguably, he is also getting bardic inspiration (or Guidance, or some sort of similar bonus) from Obiwan. It makes reasonable sense for PCs to stack up as much bonuses as possible on a decisive roll ... assuming they didn't already run out of such resources.

In other RPGs where "narrative drama" is represented by a meta resource like Hero points or Fate points, then Luke probably spend a narrative point to score an automatic success to this task (or significantly increase the success rate, depending on the system).

GloatingSwine

2021-03-23, 05:53 AM

Chaosmancer

2021-03-23, 08:04 AM

Players often misconstrue what DC's represent. The DC to pick a lock doesn't simply represent how well made the lock is. Instead it represents the sum total of all parameters that would affect the picking of the lock - time being one of the most notable factors that is often left out of setting the DC.

So in your lockpicking example. If a rogue says they are going to try to pick a lock I am making an assumption about how long they are willing to take, probably a few minutes. In which case if the lock is extremely difficult to pick I'm setting an extremely high DC if not ruling their attempt impossible. Even if I rule auto-fail for this situation that doesn't mean the lock is unpickable. It simply means that under their current set of circumstance that it was. The key is to give the player information about what circumstance he could change to possibly succeed. In this instance I'm going to tell the player that he's sure if he spends a day working with the lock he will be able to pick it and that there would be a small chance he could have it open in an hour. Now he has an actual decision to make.

In the event that I set a high DC and the rogue failed I would not allow another check unless he changed the circumstances around the check. The reasoning for this is that the uncertainty I'm resolving with the check isn't whether the rogue can open the lock on this attempt, the uncertainty I'm resolving is whether he's going to be able to pick the lock quickly.

One could theoretically have the uncertainty be around whether the rogue will succeed this attempt, in which case repeated attempts would be reasonable - but I find the game plays much better when the uncertainty skill checks resolve isn't generally about whether it works "this time".

Well, if you think that is from the player's, I'd say you are mistaken. Because that view that the DC is based off how difficult the lock is comes straight from the PHB.

To quote: "A key is provided with the lock. Without the key, a creature proficient with thieves' tools can pick this lock with a successful DC 15 Dexterity check. Your DM may decide that better locks are available for higher prices."

Any player with a passing familiarity with locking picking is probably going to take that to mean that the lock is a DC 15. Not that it is a DC 15 if you have ten minutes, because that isn't what the rules state.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right. The difference is, Luke got his torpedoes into the vent shaft on the Death Star only because everyone else had tried before him and failed, and there were only seconds left before the Rebel base was destroyed. It served the needs of narrative drama. In a game, Luke would have done it because he got a good roll, which can happen at any point during the encounter, isn't predictable, and isn't based on narrative drama.

So in both cases, Luke pulls off the heroic thing. He's guaranteed to in the story, and at a point of maximum drama. He's not guaranteed to in the game, but if he does it will still create a case where he did something people thought were impossible (or at least very unlikely). After the fact, a story a game can look nearly identical.

Many DMs build their content around "Luke destroying the Death Star at a dramatic moment" which typically gets them into trouble. There's just no way to ensure their games will run that way, and sometimes they resort to railroading or the like to get it there. It's bad DMing and I think in general we all understand that.

A regular player that has the mindset that his PC is a narrative hero who does "impossible" things with some kind of reliable predictability is falling into the same trap.

But your example misses the point of the discussion entirely.

In the situation being described, Luke says he is going to fire the torpedoes and the DM says "You miss, that is an impossible shot and you cannot make it"

THAT is the problem I'm talking about. Giving them a roll they might fail? That means it is possible, that means it is not an Auto-Fail, which is what we were discussing. And in the scene in the briefing room? They DO say it is an impossible shot, before Luke stands up and says "No, that is a shot we can make."

Again, I'm not talking about always succeeded. I'm saying you have to be very careful about when you say the PCs fail without giving them a roll. Because at a certain point in skill level, they are actually good enough to pull it off.

Telling me I cannot possibly make the shot, when I am the best archer in the land and can reliably hit a knight through their faceplate at 600 ft (AC 18 with Sharpshooter and Archery Style. at level 17 when I have a +13 to hit) feels like the DM just doesn't want me to make the shot, not that it is actually impossible for my character to make