On dogpiling: In my current session, our DM gives different characters different information based on both their background and grade of success/failure. So, yes the Barbarian *could* make an Arcana-Check on some runes, but they'd have vastly different information than my bard (who went to magic school and might have taken actual classes on this specific rune, depending on the roll's results). So the answers could be anything from the barbarian having seen someone be violently exploded by touching a symbol looking exactly like this to 'eh, weird scribble' on the barbarian side, to 'yes, it's probably magic, not sure what and if active or not tho' or 'Ohhh, this is this specific rune imbued with this specific spell and linked to these kinds of places! Don't touch it please' on the bard side. I very much like this approach, and allows any character to also roll on a check for something, no matter of proficient or not, *if* the player (or even better: the character) believes it is worth trying. And for knowledge-checks gives different characters different types of information, which they can relay to other characters (or keep for themselves). I also think it's a very valid approach to allow for a check if it is possible *within* the group, but not for a specific character (like my bard having 8 strength, but the barbarian having 15 - and as you described in your own example, either having the physically weak character call the strong one, or the strong one seeing the weak one struggling and deciding to try for themselves).
@kashizedan I am a big fan of "tiered checks." I don't know what other's call it, but that's as close a term as I can come up with. Using the wizard/Barbarian Adamantine Gate example; I could see saying that with a 15 you can lift the gate enough that someone small could squeeze through with a successful Dexterity (Acrobatics) check, maybe DC 15ish, and DC 20 or 25 for a medium creature. Whereas if you rolled a 20 on the gate, you could lift it enough for everyone else to squeeze through without a check, but not enough that you can get under it to squeeze through yourself.
If I had a dollar for every time I said, "No skill check required, this isn't a challenge for you." Players love that, especially if they envisioned the task as being difficult and I tell them, "No, you are good enough to bypass this obstacle." Also, don't put key plot points behind a a skill check! Have the check reveal the clue, but leave an ominous, "With that check you find this, but nothing else catches your eye." Drives players crazy but it moves the game forward. I allow one person to make a check. If two are proficient, only two, they can both make the check and they get a bonus to their roll for working together. It makes the stealth folks work together. It makes the investigators work together. The preceptors work together to notice something. Any way I can encourage collaboration, the better for the table.
I like where this video ended up. You are right to call into question the methodology of communication at the table. There are plenty of times where to the DM something seems obvious, or logical, and to the players - who are experiencing a different game dynamic with more unknowns - it doesn't even occur to them as a collective group. I would say there is often a gap between our intentions and the perceptions of others, which is very much a skill check that can be failed on both sides!
Roll: No matter what you, as DM, improvise for your players, they will always perceive it as planned. Dice, because they are unpredictable, give the players the feeling that they are in control and that anything can happen. Roll, baby, roll!
I will admit, I have shoved more than my fair share of 0 HP guards into cabinets, chests, down wells, into bags of holding to preserve stealth. I have also heard a DM tell another player something and assumed that also meant my character. I have also rolled a perception check because everyone else at the table is rolling the check. No shade on anyone doing it just as a DM I see it as part of the job to figure out if and when these are behaviors I want to try to address.
Uh, yeah, what I said could be taken that way. No, I don't know all options my players have. I do know that, with Advantage and Guidance, the players average roll is closer to 15 than 10. I can generally count on them to have some spell, item, ability, or clever tactic that will get the Advantage. With that in mind even putting a check at DC 25 is less than a 50/50 chance of success once a character with proficiency approaches the problem.
Not to roll. When it comes to skills, I almost always say what happens without a roll, and if the player wants to try and "push it" or spend more time on it, then I may call for a roll. I tend to use 3e rules for take 10 and take 20. I will also roll so the players don't know the outcome, especially with insight checks. I've noticed when playing that other DMs tend to call for thousands of perception checks and then just tell us what's there anyway. It gets old fast. Oh man, I really dislike it when players dogpile rolls. This is where I feel DCs should not be the same for all players (and auto fail and success matters). And I don't make skill checks story stopping. I do ask my players to avoid this in Session 0, and specifically give the example of the barbarian rolling Arcana after seeing the wizard's roll.
On dogpiling: In my current session, our DM gives different characters different information based on both their background and grade of success/failure. So, yes the Barbarian *could* make an Arcana-Check on some runes, but they'd have vastly different information than my bard (who went to magic school and might have taken actual classes on this specific rune, depending on the roll's results). So the answers could be anything from the barbarian having seen someone be violently exploded by touching a symbol looking exactly like this to 'eh, weird scribble' on the barbarian side, to 'yes, it's probably magic, not sure what and if active or not tho' or 'Ohhh, this is this specific rune imbued with this specific spell and linked to these kinds of places! Don't touch it please' on the bard side.
I very much like this approach, and allows any character to also roll on a check for something, no matter of proficient or not, *if* the player (or even better: the character) believes it is worth trying. And for knowledge-checks gives different characters different types of information, which they can relay to other characters (or keep for themselves). I also think it's a very valid approach to allow for a check if it is possible *within* the group, but not for a specific character (like my bard having 8 strength, but the barbarian having 15 - and as you described in your own example, either having the physically weak character call the strong one, or the strong one seeing the weak one struggling and deciding to try for themselves).
@kashizedan I am a big fan of "tiered checks." I don't know what other's call it, but that's as close a term as I can come up with. Using the wizard/Barbarian Adamantine Gate example; I could see saying that with a 15 you can lift the gate enough that someone small could squeeze through with a successful Dexterity (Acrobatics) check, maybe DC 15ish, and DC 20 or 25 for a medium creature. Whereas if you rolled a 20 on the gate, you could lift it enough for everyone else to squeeze through without a check, but not enough that you can get under it to squeeze through yourself.
If I had a dollar for every time I said, "No skill check required, this isn't a challenge for you." Players love that, especially if they envisioned the task as being difficult and I tell them, "No, you are good enough to bypass this obstacle." Also, don't put key plot points behind a a skill check! Have the check reveal the clue, but leave an ominous, "With that check you find this, but nothing else catches your eye." Drives players crazy but it moves the game forward. I allow one person to make a check. If two are proficient, only two, they can both make the check and they get a bonus to their roll for working together. It makes the stealth folks work together. It makes the investigators work together. The preceptors work together to notice something. Any way I can encourage collaboration, the better for the table.
Got my sub just for the Hamlet quote🤘🏻
I like where this video ended up. You are right to call into question the methodology of communication at the table. There are plenty of times where to the DM something seems obvious, or logical, and to the players - who are experiencing a different game dynamic with more unknowns - it doesn't even occur to them as a collective group. I would say there is often a gap between our intentions and the perceptions of others, which is very much a skill check that can be failed on both sides!
Only roll when failure is interesting.
Very good video bro. Glad the Algorithm God recommended me your channel!
Roll:
No matter what you, as DM, improvise for your players, they will always perceive it as planned.
Dice, because they are unpredictable, give the players the feeling that they are in control and that anything can happen.
Roll, baby, roll!
I will admit, I have shoved more than my fair share of 0 HP guards into cabinets, chests, down wells, into bags of holding to preserve stealth.
I have also heard a DM tell another player something and assumed that also meant my character.
I have also rolled a perception check because everyone else at the table is rolling the check.
No shade on anyone doing it just as a DM I see it as part of the job to figure out if and when these are behaviors I want to try to address.
🥳🫂👍🏿
🎲
Man, I am not remembering every spell and ability the players may have access to when considering what the DC of a check should be.
Uh, yeah, what I said could be taken that way.
No, I don't know all options my players have. I do know that, with Advantage and Guidance, the players average roll is closer to 15 than 10. I can generally count on them to have some spell, item, ability, or clever tactic that will get the Advantage. With that in mind even putting a check at DC 25 is less than a 50/50 chance of success once a character with proficiency approaches the problem.
if a nat 20 doesn't work why even roll
i don't use d20 as a skill dice i think other ways to represent if you are good at something or bad at it.
Not to roll. When it comes to skills, I almost always say what happens without a roll, and if the player wants to try and "push it" or spend more time on it, then I may call for a roll. I tend to use 3e rules for take 10 and take 20. I will also roll so the players don't know the outcome, especially with insight checks.
I've noticed when playing that other DMs tend to call for thousands of perception checks and then just tell us what's there anyway. It gets old fast.
Oh man, I really dislike it when players dogpile rolls. This is where I feel DCs should not be the same for all players (and auto fail and success matters). And I don't make skill checks story stopping. I do ask my players to avoid this in Session 0, and specifically give the example of the barbarian rolling Arcana after seeing the wizard's roll.