When to Roll Dice | 5e D&D | Web DM
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 окт 2024
- When to ask for a roll is the MOST MISUNDERSTOOD element of Dungeons and Dragons. For real. This show is all about when to call for an ability check, when to you use a skill proficiency, and what it should mean to succeed or fail.
**GET MORE WEB DM! HELP US MAKE THE SHOW! Check out our Patreon- weekly podcast, show audio, discounts, discord, and MORE - patreon.com/webdm **
Get Books and support Web DM! Theros: amzn.to/2UT6VOI Xanathar's: amzn.to/38nPqM9 PHB: amzn.to/2NRP4DV Wildemount: amzn.to/2YYDjlH DMG: amzn.to/3dXyFby
WE'RE WRITING A BOOK! Sign up for our mailing list for more info: eepurl.com/gDXzGr
Thanks for watching! Don't forget to subscribe, comment & share. New episodes every Wednesday.
Check us out on Facebook - bit.ly/2oGKLOg
Twitter - / webdmshow
Instagram - web_dm
Want more? Check out:
Our D&D Player Race playlist: • Bird People! Aarakocra...
Our PC Class Playlist: • Warlocks: Classes in 5...
Written & Hosted by Jonathan Pruitt & Jim Davis
Produced, Directed & Edited by Travis Boles
Castle by Dwarven Forge bit.ly/2MwH0Ld
Music by John Branch -branchoutguita...
Web DM Theme by
Kyle Newmaster - kylenewmaster.com
Motion Graphics & Logo Design by
Ryan Wieber - ryan-w.com
WebDM Fan Art by Adam Miller - www.adammillerart.net
Table by Forest and Hammer www.forestandhammer.com
5e Dungeons & Dragons is here to stay, and Web DM is here to help!!! Jim Davis & Jonathan Pruitt have been playing Dungeons & Dragons for a combined 30+ years, and on Web DM they demystify, dethrone, and defrock this Dungeon we call Dragons! Subscribe to our channel for weekly videos on 5e Classes, Monsters, DM Tips, and more! Join Pruitt & Jim as we kick down the door and talk some serious Dungeons & Dragons!
Thanks for watching! Get way more Web DM! Podcast, show audio, and more, plus you get to say you're a DEMON: patreon.com/webdm
Best example I can think of... The Princess Bride
Inigo: *fails repeatedly to open door* FEZZIK!
Fezzik: *no roll necessary door open*
"All you have to do....is open...thE DOOR!"
Great example. Love it
Tell that to Vox machina
Exactly...that's my other way of doing it...once one person in the team fails at the door, a second failure something funny happens but the door is open usually at the expense of the original attempters pride. Out of combat stuff shouldn't outright fail with no alternative to solve it except in a compounded critical failure situation (the dice are speaking to you then)
If you're not prepared to deal with the consequences of a player failing a check, don't call for it.
or succeeding...had many dm's that got in a huff when we succeeded over their "challenge"
@@reienna6410 A very valid point! The blade of consequence doth cut both ways!
What do you do when players pitch a fit and ask "I can't even try?"
@@invidiousone3662 i dunno...give a short explanation of why it wouldnt work? like it is too complex a lock or their vision is not accute enough/light isnt good enough for them to make out details? me personally...i wear glasses...i can see without them but i cant make out detail...even if i technically "rolled a crit" my vision is still that which i need a set amount of light AND my glasses to see with any clarity...if the lighting matches but i dont have my glasses i can still make out some detail...but i cant read or make out fine details...so to read something in bright light without my glasses...if it is in small print or a fine line maze puzzle...is impossible for me...doesnt matter how much i stare or try and clarify my vision
@@invidiousone3662 I've had DM's deny me outright and say "No, you cannot." A lot of times it's an issue of language, what the DM sees and what the player sees never line up fully; we pissed off the DM one time because he told us there was a gap between us and the exit, and we thought he meant a hole in the ground instead of a small distance. Most of the time I'm told I can't do something it has less to do with that but more to deal with me avoiding all apparent challenges and starting things off the DM is not ready for. Generally speaking, you just talk out the issue and explain your perspective on it.
This is your most valuable episode ever, in my opinion. Watch this video repeatedly and enjoy the much better games that you will experience. Many thanks.
Thank you William
I feel like something is going on with these two. They rarely make eye contact anymore. They barely even acknowledge the physical presence of the other person as if they aren’t in the same room, which is clearly impossible seeing that they are sitting behind the same table.
We aren't in the same room, but we are looking at each other, just had zoom right in front of us. We will be tweaking eyelines next time!
@@WebDM Whoosh!
@@WebDM In movie making, actors performing to a green screen will usually have someone holding up a googly-eyed tennisball as a proxy of what will be added in with cgi later .. gives them something to get their eyelines right.
For you guys, physically position the zoom display where the other guy is "sitting" (but have the camera separate, positioned as you have now). Or get some googly-eyed tennis balls.
It is one of life's great mysteries.
🤣
Man, that talk about the dice negating character concepts brought to mind the very moment I started questioning the value in rolling the dice for any kind of check.
A while ago I created this ranger character who was part of an organization that, and I made specific mention of this in the background I handed out to the GM, charted and mapped the area surrounding their village and kept track of dangerous creatures' dens and hunting grounds. Then we start playing and I go to read a map and the DM calls for a roll and... you guessed it, I botched the roll. It was a genuinely funny moment as a group outside of play.
But then the bard attempted the roll and succeeded and from that moment onward, they were the mapmaker. And just like that, the character concept I had vanished. And then later on I realized that the way I wanted to play a ranger really actually just called for a rogue, but that's a separate issue.
This is a really good example you gave. It seems like the GM and the bard player should have deferred to you going forward, out of courtesy to you, since your charater concept was based on map making / map reading. For instance, to flip this scenario a bit, if the bard concept was based on enchanting its foes with music, and the bard one day fails a guitar playing check, but the ranger made a similar check while yelling a battle cry, then I would think that the party wouldn't rely on the ranger's battle cry going foward. Or even if the math worked against you, I'm thinking off the cuff here, but you could sit down with the GM and work out a way to retool your ranger character and boost your map skill so that a fail would be unlikely to happen again, if that is what you wanted for the character and the game.
We need an album of every song Pruitt has ever done for an intro
I'd buy that nonsense... And quality prints of some of these thumbnails, i'd buy those too
I'm working on my own Kenny Rogers parody song too now.
I'll let you know if it works out. ☺️
I'd buy the digital and vinyl of that.
It would go double electrum!
I love the green screen. Almost feels like we are not in an Apocalypse
Doing our best to instill a little normalcy in the hellscape that is 2020!!
Holy shit i didn't notice. Looks awesome
The green screen splice is nearly perfect in this one! The verisimilitude is really helping my suspension of disbelief. I would expect nothing less from a good GM.
My GF and I went back and forth for 5 minutes about which of you was really at the table, which was entirely green screen, how much of the background was false etc. It was a sidequest within the video. Looks great!
@@TheHammertime51 neither of them are actually at the table
"If you fail this check by 5 of more..." is a phrase i like to use as a DM.
Sounds similar to PF2 mechanics.
@@linus4d1 I got it from the Drow poison language actually. PF2 probably did too? I don't know, but I am sure its found in other places as well. But cool thanks for sharing I will have to peek at it.
"succeed on a DC 13 Constitution saving throw or be poisoned for 1 hour. If the saving throw fails by 5 or more, the target is also unconscious while poisoned in this way. The target wakes up if it takes damage or if another creature takes an action to shake it awake."
When it comes to rolling checks, I have a system of "known areas" and "unknown areas" If the party is on their ship, or in their manor, there are checks that they know they can make. They can see about crafting something, making potions, doing research in their library. That is all very doable, and by letting my players just tell me what they want to do mechanically, I can move on into new things. On the other hand, lets say they are at a party, that is an unknown area, where they don't know all the things they can do, and I want them to describe what they want to do, rather than what rolls they want to make.
It took me a second to realise something was wrong with the picture...
...then Jim's arm vanished into the void.
@@waahmed7830 Yeah, I know; I just didn't see the greenscreen immediately because I wasn't looking intently at the video.
Jim is also between two castles in the wide shots.
I was 10 minutes into the video before I realized they weren’t in the same room
Also the duplicate DM screen behind Jim and the duplicate table with identical dice behind Pruitt
@@waahmed7830 are they actually? considering they got the same table behind each of them?
Once more and louder for the people in the back “If you’re rolling dice that’s not playing the game.” Thanks as always for y’all’s time, insights, and thoughts. What a great topic and one I think every table struggles with.
So much this. The timing on this video is perfect. "If you expected them to pass, why did you ask for a roll?" I have seen so many characters die falling off logs (etc) due to this exact issue.
Before Passive checks were a thing, there was Taking Ten, which was the idea that when you aren't stressed and stakes are low you can choose to roll a ten.
Absolutely. I remember once getting into a heated argument with someone on reddit because they refused to see the point of "If a character can't succeed if they roll a 20, or can't fail if they roll a 1...don't ask them to roll anything" That seemingly logical statement was apparently the bane to one persons existence. Like I had threatened to kill his dog, poison the meat and feed it to his mother.
GravyBoat I think a good compromise is to say they *can* roll but a 20 (or a success even at a lower DC) represents the best case scenario, and you tell them what that is. So if they try to jump over a massive pit to escape from the demon chasing them, you can tell them “the pit is too far to jump no matter how high you roll, but it’s possible you could jump into the pit and land without taking *too much* damage if you roll really well.” Tell them the DC too, it doesn’t help to be coy about it. The players should understand the stakes.
I gm SWSE which uses the take 10/20 rules from 3.5e and can't agree more. IME it really adds more gravitas to skill checks that are made under pressure too since they don't become routine. Instead of "oh we just need to do another navigation check to escape" you get "we need to get out of here quick, punch in the coordinates as fast as you can and hope we end up where we meant to"
I love love love that you two creative Dm's are using the greenscreen.
But like, you can go anywhere in the multiverse with your green screen and you choose to go back to your game table?
Use it to go to the fey wilds! Use it to go to strahd's castle! go to a fantasy tavern!!
Keep it fresh my dm, big fan.
I agree. I want the background to be Avernus. Maybe each layer of hell each week.
I love that the table is both in front of them and behind them :-)
Go to the game table first, and it can take you anywhere.
P..s your green screen fu is getting good. You wanna impress me, I wanna see you hand something to each other Back to the Future 3 style.
Geezer here.....
Decided decades back...
Roll when it matters!
If there is an importance or consequences bad or good....
Then Rollem....
If not move on, no roll.
If it needs to happen... It happens.
Game on
Straight from the top: "When do the players roll?"
When the DM asks for a roll.
Which of course leads to the question of when the DM should call for a roll. And that is, when a player has declared an action that has a chance of success, a chance of failure and where there is no consequence that prevents repeated attempts until success is achieved.
PC tries to kick in a foot-thick adamantium door: no chance of success; no roll.
PC tries to walk through an open doorway: no chance of failure; no roll.
PC tries to kick in a fairly flimsy wooden door in a situation where it doesn't matter how many kicks it takes: they'll eventually kick it in: no roll.
PC tries to kick in the fairly flimsy door to a room where a bunch of Goblins are playing cards: now we need a roll.
If the PC succeeds, the party might surprise the Goblins. If they don't? Well, they'll probably still get through the door, but the Goblins will have time to prepare.
The ones you say not to roll on are only good if you have complete information. Player is trying to kick the door, they dont know if it can open or not, by saying dont even roll they get some information they maybe shouldnt get.
I often prefer to think of it in a different way. Not can they achieve the goal they want, but more of finding different outcomes for the roll.
@@jameswright21 what information does it give them that they wouldn't have?
As soon as they kick the door in they're gonna see that the room is empty regardless
And if the room isn't empty and they had to roll, well the things are still going to be in there if they get the surprise round or not
@@TheRealBrit You're saying that you could actually do this. If I don't know the door is made of some super strong or magic material and I say no matter how hard you kick it won't open you can infer this. If I just let you roll and you roll a 1, you just think it's an extra tough door.
You can probably go a lot deeper, but that's the essence of it.
James Wright there is nothing more dull and tedious than rolling dice for the sake of it. This occurs when checks are called where there are no consequences to either outcome. Your null result is a example of just this.
The door can not be opened, at least by their current approach.
When you call for a roll, you are communicating to players that their intent and approach *is* viable. If they rolled a one in your example, they may have failed, but there’s no internally consistent reason they can’t try again. Nothing has changed after all, and you have already communicated that their intent and approach was possible by allowing the roll in the first place. If it was a low result like in your example, this almost certain to be what will happen.
How many times do you let these pointless rolls continue, before you too simply describe it as beyond there means? Nick is just advocating to cut to this same end result.
@@yohahn12 My point was thay by knowing a door cannot be kicked down communicates information the pcs may not have. I guess whats really at play here is thay the success condition in my example is that they have a chance to gether information.
Perhaps it is my DM style thay changes this, bit if a PC can break down a door I accept that (except perhaps for a nat 1) they will break it down. The roll is for how well it is achieved.
This is not the case I eas trying to refer to, it is supposed to be instead of saying "you cannot break down this door no matter how strong you are" you let the players attempt (roll) and draw their own conclusions from whatever result they get. I make it clear in my session 0 repeating an action under no change of circumstance gets the same result, so that act of repitition is not an issue.
BTW, thankyou so much Jim for what you said around the 19:00-20:00 portion. Consequences are great, I like them, they make the game have tooth, but they should ONLY be done with a little thing in the legal world known as "disclosure". Only have serious side effects of failure if full disclosure has been made first. Yes, the players will try to weasel a circumstance where that doesn't happen, but they are thinking at that point, maybe changing the situation to a different ability, handing it off to a different character, thinking outside the box to forgive the cliche.
Yeah, and just the part of failure in general. I've played with DMs where it seems like you can never fail a skill roll. In the first hour of the session as a party we rolled something like modified 6,7,8, 10, 12 on skill check rolls, pretty bad,.... and even on the rolls under 10 the DM is like "hmm, yeah, .. you are still able too just barely,..." - no dude, .. we failed, tell us we failed, .. otherwise you take any fun right out of skill checks.
I just want y'all to know I deeply appreciate the extra effort you took to emulate the old setup and style.
Thank you guys for doing this video. This subject is one that I struggle with as a DM. I always find myself asking my players to roll unnecessarily to the point where it becomes obnoxious, and having a more concise set of guidelines, or just alternatives has been extremely helpful.
Long-time subscriber here, and you guys have helped my DMing immeasurably over the years. That being established, this is probably my favorite episode you've produced. The idea that the essence of the game is everything *except* rolling checks, and the dice are merely tools to be used when necessary to *facilitate* the roleplaying, is so fundamentally important. However, it's actually pretty counter-intuitive to most new players and DMs. Well done!!
This is objectively wrong, and is the literal *exact opposite* of the truth & reality. It's like saying all fingers are thumbs.
The "game" is the mechanics, is the rules, which rolling dice is a part of. The roleplaying is also *part* of the game, but it is not the game.
People play pretend all the time, that's not a "game". An improv performance, or collective story writing, is not a game. They may be "playing", but "playing" is not always "playing a game".
All "games" are "play(ed)/(ing)", but not all "play(ing)" is a "game".
Your "counter-intuitive to most new players and DMs" sentence is just elitist phrasing to put down, and/or confuse, people, and excuse this opposite definition.
@@LittleNemoGaming Your entire comment is elitist phrasing to put down, and/or confuse people. We're playing a ROLE-playing game, not a ROLL-playing game.
What I said in my post above is literal objective fact. You're just mad at the undeniable truth.
The rules are the game. You can play pretend all you want, but that's not "D&D", that's not a "game"; it's "play". Roleplaying is part of the game, how you interact with other players and npcs *if you choose* , but the actual game is the mechanics.
PS
When you try to use the "mirror" debate style, you need to be factual... So you failed at it.
@@LittleNemoGaming LOL Deep breath in, slooowww breath out. It's going to be ok.
@@ibagree Now repeat that in the mirror to yourself. The "actor" type of players are the most toxic (and entitled) player type.
Basketball is a "ball game", but running around with a ball isn't "basketball". People role play on the playground, in the bedroom, and in a therapists office, but those are "play" (or therapy) not a "game". Games are based on the rules.
I even do passive attack rolls in situations where it makes sense. Your level 7 assassin successfully stealthed up behind the level 1 guard? Your bonus to your attack roll is +8? His AC is 12? Yeah, you murder him. No need to roll.
I think WebDM is at it's best when y'all zoom in on a really small thing. There's so much nuance and insight provided. It's why we love the length of the videos.
Thank you for making this video. Now I have a resource to send to my friends that makes this argument more eloquently than I could have.
Oh this is a first: video released 35 seconds ago.
Now to comment with a strong opinion before watching the video...
Hahaha! Yeah!
"Obviously all dice should be rolled by the DM, so that no player can cheat. This also allows the DM to fudge player dice when necessary"
/joke
"Wizards ruined DnD"
"Flanking should be a default rule"
"Healing spirit is underrated"
Poor baby
@@hamstsorkxxor oh no no no. The most divisive, troublesome player should be in charge of everyone's dice rolls
/joke
8:50 With regards to meaningful consequences for failure on a check that would normally succeed easily, I think a great example would be the high strength character busting down the door. I would call for a check with a reasonable DC (perhaps 10). Failure in this instance does not mean that they can't break down the door, but rather that it takes them a few tries to boot it in - the door was sturdier than they first thought. The consequence here is that any enemies on the other side are alerted and any chance at surprise is ruined (and possibly raises the alarm throughout this area of the dungeon). Because of this I would call for a check any time they wanted to bust down the door, otherwise you could be tipping your hand on whether or not there are baddies on the other side.
The problem I usually have is that my DMs give out no information, and refuse to answer basic questions when asked. "How big is the room?" "It's hard to tell in the darkness." "We all have 60 ft. darkvision, is the room bigger than that?" "Hard to tell." "I roll perception, total is 25, what do I see?" "The room is 20 ft. long. There's a dark-skinned character with white hair in the room, but you're not sure what it is." "I'm a High-Elf, and that sounds like a Drow, do I recognize them?" "Maybe, roll History." "I got an 18." "You think it might be this rumored creature called a Drow." If you want me to describe my actions in an interesting way, don't make me waste my energy prodding for info I should already have.
That sounds like one of those "DM against the players" kind of DM.
Sounds like a long winded hell. Do you even manage to ever finish your campaigns with this DM, or do you get stuck in the first dungeon trying to figure out floor tiles?
I had a game where I asked a town guard about the surrounding area. The DM made me roleplay my question and then gave me a 50% chance of success. I then perceived it as suspicious that the town guard was being so cagey with normal everyday information but my DM didn't understand why I would think that.
@@SPTX. Occasionally. Usually the DM is more interested in playing solitaire, giving the players no information so he can keep talking and deciding actions for them, until we call him out angrily and he backs off for a scene or so. Everything does take way longer than it should, and the players often don't have the patience to finish the campaign.
I had this one DM who was like yours, except he would not give info even with checks.
-So you arrive at the place and there's an entrande in the rocks, what do you do?
-I go in
-Ok you go in. What do you do?
-I... uhhh... what do I see here?
-You see the inner part of the entrance. What do you do?
-Uhhhh ok I go further in, I guess
-Ok, you went further in. What do you do?
-Fuck, I light up a torch to see what the heck is in here
-Oh it's not dark, it's daytime
-Wait, are we not in a cave in the rocks?
-No, you're in the ruins of an old church and it's got no ceiling anymore, what do you do?
-Wasn't the entrance in the rocks?
-Made of rocks, yes. What do you do?
-What do I see inside these church ruins?
-You see the inner part of the church ruins. What do you do?
-................. fuck this shit I'm out
The table went for one more session before the other players decided to quit it
One of the best explanations of Passive Perception that I have heard... I like the idea of it not being "automatic".
Lol, just started watching and I thought "wait are they back at the table..." No... no you're not... but it's a nice welcome space to be back at... even fictionally
I like that idea of giving a floor to all checks, as in the floor of passive perception. Let's say in the case of a fighter with +5 bonus. Would the fighter be able to knock down any door with a DC of 15 or lower? It may make sense to reduce the passive checks by 2. So the fighter could knock down any door with a DC of 13 or lower. Otherwise a roll must be made. how much do we reduce the passive bonuses? I would think between 2 and 5 points. Then that becomes the DC floor in order to do a check.
If you're going to play around with using passive scores as a minimum roll, you need to make sure what you do doesn't makes the Rogue's 11th level feature *Reliable Talent* useless. The short version is that for any skills they are proficient with, if they roll lower than 10, they treat the die roll as 10, which has the same effect as using their passive score for that skill.
When it comes to dice rolls:
1 I will adjust the DC depending on the character
Example: A character from a particular area is more likely to know some piece of info than the others in the party, so they have a lower DC than the others.
2 I grade on a scale
Example: A stealth check of 11, you are getting away but they have an idea of where you went, so you have to keep moving. While a 19, you blended into the shadows and now can observe as the people search for you.
For your first one, shouldn't that be reflected in the stats? A character from a particular area should have the proficiencies that reflect that they are from that area, no? And if they do, aren't you giving them an unnecessary edge in succeeding? You might as well make it so they don't have to roll at all. Actually I don't understand your second one either, stealth is practically a contest, wouldn't the people searching be making rolls too?
@@caseyhudson4929 I admit that the stealth check was not a good example given the context, it was meant to be an example of grading.
I'll resist the urge to write a thesis on how I use stealth checks in the various environments/ situations. Instead I'll try to give an example to show both points I was trying to convey.
Let's say we have a character that is 20 years old, grew up in a very small town, and routinely went hunting in the nearby woods. This character has proficiency in Survival.
1) The party is in the woods looking for Goblins:
Rolls 12: "You see that the Goblins went north toward the stream."
Rolls 19: "You can tell there were 4 goblins here a half hour ago. You can easily follow their tracks north toward the stream."
Same character tracking Goblins in Waterdeep (first time in a city):
12: You can't discern goblin tracks from anything else in the street.
19: You find tracks that appear to be the goblins heading north.
@@O4C209 Okaaay I get ya now.
Brilliant video. This is one of the most important topics to understand about running an RPG: setting stakes when rolling dice. What do failure and success mean in the present context?
When they talk about ludonarrative dissonance at the end, I think there’s a really important extra thing to say, which is that you don’t only have the option of saying “no roll required” when the specialist character does their thing. You can still call for a roll but set the stakes differently.
So in the case of the heavily armoured fighter sneaking past a guard and rolling a natural 20 with disadvantage while the ranger rolls a 2 and fails horribly, you have the option of saying the success and failure means different things for these two characters. When the ranger fails at sneaking, the guard hears the faint sound of a twig breaking and starts looking around; now the ranger is in danger but still not discovered. Whereas a fighter who fails in that situation makes a loud clanking noise and the guard has spotted them and called for backup before the fighter can even react. Similarly, when the fighter succeeds they haven’t been discovered but they’re in a position where their next move is somewhat limited, whereas the ranger succeeding on a stealth check is basically cart blanche to describe where they’re standing and what they’re able to do next.
The point is that success and failure are highly contextual. It’s up to the DM to decide precisely what it means to succeed or fail in each situation, and that means taking into account what’s been established about the character and their skills.
Not necessarily calling for a role when your players are proficient in something is a topic you have discussed b4, and advice I have taken to heart. The time I called for a DC 15 stealth check and said to my rogue with expertise, "You don't have to roll. You succeed." rly made her feel special and emphasized her character's strengths.
You continue to give great advise. Keep it up. And Thank you.
Greatly appreciate your viewpoint. As a new DM (who has only played as a wizard for a month) this is invaluable. Thank you!
A Kenny Rogers opening. Never seen that coming. Do Dolly Parton (Jolene).
Thanks Web DM & have a great day.
Sometimes having people roll on the mundane can cause great story elements. I had a monk who didn’t ever have money order a drink, so he asks the bartender if he can clean up the back for drinks and food. The bartender, a nice guy canonically, said sure kid clean the back room. I had him roll. He rolled a 1. So I explain how he gets in there, put the mop down, slip in the puddle the mop makes and crash around the room destroying *rolls d100* 54 gold worth of stuff. He is banned from the bar until he earns the money, creating character arc of a monk who never cared about money all the sudden needing exactly 54 gold.
Hot take:
If I can't critically succeed on a skill check (which I agree with) I should also not be able to critically fail. Say I'm a Bard with +15 sleight of hand and just want to slip a gold coin into someone's pocket while no one is looking. DC will probably be lower than 16 and so even if I roll a 1 I should succeed.
You can think of more examples, but I feel like if you're very proficient or have expertise in a skill, a 1 should not mean you critically fail.
I think the problem is that dms need to think things more fully about what it means to succeed and fail
What you're suggesting is the actual rule for skill checks. Critical hit/misses only apply to attack rolls, not skill rolls. So yes, rolling a 1 with a +15 modifier on your sleight of hand means you rolled a 16.
@@smalx135 yeah by base I kinda like adding just a little extraflair if you rolled a 1 where you almost fucked up but your incredible skill prevented you from failing
@@smalx135 right, but I've had DMs that will count a 1 as a fail regardless of bonuses. I've rolled a 1, did the usual face you do when you roll a one, then declared my final number and he goes, "but what did you roll?" And then completely ignores if I passed the DC or not just because it was a 1. And I know countless others have encountered this.
@@michaelsinclair1343 it seems to be a pretty common misconception. Or maybe they're using a home rule or they've just not read the PHB properly. But RAW there's no such thing as a crit fail on a skill check and I'd encourage you or anyone else in the same situation to discuss it with your DM to reach a solution.
This is one of your best conversations most DMs only use passive perception the game works much better using passive scores for all abilities thank you guys for bringing it to light...
I personally love the idea that you can always fail and always succeed, if you use it sparsely and meaningfully. I DM a very cinematic game, and in movies sometimes a hero succeeds against incredible odds, and sometimes a critical fail can be very funny. I think that the most important thing is meaningful success and meaningful failure.
I really happy you guys did this episode. It's such a small detail but I think a very powerful detail.
I did something similar with a young dragon my party made a temporary deal with. I had the dragon follow them with greater invisibility and would occasionally decloak giving a member or two a chance to see it's shadow with a good perception check. Once they fought against the dragon it reveal itself to have been stalking the party and uncovering they're treacherous plots. Very satisfying for my players to get the full picture in a cool reveal.
When paired with other high rolls a critical miss roll creates fantastic comedy. While playing a DnD-like game in which my team was a service provider, over the course of the adventure, after causing the TVs of everyone in an apartment building to explode, by failing rolls, we also managed to convince the shellshocked guy that hired us into signing a damage waiver by great rolls.
I really like the idea of more success fail states. Yes and no are kind of boring, so much interesting to be able to give "no, but" "no, and" "yes, but" and "yes, and" options. Failure or even success with consequences makes things more interesting and lends weight to those rolls.
In my own internal opinion, my DM style is centered around letting the roll of a d20 for non-combat situations being akin to the "test your strength" hammer things at fairs. The intensity of a roll tells me what happens, not a pass/fail metric of coming up with a DC. It forces me to not think in terms of what is worthy of a failure mode, but to what extent is their roll a success and at what costs. I love this method because players respond well to delivering a final tallied number and already interpreting what the narrative is going to be. Many times, you don't need to worry about coming up with a DC for things because the player will roll so terribly that it wouldn't matter anyways.
I've run games for 38 years, but these guys always let me know their is more to learn.
This is critical for how I run 2E games: If a character does not have a nonweapon proficiency, they cannot attempt an action that depends on it. But on the flip side, if a character has the nonweapon proficiency, and the outcome is (as you say) inconsequential or the attempt is banal, they probably get an automatic success. I am still not one hundred percent sure how to navigate this in 5E, where every character has the same skill set because proficiency only indicates greater than average aptitude, but this video was helpful with that.
In my world, every adventure cab start a campfire. The fire building NWP means you can build one with wet wood, or know to use dried animal dung or things like that.
If my 20 str barbarian rolls the worst possible roll to break down a flimsy wooden door; he does it, but he does it as badly as he could for his skill.
'Bronk smashes the door like a pile of twigs, but he gets a bunch of splinters'
That's a great way to handle it, and I also like incorporating complications to poorly rolling on something you're supposed to be The Shit at doing.
Extrapolating on your example, not only is the door now kindling, but Bronk made enough noise smashing it to alert nearby guards, or even curious citizens. It helps it feel more plausible, and possibly toss a few curveballs at the party.
Great video. The biggest takeaway for me is that DMs should be aware of both the positive and negative possibilities of a roll. If there is no meaningful consequence for failure then just don't have the players roll. I remember in a past game I had players roll to open all the dungeon doors initially which lead to multiple stalled moments when they failed. In my mind, I was having them roll because players like rolling dice but in reality, it just created awkward moments.
I also really like the part about DMs calling for rolls that they expect the characters to pass, especially when they are plot-relevant. I've seen more than my fair share of DMs call for rolls in key story moments only for the player to roll a 2. The DM ended up basically giving the player all the information they needed anyways because the game still needed to move forward but it definitely felt off to see an observer of the game.
One of my pet peeves is players actually asking to make checks whenever they want to do something. Rolling dice invites the chance of failure and should be avoided whenever possible! Every player should do what they can to succeed by talking and role playing, with the DM calling for a check only when that has happened.
Absolutely. We cover that in this vid
Totally disagree. Half the fun of role playing with D&D is the every present chance of random failure. It adds realism to the world you're playing in. In real life totally unpredictable things happen all the time. Asking for a chance of failure (dice roll) is the acceptance that, the only thing that a player controls is their character's actions, and not the outcome. Thus they should be able to choose what ability or skill they're using. If a player says "I'm going to swing my hammer and break down the door. Can I make an athletics check to do it?" Let them roll. They don't know that you don't care about the outcome of said roll. It empowers the players to feel that they have agency over their characters actions. Or you can be an ass of a DM and say that they have to use a different skill, ability, etc. and then the next time the player won't even bother to try because they can't even choose what actions their character is doing.
Put the ROLL back in Role playing....Otherwise you're just LARPing. No Dice rolling means it's not a game, just bad acting.
Or maybe that's just the "Gambler" in me talking.
Enjoy your next session, stay Happy and Healthy
@@farmonious420 LARPing stands for Live Action Role Playing, therefore it's Role Playing.
@@O4C209 Correct. Live Action Role Playing. No rules set. Not An RPG. Role Playing Game. Games have rules. I think that's why LARPing was invented. To give players an opportunity to Role Play freely.
@@dziooooo The randomness isn't a result of the manifestation of your efforts. It's the randomness of the world we live in. I would argue that there's thousands of people out there right now, that lost their jobs and did them right 99.9% of the time. You might fail because there's an earth quake, a random villager bursts past because he's being chased by guards, etc. And I said let the players roll, accepting there's a chance of failure. They don't have to know they were going to succeed every time. It's about letting the players control the character's actions. If they roll poorly, then something random can happen to make it a success. Don't take away the player's control over their characters.
Firstly thank you for continuing to do web DM remotely. BUT I don't know how I feel about Pruitt starring into my soul as jim describes stuff. just judging me there...
"But what about the wall BEHIND THE WALL!?!?"
- _Contemplating the Endless Morass of Passive Perception_
I think Web DM will always be my favorite D&D show on RUclips.
This is the area where I still need the most improvement as a DM, thanks for providing so many helpful details. There's so many options to handle player checks it's hard to decide which one to go with on the fly. Especially since the ideas seem scattered between sources.
Dice resolution is an expression of player agency. When I player says "I'm Sensing Motive" Or "I'm checking for traps" Or in another way they're injecting mechanics into the play, that's a player who feels they need mechanical support for the story, something they feel their character should have the power to accomplish. Always listen to that, find a roll for that situation, if you don't understand why they're asking for that roll, ask them questions until you understand what they need.
If your player wants to pull the right lever, or say what the NPC needs to hear, or keep an eye on the door they believe the enemy will come through, that's a player action, not a character action. If your character doesn't have the attributes that support that capability then their attempt shouldn't translate into success just because of their metagaming skills. You can accent a roll if a player is being very specific about what they attempt and it's sound thinking but if a task is complex enough to require a test then it's complex enough to require a test.
I don't believe in pass-fail rolls except in those critical moments of the story. Almost every roll in a story should be better/worse. Does your attempt make the situation better for you or worse. Success can mean you leap across the gap between he roofs of two buildings but ordinary success doesn't mean you continue at your normal movement, if you narrowly pass you're probably dragging yourself up onto the roof on the other side. Likewise failure doesn't mean you hit the street two stories down, maybe you chicken out on the jump at the last second, maybe you miss the roof but catch hold of a window sill and are able to land safer. Combat tends to have very specific yes/no results but anything else can be handled by degree of success.
I would completely disagree with the philosophy of your second paragraph. Player actions are how the players play the game, rolls are how the game plays itself. In combat, you probably let your players decide where to move their PC, what spells/abilities to use, and who to target without requiring some sort of tactics role to see if the PC would know to take that action. The player is playing 'the game' in that moment. If you have a dungeon/challenge based purely on skill checks, you can have your players turn in their character sheets and leave the table. You just need to know the ability scores and the dice will determine the rest. The game will play itself at that point.
I want my players to play 'the game' whenever possible. I agree fully with the stance of the video that the players making decisions is the more engaging aspect of the game. I'll use skill checks as aid to enforce your character whenever possible. Like persuasion will give you a read on a person and what sort of approach might be convincing, but it's still up to the player to determine what to say. I prefer to have the players making choices whenever possible.
There's certainly a fairness to your approach, but I find rolls can erode the feeling of agency from a player. If you really want to rip the mask off, don't let players roll for themselves. They will quickly realize that dice rolls mean they don't have control in a situation.
One of the things that im still flip flopping on in regards to rolls, is "Do you roll for how successful you are in doing what you are doing, or do you roll for how successful the outcome of what you are doing is"
Forexample, if you have an old veteran sergeant who you need information from, and one of the players decides to intimidate check him, and rolls a 20 the two outcomes from first to second is
-You roll 20 intimidation, he is feeling threatened and instantly attacks you
-You roll 20 intimidation, he isnt scared but he is impressed by your warface and starts treating you similar to a comrade in arms.
Which are 2 very different outcomes. How do you at WebDM do it?
EDIT: as an extension to that in regards to the bumbling fighter, how much of a roll is the world reacting against you vs your character failing. Is a super lucky barbarian sneaky because right as they plow through a loud noise happens in another area, or the rogue failing a sneak check because the person turned around right at that moment by sheer coincidence.
I’m still pretty new to DMing but this is my take on it: if they succeed at intimidation it will be more like the second one, but if it’s someone who might get angry at the party trying to frighten them I’d probably just have a bit higher of a DC.
Haha a good point that highlights that in some cases the outcome is not as certain as the player may think it is and that the DM still maintains so much of the narrative control.
A very good example because intimidate causes fear and people react in 2 ways to fear: flight or fight. For me it sounds like first option (your options).
I'd love to see more in regards to this.
I think either interpretation is valid given that intimidation had multiple effects depending on the person.
As a DM, I'd hope to think well enough on my feet to get around ludonarrative dissonance like you described.
How I see it is natural 20's in this case would be the second option in regards to that type of character as they're not someone who could be intimidated by a player, especially a low level one. It'd be like a player expecting a king to hand over his kingdom on a nat 20....the king would just laugh at you and think you're funny. You won't get his kingdom but he isn't going to kill you....and may hire you for something out of amusement.
I really like the open legend system about that, success om the roll let the player describe its success, failing mean the GM decide the outcome, which may be failling or succeed and looking like a fool, or discovering another way to succeed, or another character succeed instead of the initial one, etc. This way, the story never really stop.
I need more thumbnails like this in my life.
Great post
When I was a kid playing AD&D 1st Ed (mid 80's, 14-17 yrs old) , we obviously didn't have skills or skill checks (other than Thieves) . In hindsight, adding them (variant rules and later editions) was a drag on the imagination we used in the game .
We used to rely on the Player's description of their action, and the DM judging whether their character's race and/or class would enable them do it. Every now and then we'd convert to a Bend Bars or Saving Throw or 3d6 vs Stat, but mostly it was "could a ranger do this?" or "would a cleric know this"?
It made it less "roll-y" and more "role-y"
In 5th, we identified skills as "Things You Can Do" not necessarily things you roll. It's up to the PCs to describe and the DM to assess whether you can succeed or fail, as the story demands. Sometimes they roll a skill check, take Damage or a gain a Condition for skill failure and/or apply its failure in the story
Not easy to manage, but if the players are into it, it can work.
I haven't played AD&D since 2nd Edition but I've been binge-watching your videos and I'm tempted to give 5th Edition a go. I've dug out the dusty folder with my campaign world in it and been giving some thought to playing/DMing again.
Thanks guys, I’m a relatively experienced DM and found this to be one of your most helpful videos ever, it helps clarify a style of DMing that I’ve been trying to work towards for a while.
Your overlay for the show really makes the show feel like it used to. Good job.
Awesome opening. Love the original song and thoroughly enjoyed your rendition.
This, so much this! So important but never talked about, thank you very much for this video. As an aspiring DM this advice couldn't come at a better time, I wish I could like this more than once.
I like the "push the roll" mechanic from Call of Cthulu, which allows players to try a skill check again, but they have to describe how this attempt is different from the first, and the consequences of failure increase. I like that it codifies how to try a check again mechanically in the rules.
Green Screens break my immersion with super expressive hand talkers like Jim
the first example is why I really like FATE games. in those games the dice tend towards nuetral so your rating combined with what modifiers you can justify are the most important things.
My mind got blown when i finally, FINALLY, realized that passive checks were the equivalent of what was known in 3rd edition as "taking a 10". I had to sell my players on letting go of the need for wanting to roll the die all the time and trust their passive skills. I basically explained your passive skill is your average die roll, if you really want to roll a dice for this athletics, or deception check you have a roughly 50% chance to do worse than just taking your passive score.
I like all of this! One of the issues I have with the auto-success rules (as i understood from Davis's description, haven't looked up in the DMG yet) is that they seem to make the 5e rogue less special by nullifying that ability they get at like lvl 11 to basically take 10 on any rolls for which they have proficiency.
Oh wow! Got in early! This was super helpful because I had this happen to me just the other night. Love y’alls content!!
Every episode is great, but this one was a true banger.
I described the action like this.: my dwarf drives his shoulder into the goblin's chest, trying to knock him down. " not looking for damage, just trying to knock him down. Athletics check.
I did knock him down. And I used action surge to attack.. did real good damage.
Trick for my group is getting the players to stop rolling before I ask for a roll!
+10 to the DC if the player rolls before I ask has fixed that in my game.
@@brettmajeske3525 you absolute genius
I love the way y'all have set this up while social distancing... really clever idea! stay safe and keep up the amazing work! ❤
holy sheeeeeet haven't watched lately and the fact that you've teleported yourselves behind the table using green screens is both impressive and unsettling lol
Often I find there can be quite a bit of rolling depending on that back and forth, for example if someone fails a climb because it is slippery, and the player says "can I catch myself with my sword?" or etc, I might have them make another roll, which is kind of a chance to recoup their failure. I tend to leave things a bit more open ended for the most part, sometimes you can get another shot at something if there is a solution available, and you can take a different chance with that roll. In the climb example if they are trying to jab the sword into a crack they might go from making a climb check to now they make a weapon attack. if you fail, and you have no recourse to attempt any way of fixing that failure, then you would have to face whatever happens as part of the failure.
I like the concept of when the rolling reveling not only something about the quality of attempt, but also the complexity of a task.
Like for the strength check door example:
If str 18 Barbarian rolls natural 1 - that means Barbarian broke an ankle, and str 14 cleric could try to do the door.
But if str 18 Barbarian does roll a natural 3 - that could mean that this door was not the wooded door. It was a metal hardened door from the first place. And Cleric could try it again - but DC for that check would be much higher - mot 15 but 25.
thanks for making the effort with the production and editing even or especially during these times!
I love how good the studio quality is getting
Often times when something is a guaranteed success, it tends to come in stages so I have them roll anyway, but still give them the minimum regardless, but more depending on the roll.
totally agree, and as you know, Jeremy Crawford has said many times it's what he intended all along; it just didn't get written so clearly in the books! Note though, that players always trying to wrangle things so they just happen to always be skilled in what they are trying to do, is going too far (you parodied it in the intro, but I didn't hear it addressed seriously)
As Matt Colville has preached. Failing forward is big. Indiana Jones wouldn't survive as a hero if he didn't fail forward. Anyways I really liked and appreciated the video. Great job guys.
Tbh i agree with Jim's spicy take. And i asked for diablo sauce and got mild so i kinda needed that
There are so many more exciting ways to deal with failed stealth roles than simply being spotted. A smart enemy would say nothing when they notice you, but quickly scurry off to go talk to their commander to arrange and ambush for you when you get here. The scariest part of stealth is that the feedback for failure is not necessarily immediate
*slow claps for intro* This is what I sub for.
I've yet to try it but a concept popped into my head as you described the way you interpret and manage passive skill checks.
Keep your interpretation of passive skill checks, but also keep tabs on the 'true passive' for every character. Since you cannot critically fail a check every character has an effective performance floor whenever they roll of 1(lowest you can get on a d20)+AS and prof mod. At first this metric won't matter too much (a level 1 cleric with 16 WIS and proficiency in perception has a 'true passive' of 6 and you shouldn't be calling for a DC 5 perception check anyways) but as rogue expertise and features like reliable talent and Jack of all trades come into play tracking that performance floor can speed pace of play and prevent the 'barbarian hiccups'. While that level 1 rogue may have a floor on perception of 1+4(expertise)+3(WIS) = 8, his new true floor for just noticing shit at level 5 jumps to 1+6+3=10, and by 9th level his floor is 1+8+3=12, and by 11th level you can take his RAW passive because of Reliable talent.
Nicely done with the green screen. Took me a brief moment to realize you're not in the same room.
I remember a while back I was watching a DND Livestream and the two players wanted to break down some furniture to have makeshift weapons as they didn't start with any, and the DM had them roll to break down the chairs. They both failed, and weren't allowed to roll again. Later in that same stream they had to spend like 20 minutes trying to find rules for mounted combat because they wanted to hop on some horses and trample a zombie that was blocking the stable doors (because the only weapon they had was a rolling pin to share between them.)
As a DM this was my favorite Ep to date
I have posted this in comment threads on other channels, but I think this is an appropriate place to repeat it:
Regarding the "having players roll for everything", situation. One school of thought that I have come to follow is: don't have the players roll for mundane actions... unless a critical failure can lead to hilarity. The caveat for this, of course, is that this is the type of campaign where such things would not be jarringly out of place. The barbarian trying to jump over the rail of an animal pen and face planting in manure; the bard attempting to negotiate a better deal at an inn, accidentally insults the proprietor and the entire party is thrown out into the street; the druid tries to ride an unfamiliar horse and is kicked off into a watering hole. To paraphrase Mercer, patron saint of GMs across all rules sets: your most vivid and long lasting memories will be of your spectacular failures... Or even better, those of your fellow party members. ;-)
One of the best videos you guys have put out. Thank you! Definitely recommending my DM friends check this out!
The title of this video is already excruciatingly relatable
Hey guys , still loving your videos and am fully caught up now!
Pruitt's Kenny Rogers rendition cracked me up 😂😂😂
A really important conversation for this game (and others). Flashbacks to incredibly low thief percentage skills in the first and second editions (utter garbage!). Thank you!
I would love to see you guys do a show about changelings
Great video! Smoothes out and speeds up a lot of potentially clunky exploration.
Rolling is playing the game but it is only part of the game as a whole. It is the mechanic by which chance is added to what otherwise would be a narrative story. It is a fair argument that the RP portion of the game should make up a larger portion of the game overall. Great show guys this is the second one that I've watched and I enjoy your approaches to these conversations.
The editing here is pretty good. It took me like 3 minutes to figure out what was going on.
If you guys get the time can you do a review of the Cyberpunk Red Jumpstart Kit or do you want to wait for the core book to come out? Great Video! I really hate it when people roll then when it is good they say I rolled for X just to get what they want.
This is similar to a lot of people's comments, but I think another way of looking at it that the dice roll determines the amount of luck a character had in that moment. Their base stat/modifier and the DC determined the possibility/probability, while the luck determined the actual result compared to that. My example: With no time/material constraints, you can write a letter to someone. It is impossible to fail in this situation (unless the constraints are different, ie. the player says only they will only do one attempt/take a certain amount of time). The purpose of the roll isn't your competency, but your luck in that specific instance. Low roll, it took a few tries before you got it perfect without any misspellings. High roll, you knocked it out of the park on the first try. The roll creates the specific outcome based on things out of our control, determined by the DM after the fact.
I actually made a minor typo that I missed after several read-throughs, so I guess I rolled poorly this time. btw, it might be obvious, but I disagree with his take that rolling isn't playing the game. Rolls add depth and realism when a player actively decides to do something. It rewards proactive play even if the result is negative. Rolling pass/fail is bad, but I think a more dynamic spectrum leads to more interesting play. Barely failing should be different than not even coming close.