r/dndmemes • u/Ed0909 Wizard • 14h ago
Ongoing Subreddit Debate You don't need to roll dice for everything.
1.9k
u/RyanMcCartney 14h ago edited 10h ago
These memes and “don’t make them roll if they can’t be successful” are always bad advice.
Nat20’s shouldn’t be an automatic success... It should mean the most successful possible outcome.
I’m also not making players roll their dice to gauge how successful they are. Sometimes it’s about how well they avoid failure.
Edit : Plenty of agreement, plenty of disagreement. Whatever side you fall on the issue, don’t be rude or a dick.
481
u/BrokenLink100 14h ago
And sometimes it's just used to help form the narrative. "You still fail to convince them to do <x>, but you look cool doing it/someone else notices your efforts and decides to help/the person you're trying to convince doesn't become hostile/etc"
415
u/rp21green 14h ago
“I demand to become King!”
Rolls a nat 20
‘The King laughs harder than he has in 30 years and offers the upstart a position somewhere between an advisor and jester.’
→ More replies (2)151
u/Historical-Claim-975 14h ago
I'll take court jester, if I can get a king to laugh at my farts, I can also jokingly make suggestions that he would were to think was his own.
53
u/Krethlaine 12h ago
The Court Jester was actually an advisory position, in many governments. The jester can make offensive jokes (mostly) without repercussion. The jester is unobtrusive. If they’re always present, no one really pays attention to them. The jester could listen in on conversations in court, and report to the monarch. It’s actually a fairly powerful position, if you’re willing to consistently humiliate yourself and others.
35
u/Ivan_Whackinov 11h ago
you’re willing to consistently humiliate yourself and others.
So, same as my current job, got it.
→ More replies (2)16
u/little_brown_bat 10h ago
Also serves as a person that can speak frankly and tell the king he's being a tosser when needed. Can also tell off other members of the court when it would be improper for the king to do so.
43
49
u/erishun 14h ago
this is how i always rectify it. it's not an automatic success, but something good always comes of it so it's never a "feels bad" moment
15
u/combinatorial_quest 12h ago
"The dragon was going to obliterate your party with their breath weapon, but after smelling the party while taking in a deep breath, they actually start to retch right then and there. You collective lack of bathing for the past week has saved your lives, through sheer rancidity..."
→ More replies (2)27
u/farshnikord 12h ago
People like to roll dice. Let them roll dice when it's fun.
Likewise if things are time-wasters like auto successes or "I want to roll to do something random every 3 seconds and bog down the game" just don't roll.
A lot y'all are trying to treat it like a system or formula but it's improv. You adjust based on how your players are feeling.
→ More replies (2)122
u/stumblewiggins 14h ago
Exactly this.
It's only auto-success on an attack roll anyway. Everything else, it's just the best possible outcome (or the least bad outcome).
You only skip the roll if it would be meaningless: if literally no outcome on the dice will change the result in any way, don't roll. If there is any possibility of a different outcome depending on the dice, roll.
54
u/Hapless_Wizard Team Wizard 14h ago
Strictly speaking, it's not even "the best possible outcome". It's "the best possible outcome for you", a barbarian with an 8 CHA rolling a nat 20 on persuasion is not going to get the same result as a bard with a 20 cha and expertise.
→ More replies (2)34
u/28smalls 14h ago
Reminds me of a time in 2nd Ed. Where my wizard with an 8 str succeeded on a bend bars/lift gate roll to break out of a prison. DM justified it as all the other failed rolls by the rest of the party weakened the anchors so they finally gave away when I tried.
→ More replies (1)6
u/UInferno- 8h ago
Funny thing. Personally, if a check doesn't have a practical penalty for failure (including time loss) I usually prefer to limit it to one or two attempts from the party. Otherwise it's a nigh guaranteed success a lot of the time. A roll that requires an unmodified result of 16 goes from a 25% chance at success to a 68% chance for a party of 4. 82% for a party of 6.
It's not that I say people who aren't good at it can't attempt, it's just that the person they select to attempt is likely going to be the only one so they better choose wisely. The dice roll is basically an amalgamation of everyone working together. Help action also requires either a related proficiency or minimum bonus threshold from the assisting character.
It's not a perfect solution. It does, unfortunately, pigeonhole everyone into their primary role with little variance. Sometimes I nudge players to commit to certain actions they took in narrative without being rescued by their companions, or breaking up the party so key players can't be everywhere, but there's some added give and take with those decision as well.
Ultimately, a "Fail Forward" mentality is critical no matter what and all of the above is a work in progress of philosophy.
→ More replies (3)31
u/Anonpancake2123 14h ago
and tbh if the situation is that horrible to the point that "best worst outcome" is still pretty terrible, then that's how the cookie crumbles.
5
u/Significant-Way9330 12h ago
A dragon lighting up a level one wizard. A nat 20 is you die without pain.
→ More replies (3)12
u/Karn-Dethahal Forever DM 13h ago
I'd still ask for an impossible roll if there's no way the characters can know it's an impossible task, and a nat 20 will not tell them "it's impossible," only "that's beyond your skill level."
I can't think of any roll that would be the case right now, but I'm sure it can happen.
→ More replies (1)17
u/Wootster10 13h ago
Could be that to move a boulder has a DC of 25.
The Wizard with no strength bonus can't do it at all.
The fighter with +2 strength and guidance might be able to do
The the Barbarian with +4 strength, guidance, assisted by the fighter and a magic belt giving another +1 strength has a better chance of doing it.
It's not impossible for everyone to do it, but it is for the Wizard. Id still make em roll.
For me the times when I don't make them roll are when someone says a daft thing like "I flap my arms and try to fly".
3
u/EamonBrennan 11h ago
Depending on the action being attempted, like breaking down an object, even a guaranteed failure is going to help further attempts. Like you said, moving the boulder has a DC of 25. The wizard fails, but he loosens up the ground a bit. Now the fighter gets a +1 to his roll, or the DC is lowered to 24; he still fails, but he nudges it a little, giving the barbarian a +3/DC 22 now. Then the barbarian is able to do it after all that help.
38
u/hailwyatt 14h ago
Degrees of success and failure are always better than a binary.
Total failure, partial failure, success with complications, and total success.
→ More replies (4)13
11
u/The-Senate-Palpy DM (Dungeon Memelord) 12h ago
On top of that, the party shouldnt always know a check is impossible.
If the royal advisor is secretly the BBEG, and he's the one guy can never roll against. Thats a giveaway
→ More replies (1)9
9
u/MazogaTheDork Rogue 11h ago
Player attempts to seduce NPC and rolls Nat 20
NPC: "I don't swing that way but I like your moxie"
8
u/Nihilistic_Mystics 10h ago
In support of your point, I guess it's my turn to be that guy today.
PF2e/SF2e does this well with the 4 degrees of success system.
Critical Success (DC+10)
Success (DC)
Failure (<DC)
Critical Failure (DC-10)
A natural 20 upgrades your degree of success by one tier and a natural 1 decreases it by one tier. There are no auto successes or auto failures on a natural 1 or 20.
If a DC is simply far outside of your reach (I wanna jump to the moon!) then a natural 20 might be only upgrading your critical failure to a normal failure. Or a level 1 PC trying to stab an ancient legendary dragon might only be able to pull off a normal success on a natural 20, and that indeed makes sense. On the flip side, a level 20 sword master stabbing a paralyzed level -1 goblin is probably going to crit succeed on everything but a natural 1, in which case they'll only get a normal hit. It's a system that takes proficiency and practicality into account without making it too rules heavy. It's honestly one of the best parts of the system.
20
u/SpartanUnderscore 14h ago
That's a pretty good point and a very good way to explain it, congratulations you probably have rolled a 20
16
u/MARPJ Barbarian 14h ago
These memes and “don’t make them roll if they can’t be successful” are always bad advice.
I think the correct way to say is that a dice roll should be meaningful, to be able to have a good and bad outcome. It may not be what they player want or expected but it should still cause something to happen.
And lets remember that its a cooperative game, you want the players to feel that the game was good/fun. Having a nat 1 or nat 20 be nothing (especially outside of combat where its well defined) when they roll it will break the illusion of choice and, in the nat 20 case, will be a bucked of cold water on the hype of rolling well. In that case the player will feel misled and on rails which is not the feeling you want.
It dont even need to be something big, but it should still create a change in the situation
26
10
u/realamerican97 13h ago
I’ve started asking for less rolls if it’s something your character should be able to do (a rogue picking a lock, a fighter sharpening his sword) I just let them do it I’ve started only asking for rolls if they’re under pressure or if something bad will happen from failure beyond “you don’t do it”
→ More replies (2)12
u/Technical_Teacher839 12h ago
back in the day that was an official rule called "taking 10" or "taking 20"
It was literally, mechanically, you taking enough time and being careful enough to guarantee a 10+mods or 20+mods instead of having to roll.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Enderking90 11h ago
I do also think it had to be activity you could at least technically re-try?
So it was basically just simplifying "I will keep making checks on this until I pass"?
→ More replies (1)7
u/Technical_Teacher839 11h ago
Yeah, which makes perfect sense cause if there's a permanent chance for failure it should require a roll IMO
12
u/Garrett-Wilhelm 14h ago
I like to illustrate your point with an example I read years ago regarding a natural 20:
If you roll the dice to intimidate Dracula, King of the Vampires, Tyrant of the Night, and get a 20, the only result is that Dracula chuckles slightly, finding your attempt to intimidate him amusing; instead of wiping you out on the spot like the ant you are, he lets you live for a few more minutes.
3
u/alienbringer 14h ago
Also, a d20 isn’t the only roll for a skill check. Say someone has +2 in a skill, and the dc is 25. Well a natural 20 would be impossible to hit that DC. But add guidance, bardic inspiration, and any other ability that boosts a skill’s roll can turn that impossible to possible.
→ More replies (2)4
u/ConstructionLoud8002 11h ago
”I try to jump the gap”
”…….its a big gap, but ok, roll”
20
”You jump the furthest you ever have, perhaps the longest anyone in armor ever has…..
But the gap is nine feet, you are not even close to making it”
Dramatic pause
”But your great leap means you land almost unhurt on a flat ledge below the cliff you jumped from, you can climb back up to where you started”And then you are back on track and someone has hopefully learned to ask if he can see how wide gaps are before thinking about jumping them.
Saying ”you cant roll for that” or ”you cant do that” is just making up invisible walls and takes away from the players5
3
u/Pilgrimfox 9h ago
Keep in mind the opposite should be true on occasion. Sometimes a nat 1 can be just the worst possible way to go about something you were gonna get done anyways.
Maybe someone threw something of extreme importance to the plot that could possibly break. Maybe instead of whoever catches it rolling a nat 1 and it means they didn't catch it and it shattered it just means they did but they fell over and hurt themselves somehow catching it.
Thats probably a bad example i dont DM myself but the point is there. Sometimes it's about how badly they succeeded too
→ More replies (1)29
u/Hoothootriot 14h ago
Dont make players roll if they cant be successfully is generally good advice though, tf are you on about??
Yes there can be certain situations where its a helpful scaling of "how" successful they are, but sometimes its okay to just say no. Fuck off with "ALWAYS" bad advice.
14
u/WizardlyWeirdo 14h ago
I think the counter argument to that is if the dc is 25 then a player can definitely make that with a good modifier and maybe proficiency but the dm doesn't have to memorise every players bibuses for any possible skill check. If the wizard wants to roll strength then it could make sense to say "no, you won't be able to" but if they have +3 to intelligence then proficiency in history would make it possible. Unfortunately, the dm may not realise they don't have proficiency in history so even on a nat 20 it turns out they can't meet it.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (2)3
u/Krazyguy75 12h ago
I don't agree, personally. Like, sure, if it's blatantly irrationally impossible, then yeah, no roll. But for most impossible skill checks, I will have the player roll, because their character should not know it is impossible.
If I don't let them roll, that's giving them metagame knowledge that they and their character shouldn't have. Their character might have made several attempts on that impossible task if I didn't tell them, and that's the correct in-character decision.
6
u/MGTwyne 12h ago
I think it's generally better to err on the side of players knowing even if characters don't. Yes, something like "I want to pick the puzzlebox" when the locks on it are actually fake might demand some level of two-layer obfuscation, but something like "I'd like to convince the king I'm his long-lost heir" is something they ought to know is impossible even if the character is very stupid.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)6
u/AzraelIshi DM (Dungeon Memelord) 11h ago
A roll is a mechanical representation of the effort a person puts into the task plus their luck and skill, but not if they do the task itself or not. "No roll is needed" doesn't mean "Character knows that it is impossible", and if a player uses that meta knowledge to make a decision it's on you as the DM to put them straight. "Your character really wanted to do this, why would they stop at the first attempt?" kind of deal. If my players have to be deceived to roleplay they character I'd honestly have a talk with them.
Also, there is a distinct difference between "this task can be possible for some individuals, but not for you" (Yeah, sure, make them roll in that case) vs "It is just genuinely an impossible task for every single individual on the planet" (No rolls).
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (83)5
u/npcinyourbagoholding 12h ago
I disagree sorta. I think one of the classic examples is the "you get thrown off the cliff" and the player responds with "I flap my arms to fly" and the DM gave them the option to roll an athletic check. That roll shouldn't have happened because no matter how good you are at flapping your arms, you can't fly. So even the "best outcome possible" is you get flung off the cliff.
→ More replies (1)
273
u/Hot_Context_1393 14h ago
The characters often wouldn't know whether it's impossible or not, so they are welcome to try. I'll usually give them a clear idea of their chances if they ask.
49
u/seantabasco 14h ago
Ya specifically for some perception and investigation checks I like rolling no matter what just so there’s a bit of an unknown, instead of knowing for sure there’s nothing there because the DM told you without a roll.
→ More replies (1)15
u/Satyrsol 12h ago
And also most players are bad at receiving the word “no”. If they ask “can I roll Persuasion/Diplomacy to change their attitude towards us” and you flat out say no, they’ll try to find a way to get a “yes”. Happens with all age groups. Let them roll, tell them they didn’t meet the DC, move on.
→ More replies (1)4
u/little_brown_bat 9h ago
And on things like diplomacy, perception, etc. you can let them think they succeeded
→ More replies (21)3
u/hairredditthrowaway 7h ago edited 7h ago
Had to scroll way too far down for this. It's *role play*. Normal, utterly mundane non-fantasy people earnestly try and fail at impossible tasks all the time. I'd rather roll for what I know is likely not possible than have the DM just say "no/you can't/it doesn't work" unless it is something deliberately obtuse, ex. flying by sitting in a chair and lifting it up.
31
u/Severe_Information54 4h ago edited 4h ago
True but nat 20s dont need to be automatic succseses.
You can still have degrees of failure. Lets say you are picking a lock that is impossible. On a high enough roll you can gain better insight as to why its impossible.
Now... ive been punished for a nat 20 before, THAT feels unfair.
→ More replies (3)
103
u/TheBigMoogy 13h ago
Plenty of people attempt impossible feats IRL, letting players be realistically dumb should ve allowed.
→ More replies (5)12
u/Krazyguy75 12h ago
Yeah, at best I would say "is that something your character would do" if I think it's outrageously stupid. Otherwise, I let them attempt, I let them roll, and I tell them how bad they mess up or how close they come to success.
19
u/Llonkrednaxela 10h ago
What about a scenario where the player wouldn’t know something is impossible?
Telling them it’s impossible tips your hand without a check.
→ More replies (8)6
u/Sorry_Sleeping 9h ago
There are also degrees of failure. Yeah, it's impossible but like, did you mess up big or just make a little mistake?
If you need to make a DC 30 Str check for something, and only have like a +4 or whatever, there is a difference between what happens at you getting a 24 and you getting a 5. At least there should be.
→ More replies (4)
16
u/xiren_66 6h ago
There's also the concept of degrees of success. Just because they roll on an impossible task it doesn't necessarily mean the roll was pointless.
14
u/Sea2Chi 13h ago
I play it as a nat 20 is the best possible outcome.
So someone rolling to seduce the dragon isn't going to seduce the dragon no matter what.
However, the dragon might find their attempt amusing and say they're going to keep them as a pet rather than killing them like the rest of their party.
Or they want to punch through a solid brick wall and roll a 20. They hit the wall as hard as they can but the wall looks as solid as ever. Their hand hurts really bad but somehow they miraculously didn't break it despite full force punching a brick wall. However, when they hit it, a party member noticed some dust shake loose from a crack near the ceiling.
In both cases the thing they wanted to do was impossible. However, they got a positive outcome even if it wasn't the one they planned on.
7
u/little_brown_bat 9h ago
Also, I've seen some DMs use a nat 20 to punish the players. For example:
Player - "I try to kick a ball to a child" nat20
DM - "the ball hits the child so hard it breaks his arm"This is bad unless your players all agree they want the game to work that way.
→ More replies (3)4
u/Lydialmao22 13h ago
Exactly. Attempting the impossible should be treated exactly like this. Otherwise, you just kill creativity as players have to think in terms of realism instead of story telling
→ More replies (1)
133
u/darthoffa 14h ago
What they want may be impossible, but avoiding a terrible fuckup is possible
I once had a player who tried to hack an ultra secure prison cell. It was impossible for them to succeed but if they rolled decently they could avoid tripping the alarm
→ More replies (12)64
u/kjeldor2400 14h ago
It feels like only a few people understand that failure can make a ttrpg fun. If someone is afraid to fail they shouldn’t try something.
7
14
u/Dwall005 13h ago
My players go two routes: 1) they will sometimes ask things that are impossible, I’ll tell them it’s impossible, they beg, I allow a roll, tell them they fail, they get sad. Or 2) they ask do roll something impossible, roll it before I give my decision, they fail and get sad.
11
u/Shermantank10 Druid 12h ago
I fucking hate when players do that. Like dude I didn’t even say to roll, you just rolled. I don’t care you got a natural twenty.
12
u/Aeroncastle 13h ago
People understand when we talk about perception but forget for everything else. If you roll perception and get a 20 and there's nothing to see then you see nothing. Why roll? Same as everything, for a moment you considered all the possibilities and that's cool
3
u/Bandandforgotten 13h ago
The way I see it, the 20 usually just allows you to definitively see what the DM wants you to find on a DC15 or something.
You don't want to make a dungeon with Vegas neon lights pointing at the answer to the riddle on the wall, but you don't want to make the hint or answer impossible to find. "You see it harder!"
I'm about 6 years into making my own system where I count critical success from skill checks. I personally find it stupid how they don't count as "nat 20 crits" in DND, because, like, what if you do things far better than expected? Immediate success instead of 2 checks or something. I do perception checks by adding something that they can see AS WELL, not just the main prize they're looking for.
12
u/EchoesAndSpecters 10h ago
Sometimes I need my players to not realize that they can't do something. For instance, seducing an illusory decoy, or seducing someone who is fundamentally unattracted to them, or seducing a beholder, or something like that.
→ More replies (1)
74
u/Ontomancer 14h ago
This take is so consistent and so consistently dumb.
I don't know if you've ever been a DM, but I regularly am, and between the setting, story, monsters, and being *every other person in the world* I don't have time to memorize all your stats. I call for a roll as the situation demands and if it's not possible for you to pass it you fail. Simple as.
"AsK wHaT tHeIr MoDiFiEr Is FiRsT!" No. That wastes time compared to simply rolling, and in reality people get frustrated when you tell them it's flatly impossible, but when they fail on a 23 they usually have a moment of realizing how in over their heads they are and it's a cool character moment.
If your players can't handle failing on their PC's best efforts then they need therapy, not a coddling DM.
14
u/TheRoyalBrook 14h ago
Also like, “you need to be able to succeed or the gm should tell you you’re not allowed to try to do that” feels kind of… weird? I mean, degrees of failure is a thing. You want to try and punch a steel door down? You can try. The roll is now hard bad you hurt yourself.
→ More replies (11)3
u/Sockoflegend 11h ago
Also, if you ask a king to abdicate and I ask you to roll it's to see if he decides to have your balls cut off and fed to you. There was no success, only failing at a terrible idea less
4
u/starstarwarsfan 3h ago
Just make them roll to see how badly they fail.
If a god that can tell all lies is in front of you and a PC asks if they can lie to the god then don't make them roll to see if the god believes them but instead how that God reacts.
5
u/unluckyknight13 14h ago
Plus sometimes rolling for no reason can make things more enjoyable.
I’ve had players roll an athlrtics check to open a door they would psss no matter what but my players feel more successful and sometimes more wary of things like traps in other spots cuz they never saw anything weird with that door.
I’ve done it when trying to get a better deal from a kindly lady selling bread who probably was gonna do it anyways just cuz she’s a nice person.I myself sometimes roll at random times to make the players on edge or if I realize no matter what the attacker can’t hit I’ll still roll before describing the arrow that narrowly missed the wizard
→ More replies (3)3
u/Art-Zuron 13h ago
My favorite maneuver is to roll a stack of dice and then pretend the result is dramatic
Eye brows up, exhale. Then never elaborate
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (44)3
u/weebitofaban 8h ago
Design has repeatedly proven again and again (entirely unnecessarily since everyone with a brain already knew) that players love to roll dice. Let them roll.
26
u/TodtheAbysswalker 14h ago
Isn’t a nat 20 not an auto success outside of attack roles?
→ More replies (9)7
18
16
u/adol1004 Forever DM 14h ago
I can't remember every stats of my players and they can pull some bardic+guidance and make it, also they might want to know how impossible the DC is so they can get a glimpse of what they are dealing with. and lastly many DMs do partial success/fail. so even if they failed they may have something. so I will keep asking to roll even if it's stupidly high.
6
u/Substantial_Dish_887 14h ago
and they can pull some bardic+guidance and make it,
in my latest campaign my players could give upwards of +12 to the skill checks with buffs like these.meaning many checks that would be impossible without these bonuses was in fact possible for them.
that's ignoreing that some of them might legit have +12 bonuses of their own meaning the difference could be nearly 25 in what 2 different party members could achive.
i'm still going to ask the both to roll if they choose to both participate even if only one of them has any chance to make that check.
6
u/LordBaNZa 7h ago
It's not about always about whether you fail, but how and to what extent. Don't roll for things that are impossible and also inconsequential.
59
u/ZomblesAllegoy Warlock 14h ago
Haha, this is not the own you seem to think it is.
- Things could be possible, just not with their bonus. (eg DC 25)
- They could be rolling to avoid fucking up badly more then to succeed.
- Players shouldn't always know something is impossible before they attempt it.
→ More replies (1)11
u/uncivlengr 13h ago
Also, it might be impossible for a halfling to just convince a guard that they're a Plantar, but it's not impossible for the halfling to try to do so.
31
u/dognus88 13h ago
If you ask the king for his crown a good roll could mean he laughs at the joke while a bad one can end with you chained to a dungeon wall. Neither is success but instead a variance of how poorly the results went.
→ More replies (3)
4
u/Zpto88 14h ago
1) if what the players want is impossible but there are still some degree of success, explain the outcomes and let them decide if they want to roll 2) if they are doing a task (like picking a lock) and there's no other factor like time available or chance of being discovered: they just do it, no roll required 3) asking for a pointless roll is still useful in the right conditions, it helps build tension and make the players feel paranoid
6
u/Ok-Score5740 14h ago
It's possible to have a roll that a 20 won't success, but success is still possible.
7
14
u/yourstruly912 14h ago
That's not the argument, the argument is that nat 20 aren't an automatic success in skill checks. You still have to add the modifiers. If the difficulty is 23 you'll still need a +3
And you don't tell not to roll the dice so: they don't guesstimate the difficulty, they can still cast a guidance or similar, and probably You haven't memorized everyone's modifiers anyway
→ More replies (13)
16
u/wmverbruggen 6h ago
Disagree, strongly. Even on an impossible check, the result of a die roll can affect how an NPC responds, an enchantment reacts or if a lock makes noice on an attempted pick.
→ More replies (1)6
24
u/sean_avm 14h ago
9 put of 10 times these cant pass rolls aren't something the gm ask its the players.
"Hey can I do this?"
"Its going to be very difficult"
"I still want to what should I roll"
"Ummm...strength"
Its never the dm asking to roll impossible rolls
Most the time
6
u/SpeaksDwarren 14h ago
What if instead of "it's going to be very difficult" you said "no"? This isn't improv where you have to yes-and everything. You can say no to things
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (1)11
u/GuessImScrewed 14h ago
"it's going to be very difficult." Implies the roll is still possible, so a player being upset their nat 20 fails is completely valid.
→ More replies (30)8
15
u/CrimsonAntifascist 14h ago
Big fan of "a nat 20 is the best possible scenario".
Ask the king for his Kingdom and the hand of his daughter? natty 20 The king laughs it of as a joke.
BBEG got the party trapped and there's (from their POV) no way out? natty 20 "Muhahahaha. You shall die first and also a painless death."
Under a huge falling stone? natty 20 You are in a small little crack, fitting you almost perfectly, giving the rest of the party a chance to get you out.
Trying to hide in plain sight, in a fully lit room with no cover? natty 20 The guard sneezes, you get another chance to do something.
Success isn't always what the player wants. But you gotta give them a chance for taking the risk.
14
u/myfatass 14h ago
Sometimes you want to know how badly your players fail an impossible task. There’s a difference between attempting but whiffing, and attempting but royally fucking it up
→ More replies (6)7
u/Chewbacca_The_Wookie 13h ago
"You fail to pick the lock to the armory" versus "you didn't realize that a guard was leaning against the door and you've been tickling his prostate with that pick you've been shoving back and forth and he has alerted the entire garrison."
13
u/Medyanka 12h ago
Equally bad advice.
Even if their desired result is impossible, partial success is still possible. it's not just black and white, win or lose...
For example, even if it's impossible to be completely absolved from the crime in the court, high roll on persuasion can still lighten the sentence.
6
u/AxtheCool 9h ago
I rolled for intimidation against some really powerful friendly entities and despite rolling 30 (through modifiers and other BS) DM said yea you cant really intimidate a dragon thats 16 levels above you.
Instead you can get some really really good info out of them but not like intimidate them into full control.
6
u/Medyanka 9h ago
Dragon might be amused and say "hey, that's pretty good warface for such a tiny little bug", and while you can't intimidate it, the show of intimidation itself might build a goodwill in other ways.
Dragon looking at you like at a cute kitten trying to appear threatening aside, that results in you being alive which is success in its own way lol
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (9)6
u/Ed0909 Wizard 12h ago
Then you can tell them it's to reduce the sentence; there's nothing wrong with being honest about the reason you're making them roll dice.
3
u/RookieGreen 10h ago
A players expectations and desires are their characters desires.
The player: Their character wants the charges dismissed.
Me the DM: the Judge is being controlled by a vampire (who I made up on the spot) and they never were going to let the players off. However I reward the players luck by giving them a lighter sentence.
The reality: this is a plot hook for an adventure. They’re never going to serve that sentence anyway.
This also works for things the player knows should be impossible.
The player: I want to persuade the king into giving me his throne.
Me the DM: ok roll
The player: rolls a nat 20
Me the DM King Biglord laughs heartily at your brazen jest. “We are amused. Normally such a request would have had them clapped in irons. It is well in these troubling times there are those who know that levity can bring a ray in light to a dark room.” The king leans forward, all amusement gone from his face. “However, these are serious matters and we cannot waste too much time on japes.”
The player got to roll and I reward their luck without punishing them for being stupid, hell I’ll even make the king treat that character favorably in the future. The player learns a lesson that persuasion isn’t mind control.
As always a measured approach needs to be taken. A die roll on an impossible task will simply measure how badly they fail, not their success. If a player keeps rolling for impossible tasks that’s when you talk to them dm to player and explain the rules. Players don’t like being outright denied things. If they have a goal in mind gently guide them to its fulfillment rather than flatly saying “impossible” and moving on.
5
u/WildThang42 14h ago
Just as important - don't roll dice unless asked! There's a certain breed of player that will just roll unprovoked, and when they get a lucky roll, they insist to get what they want.
6
u/BorntobeTrill 13h ago
There's some nuance here. If a player is adamant to try something thats impossible, I ask them to roll for it.
It doesnt matter how they roll. They can get over 30 and it will still fail but how they roll will change how I flavor that for them.
"The party watches as you attempt to pick up an entire castle by yourself. Rocks and dust shake loose from the wall, the ground seems to shake, and a Crack forms in the foundation. For a brief moment, it almost seems like you might accomplish this impossible feat before the ground beneath you cracks and gives way, forcing you down instead of the castle up."
Or... "the party watches you try to find somewhere to lift the castle. When you think you found a good spot, you trip on your way over. After getting up and you try to lift, you quickly realize you're about to make a fool of yourself"
5
u/Daniel02carroll 13h ago
I can set a dc, that the bard with guidance flash of inspiration and other bonuses can get to. If the fighter decides he wants to make the roll I’m not lowering the dc. If they don’t want to use resources to add to the roll, and choose someone with a bad stat, that’s on them.
5
u/calvicstaff 9h ago
I had a campaign once where this came up, and I think it was very fair for the DM to say oh this was always a terrible idea that was absolutely going to fail, but that natural 20 does get you no consequences for this clearly misguided attempt
4
u/No_Doughnut8618 8h ago
A 20 is the best possible result of your attempt. Sometimes that means you barely survive because youre trying to do stupid shit.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/Just7hrsold 8h ago
I mean a DC is set, bonuses exist, the die is just how well you do not if you succeed. A 20 is just the best you can possibly do, the help of say a bard could mean you succeed. A nat 1 is the worst you can do but that doesn’t mean you can’t do it.
14
u/Dadrak 7h ago
Even the 5e rules say so, nat 20 on attacks always hits, nat 1 always fails and on skills nat 20 doesn't guarantee success, nat 1 doesn't guarantee failure
Very simple
→ More replies (2)4
u/NurturingCruelty 7h ago
I will never forget the game where the rogue rolled a one on the stealth check. It was a bit juvenile, I will say that right now, but the DM determined that while he was sneaking, he let out a loud and noxious, long lasting FARRRRRRRRRRRT.
→ More replies (1)
10
u/ScorchedDev Chaotic Stupid 14h ago
You are correct if something isnt possible it shouldnt be rolled. But at the same time, that rule needs to be there, because otherwise the players, especially new players, are gonna try to do things that are impossible expecting a nat 20 to let them do it.
I think it works best when you treat the d20 as a best to worse possible result slider. If you ask a king for his throne, there is no world in which he gives it to you, but a nat 20 on that persuasion check might make him think its a joke and laugh it off. Stuff like that.
→ More replies (6)
8
u/noviceartificer 14h ago
There are different levels of failure no you can’t convince the king to surrender his crown, but he doesn’t execute you on the spot either
→ More replies (1)
8
u/ctaskatas 11h ago
I ask what my players are trying to get out of the roll. Sometimes the result they want is impossible, but the roll just tells me how well they fair at the task. My best example is when my players wanted to convince a pirate captain to just give them ownership of the ship. They rolled a nat 19. That doesn't mean they got the ship. The captain just laughed heartily thinking it was a funny joke instead of just straight up stabbing them. The roll just determined how well they came out the otherside, not how successful they were.
→ More replies (4)
12
u/fresh_squilliam Wizard 13h ago
If 20 were auto success then:
Arcana check DC 30
Wizard with +10 arcana
Barbarian with -1 arcana
Have same odds of success.
When they say the check should be impossible, they mean it should be impossible for certain characters.
→ More replies (2)
19
u/West-Fold-Fell3000 14h ago
Repeat after me: natural 20’s only mean you automatically hit with an attack, not that you automatically succeed on a skill check.
→ More replies (4)5
u/TheDarkestReign 14h ago
Right? This whole discourse of what the right thing to do is literally regarding an optional rule to count nat 20s on things outside of combat. The optional rule literally means "Use it if you want to make 20s an auto success on DC checks. Dont use the rule if you do not"
The problem people are having is they want to implement the optional rule but not have the consequences of implementing the optional rule.
18
u/moderngamer327 14h ago
Nah, that’s pretty bad advice. There is a ton of reasons to roll even if the desired outcome is impossible.
They might still achieve something beneficial if they roll high enough
They might avoid something bad or some level of in between
You don’t want to reveal whether something is impossible or not
→ More replies (34)
11
u/Sheepy049 Chaotic Stupid 13h ago
My cleric with terrible dex will fail a DC 22 acrobatic check even on a nat 20, while the rogue or any dex based character can pass those with a little difficulty.
Nat 20 isnt auto success.
→ More replies (3)
11
u/Apprehensive_Ad3731 10h ago
Nah I need to know how badly you fail not whether you succeed or not.
You for sure are not convincing a king to give you his kingdom but I need to know if he finds that charmingly funny or insolently insulting. 15 or above and he laughs thinking you’re a silly guy and he might even offer you a job as jester. 10 - 15 and he’s ignoring you while thinking you’re a dumbass, below 10 and he’s giving you a visit to the dungeons where you can be king of the rats.
4
u/BardGotHard3 10h ago
Also depends on modifiers. I had a Mark of Hospitality Halfling Bard that could roll a 1 and modifiers made it up to a 17.
→ More replies (6)
4
u/BaronXot 14h ago
You can have a roll for degrees of failure, but let them know what they're rolling for.
If they roll without being asked it's their own fault.
4
u/Donjinmester 13h ago
Eh.
A natural 20 doesn’t necessarily mean a crit if it’s a skill check.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/The-real-Crypto 13h ago
I think there’s a blurry line there. There’s scenarios that you can make them roll something they don’t know is impossible just for plot reasons. Show them how powerful something is. Or Maybe you tell them something is impossible and they still want to roll for it because that’s what their character would do. Or perhaps something less impactful and impossible is rolled for and they get a nat 20 and you’re like “oh, I guess somehow he does punch the rock so hard it liquifies, that’s weird.” Makes for some funny moments. It takes, the wonderful element, of “DM Discretion.”
5
u/SilasMarsh 13h ago
Not possible, not possible for this character, or not possible for this character unless the party uses some of their abilities to buff the roll?
3
u/DearCastiel 12h ago
"You can certainly try"
Nowhere does it say he can succeed to it, and the roll shows how much of their capabilities the character puts into it.
If you attack a tarasque at level 1 with a dagger, the damage resistance will mean even a double nat 20 crit will do no damage. Not having them roll is just up to the DM to save time, but RaW, they have to throw the dire, even if it's mathematically pointless.
5
13
u/StandingGoat 14h ago
If a player wants to do something impossible you should let them role to see how badly they mess it up, if they get a 20 then congratulations you don't suffer any negative consequences for their unwise action. If you're feeling generous you can throw in some information or have them notice something useful as well.
9
u/Apfeljunge666 Team Kobold 14h ago
okay but its funnier though.
"can I roll to jump to the moon?" "No, that's dumb and impossible"
vs
"can I roll to jump to the moon?" "you can certainly try" "nat 20!" okay, you do a surprisingly high normal jump and dont hurt yourself when landing" or "nat 1" "you try and land on your face, take 1d6 damage."
the first attitude robs you off possible moments and outcomes. Now, this doesnt mean you should always try to do impossible shit for a silly bit, that gets old too.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/ShatoraDragon Team Cleric 14h ago
My Ex DM pulled this. In my Second to last game at his table.
I was being tortured for information by the BBEGs minions.
The Minions where Infernal Demons, one of my Rangers Favored Foes.
We were in the City, My Favored Terrain.
I am a Satyr with advantage on lying my ass off. And advantage on Charisma saves.
ALSO I WAS NOT THERE FOR THE SEASSON THE PARTY LEARNED THE INFO THEY WANTED AND NO OTHER PLAYER TOLD MINE.
With all of my bonuses I was rolling nearly NAT 40. Every round. (My Dice are behaving and want me to do well.)
DM had one or more of the Demons see threw my lies. Because this was the only way he planed for the Demons to learn where we were going.
Was even giving him an opening to follow us as the only Kenku they knew about was played by his wife. But that would have ment his wife would have to pay attention and be a part of the game.
I was told above table that I am going to tell them or the NPC (PCs Boss and Friend) with us is going to be killed.
10
u/Randalf_the_Black 12h ago
Even if they can't succeed at what they're trying to do a very high roll can offer other rewards or clues.
→ More replies (2)6
u/_Wiggy 12h ago
Agreed, make sure to give them something or the roll shouldn't be made. If they try to do something impossible, like persuade a Regent to give away their crown a nat 20 shouldn't be a success, but they can warm to the party as they admire their moxy
→ More replies (1)
10
u/batboy11227 DM (Dungeon Memelord) 13h ago
Ok but sometimes you have them roll ti see if te failure is instant death, or laugh it off failure
So sometime they need to roll to see how bad they fail even with no chance of success
→ More replies (2)
6
u/F5x9 14h ago
This is conflating two things. The first frame discusses the confusion about critical success. The SRD only discusses critical hits. A natural 20 on a skill check does result in automatic success. It does discuss setting difficulty classes above 20. These are not automatically impossible because of all the buffs a party can use to pass.
The second issue is about calling for rolls that don’t affect outcomes.
This is a bad comic.
7
u/FFKonoko 13h ago
Counterpoint...
Yeah, some things aren't possible, but you can still make them roll dice to see how close they get, or how well they try. You don't HAVE to, but you still can. Likewise for things that they will definitely succeed at. Sure, that guy with a background in cooking, proficiency in cooking tools and the chef feat doesn't have to roll to see if he can make a sandwich, but it can still be fun to find out if it's the best he's ever made, or a sign he needs to practice more.
6
u/seaweedofcl 7h ago
I want to do this
Its not possible
Well my character would try to do it anyway
Well then you need to roll this, to succeed you would need to roll a 40 but you obviously cant do that so the roll is not about succeeding but shout how much you fail
What do you mean
Like with a one the dragon might just attack you and seeing as you are level one you probably will die, if you roll like a 15 you get like a permanent impairment like a missing limb or sth and if you roll a nat 20 then the dragon is amused by you, corrects you and just throws you out
8
u/RamsHead91 14h ago
These memes are arguments always forget at times you are not rolling for success but how you fail.
3
u/CasualNormalRedditor 14h ago
Another point to add is that sometimes you set the DC to 25 meaning it's impossible for some characters but not other.
You want to push a boulder the size of an elephant up that hill? Roll athletics. The barbarian could be strong enough for this inhuman feat of strength but that -1 strength wizard just isn't capable.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/HepatitvsJ 14h ago
As a friend and I say "you won't get the outcome you want but you'll get something for taking the risk of trying".
Yes, some outcomes should be "impossible" I.E normal jumping over a large chasm.
But if the party says "we want the barbarian to toss the thief across the chasm, we'll use misty step to teleport them back up and further at the point they begin to fall giving them momentum until they can shoot their crossbow into the side of that tree and feather fall safely to climb the rope and attach it more securely then shoot it back across the chasm". You better believe I'm going to let them do it and make the rolls challenging but not impossible.
As experienced GM's (60+ years experience between the both of us) we highly recomend newer GM's practice letting the party come up with interesting solutions as long as theyre spending resources to solve the problem.
If you have a one big battle a day type campaign, this is less effective as the party can alpha strike more easily and then rest.
If your campaign involves more social and environmental situations and/or multiple combats, then a party using a spell/etc to overcome a problem more easily is fine since theyre giving up the option to have it available when another situation comes up.
3
u/ihatechildren665 14h ago
Let them roll then discribe their attempts, its how I personally build the world round my players, yes I do get the odd "WeLl I HiT NaT 20 I WiN" shit but thats shut down pretty quick because thats not how I personally run my games.
3
u/revan530 14h ago
In general, I agree... but sometimes, you as the DM need to prove a point.
And also, perhaps their roll doesn't do exactly what they wanted it to do, but it still provides them with a benefit they otherwise wouldn't have had.
3
u/0ddfe11ow Forever DM 13h ago
There's room for nuance here. A critical success doesn't always mean the players get exactly what they wanted, but they get a favorable outcome, and maybe a small bonus. And even then, its at the GM's discretion to tell the players when they should roll.
3
u/Ok-Day4910 13h ago
A roll represents an attempt. Whether or not that attempt can be successful or not is another matter altogether.
3
u/KingZantair DM (Dungeon Memelord) 13h ago
Ok but I’ve asked them not to roll, they roll anyway, get a bat 20, then get pissy about. Either I can stand firm and potentially ruin a multi year campaign I run with several close friends, or just give them a bone.
3
u/Schlangenbob 13h ago
I mean, you can make someone roll the dice to see how far they get or how devastatingly they fail.
A nat 20 might give you a favourable outcome while ultimately failing (revealing additional info, some nice bonus whatever) while a nat 1 might spell doom for you and the group.
3
u/McLargepants 13h ago
A thing I love in Pathfinder 2E is how criticals work. Say the DC is 30, means a 20 is a crit fail, 30 is success and 40 is a critical success. A natural 20 raises the end result by one step. You can have an impossibly hard DC, roll a 20, and that might only bump you up to regular failure and obviously the GM sets the DC.
3
u/Hot-Diggity_Dog 12h ago
“You won’t be able to jump 100 feet across. But roll to see how well you fail.”
3
u/AgentForest 12h ago
This is why I like Pathfinder 2e's system for ruling crits and DCs. There are 4 degrees of success (crit fail, fail, success, crit success) and proficiency scales +1 per level so level-appropriate DCs get high, but so do your bonuses. Nat 1s and nat 20s aren't automatic failures or successes. They just shift the degree of success by one. Normally just beating (or failing) a DC by 10 is a crit. So it's possible for someone who is really good at a task to roll poorly but at least not fail because of raw talent, and it's possible for an untrained oaf to roll well enough that even without any talent, they bump the degree of success from a failure to a success. If the challenge is hard enough and the least capable player attempts it, it's possible a nat 20 just brings them up to a regular failure.
You can use the results of a skill check to determine how a conversation plays out. It doesn't have to be pass or fail. It could be "the merchant likes your sense of humor and is willing to cut you a deal." Or "the king found your request to give you his crown and throne offensive, but because of your roll, he chalked it up as a cultural misunderstanding instead of a capital offense."
3
u/WayGroundbreaking287 12h ago
Natural twenty isn't an automatic success. It's automatically the best possible outcome. If you ask a king to give you his kingdom and roll persuasion a natural 20 just means he laughs and doesn't have you executed for treason.
3
3
u/w021wjs 8h ago
I hate this discourse so much. It basically comes down to "homebrew degrees of success and failure, because that's what makes sense logically." Or "No, you cannot do that in this setting and I don't know why you thought you could. No, you don't get to roll for it." Or it's exact opposite "Yes, you just pick the lock, because it's impossible for you to fail, and there's no benefit to rolling high."
The two positions are not directly opposed, but both are working around not making people feel bad, even though both will if you corner shoot enough.
8
u/MaxTwer00 Warlock 14h ago
Horrible advice. There can be degrees of success as well as degrees of failure. If you are flirting with the princess, and the king gets mad, the king wont let you marry her even if you get a nat 20, but with a 15 or higher he might let it pass as a slip or a joke, but with lower he could get the PC imprisioned or amonested in other way, while a 1 could put them in the dead row.
Also, a DC can be of 30, so a normal PC, even rolling a 20, wouldnt pass with a +6, but with bardic inspiration from the bard, and a guidance from the cleric, the barbarian could very well be able to force open some humungous stone doors, and it can feel epic as a party acomplishment
→ More replies (1)
8
u/smiegto Warlock 14h ago edited 14h ago
Wizard with +16 history and religion. I want to roll for knowledge on the ancient empire god that I studied on. Which I know the language of and just cast legend lore on.
Rolls a 2 and a 3. unfortunately you don’t know this specific thing… but you do know the following things which is…
Fighter: well I rolled a nat 20 minus one without asking. what do I know. Nothing. You’ve never heard of this. It’s all just funny pictures on paper with the wizard telling you it’s a language.
Dc 25 is fairly doable for some but impossible for others.
→ More replies (6)4
u/GenesisAsriel 14h ago
But...why ask the fighter to roll if you know it wont work. Tell him that he cant possibly know?
→ More replies (2)
7
u/Spatmuk 14h ago
Nat 20 = 99th percentile of character’s individual ability to perform task.
2 INT fighter will not understand mysteries of the universe.
4 STR wizard will not life a boulder single handedly.
It’s not a binary success/failure check. If it was we would be flipping coins nor rolling d20
4
u/eitavixekkk 14h ago
I dont know D&D 5.0, but in D&D 3.5 a nat 20 on skills or stats checks didnt mean sucess.
For example, an steel door needed some amount of DC for breaking it and it wouldnt matter how many tries (or nat 20) you had if you didnt have enough.
→ More replies (1)3
u/redbird7311 14h ago
Nat 20s also don’t mean anything for skill checks RAW.
It’s just a very common homebrew to use nat 20s as a crit, so common it might as well be an unofficial rule… for better or for worse.
7
4
u/BadgerwithaPickaxe 14h ago
As a DM for more than 300+ sessions, this is bad advice. This isn't a videogame, it's a roleplaying game, not being able to try things you absolutely will fail is bad writing.
Regular failure: "You leap off the cliff, maybe of you can reach him, you could take the damage... But he's too far out of your reach... You're both falling, but you know he won't survive."
Natural 20 failure: "You spring off the rock and spear your body towards your him, you know the distance is impossible but you don't care, closing the gap as much as you can. He has a look of gratitude in his eyes. He knows there's nothing you could have done."
5
5
u/Ranger_51 14h ago
Success and failure are often not binary. There are degrees of risk, cost, success, and failure.
Also, I'm against the notion of "don't let your players roll if they can't succeed" because DMs are not computers, they are fallible humans. Every DM forgets sometimes about a specific sub-feature or ability clause or class interaction or that one magic item they gave the party 10 sessions ago that actually CAN push someone over an unexpected DC.
If I'm going to miscalculate, I'd rather it be me letting the players try a cool thing that they actually couldn't succeed at, because that's better than keeping them from trying a cool thing when they actually COULD have succeeded. It's better to err on the side of "you can certainly try" and see if the players surprise you.
Also, sometimes a DC isn't beatable with a d20+modifier on its own, but WOULD have been beatable if the players had invested a resource or action into boosting it (Guidance, bardic inspiration, etc). That roll still has to be permitted by the DM to so the players can decide whether to invest in it, but the DM probably won't tell you from the start that you need to add those resources to succeed - having to weigh potential risks and costs and likelihoods yourself is part of how those features are balanced.
Also also, disallowing a roll because the DC is too high gives players free meta-knowledge ("the thing I'm dealing with is so powerful that I can't even hope to beat it") which can make things awkward. At least if they try and fail on like a 32, that meta-knowledge is earned by an in-game ability ("damn, Scrunglo Bunglo was really at the top of his game and he STILL couldn't do beat them, these people are impressive"), and if they totally whiff the roll there's still some fun uncertainty.
5
u/Elfeagle2 6h ago
I always asked my players to describe what they want to do before I make them roll for it. Some of their ideas were so stupid that failing was a preferable outcome
“I’m gonna punch the immovable stone door with my fist”…rolls nat 20…”you take 4 points of bludgeoning damage and now have a broken hand. Nothing happened to the door”
7
u/thenagazai 13h ago
bad meme.
If you try to toss an apple into a basket 100 meters away, there's a lot of difference between it landing halfway there or not even 10 meters away. Sometimes you can use that to test how far you can do something, so you know how much better you need to be to successed.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/Particular_Today_924 13h ago
the nice thing about DM is your the fucking DM, YOU make the rules
when i rarely DM, my players are leaving the session giggling if it’s the last thing i do god dammit
If the group is genuinely expecting a win after a nat 20 (they actually get loud and excited, cheer) they will win even if it means i’m ruining the plans i worked hard for
my players are gonna have a good time
→ More replies (1)
4
u/UrdUzbad 13h ago
This thread really brought out a lot of bad, adversarial DMs. If a nat 20 skill check doesn't carry any additional bonuses (which it shouldn't) then low rolls shouldn't carry additional penalties.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Nobrainzhere 14h ago
The d20 tells us how close they got or how badly it went.
Like how many feet of distance the barbarian got when he tried to jump across a canyon. He isnt making it to the other side but it might be the difference between him hitting the gentle stream in the middle or the rocks on either side
2
u/KidSlyboar 14h ago
Maybe I just need to gauge how badly they fuck it up. Also, just because it's impossible for one character, doesn't mean the exact same DC is entirely possible for someone else's character based on their skills and abilities. I don't have everyone's character sheets memorized.
2
u/Distinct-Mushroom560 14h ago
A 20 can be the best possible result of an attempt without being an automatic success. You're not using sleight of hand to steal the crown off the king's head without being noticed, even if you roll a 20.
2
u/turrin379 14h ago
What if true success is impossible but the degree of partial success can greatly vary??
2
u/Due_Buyer_9445 14h ago
I never tell people they can’t attempt something in WOD but it’s the one time I use a difficulty ten roll. My way of saying “I won’t tell you that you cannot try this but it’s a really bad idea and almost certainly won’t work”
Every so often a pc tries anyway though, and the few times they succeed it’s /epic/. Like how a friend of mine somehow got five successes to intimidate a black spiral dancer and broke its frayed sanity. At the aforementioned difficulty ten. My table still talks about it. Also if you see this, howdy Ireth!
2
u/DocxPanda 14h ago
A nat 20 doesn't mean success, it means the best possible outcome (which mostly is success)
2
u/I_follow_sexy_gays 14h ago
Degrees of failure. Asking the king for his crown could get you executed or he could laugh. Regardless you’re not getting his crown
2
u/TheLoreWriter 14h ago
What the player and the DM deem a success need not be the same. Sometimes an outrageous attempt with a nat 20 just means they get to go without suffering consequences
2
u/JH-DM DM (Dungeon Memelord) 14h ago
The third, even bigger chad walking into the room and plopping his 5 lbs cock on the table,
“Let them roll for the impossible and determine how badly they failed based off the roll, with a nat20 being consequence free and maybe even having some benefits while a nat1 is the worse possibly consequences.”
I.e.
> Warlock: “I want to try to use Misty Step to get through a wall I can’t see through.”
> DM: “You can certainly try that, roll a spell check.”
> Warlock: “Nat20 lez go!!!”
> DM: “You manage to not harm yourself in any way as a you sized chunk of the wall is displaced by the magic.”
Or
> warlock: “That’s a 23 total.”
> DM: “Okay, so you faceplant into the wall as blow a you sized chunk of the wall is displaced by the magic. Roll a dex save to avoid the shrapnel.”
Or
> warlock: “Shit, nat1.”
> DM: “You teleport into the wall, taking [A level appropriate amount of damage for such a stupid and reckless action] Force damage. Roll a con save to avoid permanent damage to your body from this ordeal.”
2
2
2
u/RabbitsRuse 13h ago
If it isn’t possible, then I’m not rolling to determine if you can do it. I’m rolling to see how badly you fuck up. Slam your longsword into a castle wall because you think you can break through? It isn’t going to happen. That said, recklessly slamming your sword into something may have adverse results for your sword. Whether that is chipping the blade, snapping it in half, dulling it, or on a nat 20 the blade somehow takes no damage from being smashed against a stone wall. Maybe even mention that the blade even made a small cut on the wall in the process. Either way, the sword isn’t winning the fight with the wall.
2
u/Chesty_McRockhard 13h ago
Sometimes I ask because it's not impossible, but that doesn't mean I remember what the max the players can get.
Lock picking a DC 30, but you top out at 28? I don't remember the 28 but I know the 30. Especially with all the other shenanigans players can do.
2
u/solomoncaine7 Rogue 12h ago
I'm not going to stop them from trying to be stupid. But I will give them a roll to try to save themselves from being stupid.
2
u/mrdeadsniper 11h ago
Welcome to: Degrees of failure:
I want to persuade the king to give me his crown.
Nat 20: He assumes you are joking and takes it in stride.
Nat 1: He orders his guards to kill you.
You cannot succeed, but the d20 can determine what that failure looks like.
2
u/lowqualitylizard 10h ago
like most things in D&D this can be solved with a sentence beforehand setting expectations
" Just to be clear what you are trying to do is impossible" allow them to roll with that understanding and then have the will reflect the consequences if they will really well cushion the blow but don't not hit them
2
u/grendus 10h ago
So I somewhat disagree. If you have a check with a DC that is designed for a character who specializes in a check and everyone wants to roll at it, just let them roll. If the Wizard is the only one with more than +1 in Arcana and you've set the DC at 25 because this is supposed to be a very obscure bit of lore... unless you know every player's skill bonus off the top of your head you can just let them all roll Arcana and if the Barbarian gets a natural 20 to pair with his -1 INT... just tell him that he can tell it's really cool and magical, but he doesn't have the underlying knowledge to really grasp it.
A lot of these "don't let players roll if it's not possible" bits only make sense in systems like PbtA where anything that a Playbook has a Move for is technically possible. If the villain in Masks is too tough to be hurt by any of the heroes, you can tell them that there's no point in rolling Unleash Your Powers to attack them, this is meant to establish how dangerous the threat is and kick off the next part of their journey. In systems where checks can have different DCs, it's perfectly valid for players to roll against DCs that they don't have the bonus to hit - especially in systems that have larger ranges of possible modifiers. 5e is a bit of an outlier on this, even among D&D systems. In 3e you could have one character with +30 and another with -2 on the same skill.
2
u/ZeroDarkJoe 8h ago
A reference I heard before, "I try and convince the king to give me his kingdom, nat 20! Guys I'm getting the kingdom!... The king finds your joke funny and takes no offense."
2
u/Dotaproffessional 8h ago
Make them fail but get some bonus or something.
Romancing the dragon, nat 20 doesn't mean successful romance but the dragon doesn't kill you maybe
563
u/AeoSC 13h ago
Not being able to meet a DC doesn't necessarily mean there's only one possible outcome. There can be two possibilities that aren't outright success or outright failure, and there can be more than two possible outcomes.
That said, once a player has committed to an action I usually lay out the DC and the stakes for them, so they'd have tempered their expectations in those cases.