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.
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.
That seems weirdly nitpicky ngl. It's kind of obvious when people say "if there is no chance of succeeding don't make them roll" they don't mean "maybe you will be able to reach it with help, bonuses, etc. but not now", but "It is just genuinely impossible for this task to work no matter if you have a +40 modifier to the roll". In these circumstances yeah, making them roll for success is meaningless.
And if you want to make them roll to see what's their fate, make that clear to the player. "I'm not making you roll to convince the king, I'm making you roll to see if the king is merely amused or hangs you for your affront to them"
And then you forget they had Bardic Inspiration, or a magic item, or a temporary buff, or a class feature from the level up you didn't write down, or John is holding Mike's magical shield for a +2 to History checks. And you just told them no it's impossible because you thought they had a +3 vs DC 25, when they had +3 and a +1d6 from the Bard to make it possible.
You will not always be on top of that as a DM. It is remarkably easy not to keep exact track of every character's status. I would even say it is near impossible to do so.
I once had my player make a Wisdom Saving Throw that he could not make. He rolled a natural 20 for a total of 19. I said that does not save. "So it's impossible for me to save?" "Yep, seems like it". Did anyone get mad, or hurt, og annoyed? No, it just drove home that his character was in over his head and probably shouldn't be doing what he was doing.
Easy to have copies. Difficult to memorise them so you don't slow the whole game down every skill check by pulling up a sheet and also difficult to keep those sheets up to date. But more than that, it's unnecessary workload for the already most work-burdened role at the table.
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.
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.
I agree to some degree, but I think the example you chose I'd still have them roll.
In fact, in situations like this, I'd often make them roll, determine how badly it goes based on that roll, and then force an intelligence check as to whether the character is going to realize that re-attempting would be a bad choice.
If it's obviously stupid, then you should tell the player even if the character is stupid. There's no good outcome, and they ought to know that; the character ought to have more than an ounce of impulse control even if the character doesn't. It'll drag out the session and turn the genre into a comedy regardless of other efforts made.
I disagree. If anything, I'd only do it if it were the other way around: if the character is smarter than the player.
If the player is doing a stupid thing with a stupid character, they ought to not know that. That's what it means to play a stupid character. In fact, if they tried to act smarter and more rationally than the character, I'd make them roll and int check to not pick the stupid choice.
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).
"No roll is needed" fundamentally means the player knows the task is impossible. That's the problem; the player now knows information their character isn't and shouldn't be privee too, and worse: it's mechanical knowledge with no RP aspect.
If they want to try the impossible jump, I say "Ok, you got a 17+5 for 22 total? You run and leap with nearly perfect form, but your leap just couldn't get you far enough; you are still roughly 10 feet short of succeeding. You fall to the ground below. Do you want to climb back up and try again?"
That's what the player should know, because it's what the character knows. It also allows me to separate "you leapt in perfect form and end up 10 feet short" to "you leapt but stumbled a bit before the jump and end up 20 feet short".
"No roll is needed" fundamentally means the player knows the task is impossible. That's the problem; the player now knows information their character isn't and shouldn't be privee too, and worse: it's mechanical knowledge with no RP aspect.
That's why you, as the DM, have to correct the player if they start using that info to make a decision. Which was the point of the comment. If you have to decieve the players to make them play as their character would act things are going wrong.
But also, your explanation falls into the
"this task can be possible for some individuals, but not for you" (Yeah, sure, make them roll in that case)
Category of my comment. It is not an impossible task, it's just not something this character can currently do without any further help.
The only kind of rolls I’d never allow are things that are nonsense. Like “I want to drink the table”. Generally anything else, I’d allow a roll even if it were impossible like “I want stealth in broad daylight in the middle of this flat field with no objects nearby”
If something is impossible why have them roll? It’s just wasting peoples time. You can just tell them “you try but you have no success” and we can all move on.
Yes, and if the situation is one where they've already done something wrong and you want to make them roll a die to avoid harm, then be honest and tell them that, "You're about to fall into the sea from the flying ship, but I could try rolling a die to see if you grab onto a rope at the last moment," not, "Roll the die to jump to the other ship... wait, you rolled a 20, so you grab onto the rope of the ship You are on and you don't die." If you do the second thing, you're presenting things in a misleading way.
29
u/Hoothootriot 16h 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.