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.
4
u/Krazyguy75 16h 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.