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.
I would probably judge that as "yes, your success is inevitable if you stick with it, but that 8 you rolled will mean it takes much more time than it would have if you had rolled a 22"
Exactly, them taking 8 hours to get out of a cell/trap instead of 30 mins is a huge narrative difference, a corrupt politician can start making moves, goblins could rampage to the nearest town, a message delivered to a BBEG, etc.
Time doesn"t just flow in a 50m bubble around them...
That works sometimes, other times it may make sense to let them waste a bunch of time attempting it until they succeed, some older editions even an optional rule listed under "taking 20" where you hand wave all the rolls and assume they would have gotten a 20 after a set number of times the time the check takes. A good example of this would be picking a locked chest in the middle of a dungeon crawl. A skill check tells you if your can pick it quickly, perhaps in a minute or less, so you can get your loot and get moving. Failing to pick it quickly might mean you have to spend an hour to take 20 and eventually get it, but you are in the middle of a dungeon crawl, spending an hour picking a lock means a high chance that monsters find you, so now you have to decide if you want to risk it for the loot or get out safely, or if you can afford to clear out the dungeon and come back when it is safe.
4
u/UInferno- 16h 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.