So I'm not sure if this has been discussed, but I couldn't find anything in a search so here goes. How are other DM's handling the issue of re-rolls. In game terms when a character attempts a skill it should be assumed that that character is giving every check their best attempt. I've often wondered why we should allow re-rolls if there has been no substantive change to the situation. For example if the barbarian attempts to lift the heavy gate and fails, how does trying again change anything? Now if he/she rages that changes something and I allow a re-roll. Or if the bard inspires the barbarian I would allow a re-roll. But again the 1st check should be your players all. Can't pick the lock to a chest you found, can't try again until something changes. Anyway, i'd appreciate your thoughts or others on this topic. (For reference I play a lot of dungeon crawls and less narrative adventures. I understand not wanting to prevent party from advancing based on some faulty skill checks).
Generally I limit them to just one roll for something. Sometimes even for the whole party, depending on the situation.
Trying to pick a lock but your first guy failed? Looks like he broke his pick off inside the lock, bad luck and you can't pick that lock anymore. However, they could smash down the door instead if they want to try.
I think you're thinking about it in the most reasonable way, otherwise players could just sit there and re-roll as much as they want to get the results they want. There was a great article I read at one point (can't remember where) that discussed the idea of when a player fails a check, this is something they are skilled at so odds are they won't do something stupid like break a persons bone when mending a cut or something like that. It talked about still allowing the player to "succeed" in a way, but depending on the roll there would be consequences.
Fail your check to persuade someone to do something? Maybe the NPC ends up playing along, full well knowing the player is trying to manipulate them.
Fail your check to run along a wall that your monk has done dozens of times before? This time he sprains his ankle a bit when he lands.
Fail your check to raise a heavy gate? Maybe they hurt their back and are in too much pain to give it another go for the day. Or, they lift it high enough for the rest of the party to move through, but drop it on another player because their grip slips.
It's been really fun to try and approach it with this mindset in the campaign I run, as it brings up a lot of amusing situations. As you said, the characters are assumed to be giving it their all with the rolls, so for some things it just makes sense that they would get SOME kind of result (which would also prevent them from redoing the role).
The "thing that changed" could be information they gained from their first attempt, like the half of the lock they successfully picked, or the handholds they managed to find. If time isn't an issue, there's no reason why a character couldn't take another crack at a simple task - assuming the sound of failing to lift a gate hasn't drawn enemy notice, or a random encounter isn't drawing nearer, etc. So maybe they have enough time to try again... or not.
Accidents do happen. The very roll of a die introduces a random element - a character's "best attempt" is expressed through their skill bonuses and proficiencies. The main reason to allow rerolls is, like you said, to keep the game moving and not have the players end up frustrated with having things rely on a single roll. Then again, if you have players who won't start snarking, "I stand on my head so I can peer at the lock tumblers from a new perspective," or the like, you've lucked out.
You could use the roll to indicate how long the task takes rather than whether or not it succeeds. If you hit the DC, then the character succeeds immediately. If they fail by a little bit it takes a minute. If they fail by alot it takes ten minutes or longer. The times can be adjusted depending on the task.
I definitely see lockpicking and dialogue with an NPC as being handled differently. If there is no time pressure... picking a lock could represent time, with failure. As long as they don't roll a 1, though, I wouldn't break the pick in the lock. If there is time pressure, then they are limited by how many times they could accomplish it before a patrol passes, the sound is heard, etc. Of course, while this is going on, the party has to keep being sneaky, etc, and the DC keeps going up. In the words of Matt Mercer, "You can certainly try..."
Dialogue is entirely different. An NPC might give a couple of chances, but their mood will soon sour and the DC increases. Similar to time pressure of the lock... of course, good luck having other party members not realize what is going on and "try" to help. They will get their own penalties or be shut down unless they are overwhelmingly persuasive. Also, with NPCs you get to decide how much information you hand out based on how they rolled / performed. It's not quite the simple pass / fail of a lock, though it could be...
So, yeah, that's a lot of words to say, "It depends..."
I'm of the belief that a die roll for an action should only be made if there is something for that die roll to determine.
So in most circumstances that a player might expect that there will be the opportunity to make repeated attempts (like lifting a heavy gate, or searching a room for something) I do not have multiple checks made. I will generally decide that either A) it is just a matter of time before success and there is nothing going to happen to interrupt the effort or alter circumstances, so I narrate the passing of time while working on the activity and the success of it without a roll, or B) there is some event that will happen if enough time is spent on the activity, so a check will be made with beating the DC meaning accomplishing the task before that event and falling short of the DC meaning the event occurs (potentially interrupting the task).
To put that into a concrete example: Let's say there is a heavy gate that a player wants their character to lift open. If it is possible for the character to lift the gate, but there is nothing that would interrupt repeatedly trying until the gate is finally open, I'd just narrate the lifting of the gate and not call for a check. However, if there were an ogre on patrol that might come across the party while they are working on lifting the gate, then I would call for a check - success on the check would mean getting past the gate before the ogre arrives, and failure would mean the ogre shows up while the party is still working on the gate (and there would then likely be some dice involved in figuring out if the party can get on the other side of the gate before the ogre makes them drop it).
Your anecdote about the lock reminded me of the take 20 mechanic in 3e, which was a rule I liked. No pressure, simply unroll your tools and take your time. Adds twenty times the amount of time, but if its within your skill range you get the lock open.
I remember I once read about that somewhere, so I looked around a bit. Found the answer on DMG page 237:
Sometimes a character fails an ability check and wants to try again. In some cases, a character is free to do so; the only real cost is the time it takes. With enough attempts and enough time, a character should
eventually succeed at the task. To speed things up, assume that a character spending ten times the normal amount of time needed to complete a task automatically succeeds at that task. However, no amount of repeating the check allows a character to turn an impossible task into a successful one. In other cases, failing an ability check makes it impossible to make the same check to do the same thing again. For example, a rogue might try to trick a town guard into thinking the adventurers are undercover agents of the king. If the rogue loses a contest of Charisma (Deception) against the guard's Wisdom (Insight), the same lie told again won't work. The characters can come up with a different way to get past the guard or try the check again against another guard at a different gate. But you might decide that the initial failure makes those checks more difficult to pull off.
For something like failing a roll to lift something, I would probably explain it as having a bad grip on the thing you're trying to lift on your first attempt. Just like how you sometimes need to readjust when you're carrying something big and bulky. You can also go with the explanation that the character actually does manage to lift it, but it starts slipping from his hands, or that a third factor suddenly interrupts and makes the character fail. For lockpicking I'd probably say that one attempt takes X minutes, and I'd let the player reroll as many times as they want to (I've tried lockpicking before, it does take a while if you're not used to it).
On other one-time checks like history, arcana, religion and other knowledge checks, rerolling would be more questionable. If you have forgotten something, or simply don't know it, then you don't know it no matter how long you think about it. If the PC misses the DC by 1, you can probably say that they know they've heard about it before, but can't remember it clearly, and then give them the information a few minutes/hours later.
For checks that rely on sight, like perception, investigation or a knowledge judgement check to see if a rope bridge is strong enough to cross safely, think of it like this: You know the images that shows two different things depending on how you look at it? The face/vase illusion as the classical example. Then think of another image that is much more difficult to see both sides of. At first glance you will most likely only see one side of it. Then you start looking for the other side, and after half an hour or so, you finally find it. This is comparable to the "eventually the character succeeds" method mentioned in the DMG. If someone else points it out however, you will likely be able to see it much quicker, but by looking at it alone, you will either succeed within the first 10-20 seconds (the first attempt), or spend tens of minutes before you finally see it.
So I'm not sure if this has been discussed, but I couldn't find anything in a search so here goes. How are other DM's handling the issue of re-rolls. In game terms when a character attempts a skill it should be assumed that that character is giving every check their best attempt. I've often wondered why we should allow re-rolls if there has been no substantive change to the situation. For example if the barbarian attempts to lift the heavy gate and fails, how does trying again change anything? Now if he/she rages that changes something and I allow a re-roll. Or if the bard inspires the barbarian I would allow a re-roll. But again the 1st check should be your players all. Can't pick the lock to a chest you found, can't try again until something changes. Anyway, i'd appreciate your thoughts or others on this topic. (For reference I play a lot of dungeon crawls and less narrative adventures. I understand not wanting to prevent party from advancing based on some faulty skill checks).
Generally I limit them to just one roll for something. Sometimes even for the whole party, depending on the situation.
Trying to pick a lock but your first guy failed? Looks like he broke his pick off inside the lock, bad luck and you can't pick that lock anymore. However, they could smash down the door instead if they want to try.
I think you're thinking about it in the most reasonable way, otherwise players could just sit there and re-roll as much as they want to get the results they want. There was a great article I read at one point (can't remember where) that discussed the idea of when a player fails a check, this is something they are skilled at so odds are they won't do something stupid like break a persons bone when mending a cut or something like that. It talked about still allowing the player to "succeed" in a way, but depending on the roll there would be consequences.
Fail your check to persuade someone to do something? Maybe the NPC ends up playing along, full well knowing the player is trying to manipulate them.
Fail your check to run along a wall that your monk has done dozens of times before? This time he sprains his ankle a bit when he lands.
Fail your check to raise a heavy gate? Maybe they hurt their back and are in too much pain to give it another go for the day. Or, they lift it high enough for the rest of the party to move through, but drop it on another player because their grip slips.
It's been really fun to try and approach it with this mindset in the campaign I run, as it brings up a lot of amusing situations. As you said, the characters are assumed to be giving it their all with the rolls, so for some things it just makes sense that they would get SOME kind of result (which would also prevent them from redoing the role).
The "thing that changed" could be information they gained from their first attempt, like the half of the lock they successfully picked, or the handholds they managed to find. If time isn't an issue, there's no reason why a character couldn't take another crack at a simple task - assuming the sound of failing to lift a gate hasn't drawn enemy notice, or a random encounter isn't drawing nearer, etc. So maybe they have enough time to try again... or not.
Accidents do happen. The very roll of a die introduces a random element - a character's "best attempt" is expressed through their skill bonuses and proficiencies. The main reason to allow rerolls is, like you said, to keep the game moving and not have the players end up frustrated with having things rely on a single roll. Then again, if you have players who won't start snarking, "I stand on my head so I can peer at the lock tumblers from a new perspective," or the like, you've lucked out.
You could use the roll to indicate how long the task takes rather than whether or not it succeeds. If you hit the DC, then the character succeeds immediately. If they fail by a little bit it takes a minute. If they fail by alot it takes ten minutes or longer. The times can be adjusted depending on the task.
I definitely see lockpicking and dialogue with an NPC as being handled differently. If there is no time pressure... picking a lock could represent time, with failure. As long as they don't roll a 1, though, I wouldn't break the pick in the lock. If there is time pressure, then they are limited by how many times they could accomplish it before a patrol passes, the sound is heard, etc. Of course, while this is going on, the party has to keep being sneaky, etc, and the DC keeps going up. In the words of Matt Mercer, "You can certainly try..."
Dialogue is entirely different. An NPC might give a couple of chances, but their mood will soon sour and the DC increases. Similar to time pressure of the lock... of course, good luck having other party members not realize what is going on and "try" to help. They will get their own penalties or be shut down unless they are overwhelmingly persuasive. Also, with NPCs you get to decide how much information you hand out based on how they rolled / performed. It's not quite the simple pass / fail of a lock, though it could be...
So, yeah, that's a lot of words to say, "It depends..."
I'm of the belief that a die roll for an action should only be made if there is something for that die roll to determine.
So in most circumstances that a player might expect that there will be the opportunity to make repeated attempts (like lifting a heavy gate, or searching a room for something) I do not have multiple checks made. I will generally decide that either A) it is just a matter of time before success and there is nothing going to happen to interrupt the effort or alter circumstances, so I narrate the passing of time while working on the activity and the success of it without a roll, or B) there is some event that will happen if enough time is spent on the activity, so a check will be made with beating the DC meaning accomplishing the task before that event and falling short of the DC meaning the event occurs (potentially interrupting the task).
To put that into a concrete example: Let's say there is a heavy gate that a player wants their character to lift open. If it is possible for the character to lift the gate, but there is nothing that would interrupt repeatedly trying until the gate is finally open, I'd just narrate the lifting of the gate and not call for a check. However, if there were an ogre on patrol that might come across the party while they are working on lifting the gate, then I would call for a check - success on the check would mean getting past the gate before the ogre arrives, and failure would mean the ogre shows up while the party is still working on the gate (and there would then likely be some dice involved in figuring out if the party can get on the other side of the gate before the ogre makes them drop it).
Your anecdote about the lock reminded me of the take 20 mechanic in 3e, which was a rule I liked. No pressure, simply unroll your tools and take your time. Adds twenty times the amount of time, but if its within your skill range you get the lock open.
I remember I once read about that somewhere, so I looked around a bit. Found the answer on DMG page 237:
Sometimes a character fails an ability check and
wants to try again. In some cases, a character is free
to do so; the only real cost is the time it takes. With
enough attempts and enough time, a character should
eventually succeed at the task. To speed things up,
assume that a character spending ten times the normal
amount of time needed to complete a task automatically
succeeds at that task. However, no amount of repeating
the check allows a character to turn an impossible task
into a successful one.
In other cases, failing an ability check makes it
impossible to make the same check to do the same thing
again. For example, a rogue might try to trick a town
guard into thinking the adventurers are undercover
agents of the king. If the rogue loses a contest of
Charisma (Deception) against the guard's Wisdom
(Insight), the same lie told again won't work. The
characters can come up with a different way to get past
the guard or try the check again against another guard
at a different gate. But you might decide that the initial
failure makes those checks more difficult to pull off.
For something like failing a roll to lift something, I would probably explain it as having a bad grip on the thing you're trying to lift on your first attempt. Just like how you sometimes need to readjust when you're carrying something big and bulky. You can also go with the explanation that the character actually does manage to lift it, but it starts slipping from his hands, or that a third factor suddenly interrupts and makes the character fail. For lockpicking I'd probably say that one attempt takes X minutes, and I'd let the player reroll as many times as they want to (I've tried lockpicking before, it does take a while if you're not used to it).
On other one-time checks like history, arcana, religion and other knowledge checks, rerolling would be more questionable. If you have forgotten something, or simply don't know it, then you don't know it no matter how long you think about it. If the PC misses the DC by 1, you can probably say that they know they've heard about it before, but can't remember it clearly, and then give them the information a few minutes/hours later.
For checks that rely on sight, like perception, investigation or a knowledge judgement check to see if a rope bridge is strong enough to cross safely, think of it like this: You know the images that shows two different things depending on how you look at it? The face/vase illusion as the classical example. Then think of another image that is much more difficult to see both sides of. At first glance you will most likely only see one side of it. Then you start looking for the other side, and after half an hour or so, you finally find it. This is comparable to the "eventually the character succeeds" method mentioned in the DMG. If someone else points it out however, you will likely be able to see it much quicker, but by looking at it alone, you will either succeed within the first 10-20 seconds (the first attempt), or spend tens of minutes before you finally see it.
Hope this helped!
Thank you for all the input.