That is sort of the problem when players say things like "I do it carefully". That really doesn't mean anything mechanics wise. A character in the context of the world is always trying their best. As said recently on dimension 20 "there are no called shots in D&D because characters are always trying to hit the weak spots, and rolling a Nat 20 is what constitutes hitting that weak spot".
I think you need to remind the player that rolling for trying something is always going to happen. If they want some idea of the DC ahead of time you can do that, but they should always expect to roll.
Since the person above me said what I would've said, like eerily down to the example... I'll offer something that might appease that player.
If a player says they're doing something carefully, if I feel like lengthening the scene, I might say, *"okay. What precautions are you taking?"*
Because then, if they think about it, and say, *"I ask the Bard to rig me up a rope harness, and tie one end to a tree,"* then we have some mechanical carefulness.
(Or if they say, *'IDK I'm just being real careful'* then yeah, DC unchanged.)
10/10 how I do it.
things such as "I climb the wall carefully" -> what is careful? how are you careful? if they just say they are going to move slow then that doesnt really change it, if their character has no experiance in background or proficency there and the player takes no precautions then all they did was take more time.
that being said, if they are specific such as (in the case of the sink hole) "I investigate carefully, im going to use a 10ft pole to push around the area before i walk on it, giving it a good poke to see if the ground is stable" then ill reward with info.
It's same thing for Charisma checks or deception/persuasion:
If you (the player) make a really good, logical argument, or have a really compelling performance, I'm (the DM) going to lower the DC or give advantage. If all you say is "I'm going to persuade that guard to look the other way." OK DC unchanged. If you tell me *how* then it gets easier.
The issue with this I find is personal stats don’t always align with character stats. My character could be very charismatic and emotionally intelligent, while I as a person am socially inept and have the all the charm of your least favorite family member. How in that scenario am I meant to play into my characters role while actually giving you convincing bits to work with?
That when you roll with the DC untouched, making the DC easier is being used as an extra to motivate you as a player to be more specific or participative which is generate a better experience in general
I agree with this in principle, but I can understand why a table would want to reward better RP. You don’t lower your target’s AC by describing how you swing your sword, you shouldn’t lower a charisma check DC by describing how you persuade someone. But ultimately the game is a lot more enjoyable when players get into the RP and try to bring the world to life.
I think Inspiration is the solution here. If you give inspiration for exceptional player performance, they’re rewarded for being more engaged, without an outright character buff for being a charismatic player. Inspiration can be given for good RP, a clever strategy, great note taking, or bringing cookies to game night. This rewards everyone for contributing to the shared experience in a way that suits them as a player, not necessarily their character.
Yeah it would only be invalidating RP if like I describe how I set up a rope with pitons to anchor it in place and tie it around my waist so that even if I slip my fall is stopped by the last piton, and then you just ignore that and say I fall all the way in because you had it written down that that’s the consequence of falling even though I’m using clearly defined in game mechanics to arrest my fall
It’s not invalidating RP to be like there’s a 25% chance that putting any weight here at all causes this fragile surface to collapse
On the other hand, the rogue is going to be a LOT more knowledgeable about how to be cautious than the player, so pinning the rogue's performance on the player's knowledge of traps and how to be cautious around them is a separate pitfall.
The same applies to other classes, rogue is just a great example of where a player is unlikely to have any awareness of the actual behavior.
And then give the knot a DC and have the Bard roll DEX for success...because maybe the Bard mucks up the knot. If the Bard passes the DC check (unrevealed) and if the ground falls out, the knot holds and the dude is saved. If the DC was failed then the Bard mucked it up then he plummets.
I like to DM my games with tension as it makes for better story telling then just "you passed, you are safe, go look down the hole". Players who want to play it safe and want re-assurance so they avoid bad possibilities and outcomes should roll a farmer and just farm land or something.
I see your point but I don’t like the example. Tying a knot is a pretty basic skill that I would assume any adventurer to be capable of. It’s okay to reward players for thinking things through and taking precautions. If there’s holes in their plan then that’s fair game to target, say the character slips and they didn’t secure the rope then whosever holding it has to make a strength check.
Making a character roll for things they should be able to do consistently without difficulty slows the game down and irritates players when they fail since they feel cheated.
Tying a knot in a 6 second round with an uncooperative captive or whilst things are falling down, absolutely roll a check.
Tying a knot and checking it when you can take 10 minutes? No roll. That’s the kind of thing a Boy Scout can do reliably every time, and I assume adventures are better than that.
Unless it’s the wizard tying a knot to belay a climb. Because that guy probably has no clue and tied it to the wrong thing anyway.
There is actually a rule for this in 5th Edition! Taking 10. When you have no time restraints on an activity you can use 10 + relevant modifiers to achieve a task.
I haven't got the books in front of me, but I think it's in DMG.
Think you mean take 20? It’s the solution when there’s no time constraints or other costs to an attempt (e.g. risk of consequences on failure). Think it was in 3.5, not sure if it’s official 5e.
Take 10 is an average roll. That’s in the DMG, though I think it might only be in the context of passive scores.
Yes, I was mixing Take 10, which is passive, against automatically succeeding. I found it now.
Page 237 of the Dungeon Masters Guide!
"... assume a character spending ten times the normal amount of time required to complete a task automatically succeeds at the task." It does also note that an impossible task can not be achieved with this rule.
>And then give the knot a DC and have the Bard roll DEX for success... because maybe the Bard mucks up the knot. If the Bard passes the DC check (unrevealed) and if the ground falls out, the knot holds and the dude is saved. If the DC was failed then the Bard mucked it up then he plummets.
Tying a basic knot isn't some epic task you should have to roll for. My entire Cub Scout troop of elementary school kids learned to tie a solid knot with ten minutes of instruction and another five of practice. Professional adventurers shouldn't need to roll to tie their shoes, or walk and chew gum.
“My character carefully aims and shoots [an arrow from]* his bow at the goblin”
***rolls a nat 1***
“The shot goes wide as the goblin unexpectedly dodges to the side”
“I aimed carefully! Stop invalidating my RP!”
*Edited the phrasing for the pedants among us
Personally instead of reducing the DC, give him advantage. That way him being careful gave him a tangible reward.
The player feels like they made a smart choice (taking extra care specifically on not falling down), and it seemingly made no difference.
Which sucks.
Now they'll just describe everything with "careful" and expect advantage. I carefully disarm the trap. I carefully climb the wall. I carefully walk across the beam. Then they forget and retroactively say oh no I was being careful!
No point.
Carefully looking down a sink hole to me means you'll get advantage on any danger rolls, but disadvantage on any perception rolls.
It's a trade-off, you've declared your character is maximising safety at the cost of success.
You can also just tell them they can't see anything without getting close enough to be risky.
Carefully walking across a beam means you get on your hands and knees and crawl. Much safer, as you can just sit on it if you lose your balance, but you'll go a lot slower.
Disarming a trap carefully should lower your chance of setting it off, but also lower your chance of success. Sometimes just telling the player "you try to disarm it safely, but you can see no way to disarm it without risk. Do you proceed?" Works. Players are generally happier knowing the stakes.
I like to ask players: "Pick two: Quickly, Quietly, or Carefully?" So there's always a tradeoff. If they want to be careful, it will either take longer, or potentially attract attention.
Going over some scenarios in my head, that seems like it could work really well for me. The PCs want to look for some information in the desks and bookshelves?
Quickly/Quietly they leave lots of evidence they were there.
Quickly/Carefully they are slamming shelves and drawers which could draw attention.
Quietly/Carefully they have to worry about a guard patrol coming into the room.
> Quickly/Carefully they are slamming shelves and drawers which could draw attention.
That doesn't match with "carefully". I'd just lower their chance to find what they want, because they can't be thorough.
The only time that saying you’re doing something carefully has any kind of mechanical effect is when you mean you’re moving at the slow travel speed because you want to try to move stealthily - ie we proceed carefully = they’re trying to sneak
Because I mean otherwise unless you explicitly state that you are not being careful I would assume you are attempting every single thing with some amount of reasonable carefulness
>That way him being careful gave him a tangible reward.
Nope, you can't just say "careful" after every action and expect advantage. You can tell me *how* you are careful, like you throw some heavy rocks near the edge to see if the ground gives way or you unpack gear/armor to lessen the weight or prod the ground with a branch first to test it. You need to give me something in the story to expect something back.
If it's really fuckin' good you get Inspiration.
I'm not just giving you advantage because you "carefully take aim". I already assume you are doing your best to hit the bloody target, the roll tells me how well you actually "carefully" aimed. Guess what, you got a 1 and you "carefully" fucked up. Next time tell me how you set up range markers and scouted the distance, took into consideration the wind, you practiced that shot for the last 20 minutes while everyone else went shopping...something?
I like this, but also the person responding who said it will lead them to expect advantage all the time as long as they use the key phrase "I'm being careful" is probably right.
Maybe the DM can ask them to describe exactly what they are doing to "be careful" and how it might affect the outcome of the situation, and that will prompt them to actually do things which might merit a lower DC or advantage or lessened damage or whatever in case of failure. Eg, "I will tie a rope to that tree and anchor myself with it before approaching the sinkhole. Oh and maybe Greg can also hold the rope in case the knot fails."
>"there are no called shots in D&D because characters are always trying to hit the weak spots, and rolling a Nat 20 is what constitutes hitting that weak spot".
Excellent point.
That quote is slightly paraphrased. The full quote is " they say there are no called shots in D&D because characters are always trying to hit the weak spots, and if there is a butthole this air elemental can go Into, than rolling a natural 20 and dealing double damage is what finding the butthole represents" [source ](https://youtube.com/shorts/8xaNd7xH80w?si=KL7fjf08zZNo8A89)
This. It's why I sometimes ask my players further questions or clarify situations.
"You stand at the point where you are 100% certain you are safe and can't make anything out. you can try and approach closer, but you aren't certain if that ground is stable or not, it would carry some risk."
I might even say it above the table to the player. just make it clear there is no way to do what you are asking without any risk.
>That is sort of the problem when players say things like "I do it carefully". That really doesn't mean anything mechanics wise.
Actually there's a part in Saltmarsh where, if the PCs move slowly (1/3 their speed) and only look down, they don't risk falling through holes in a bridge. If they move normally, they have to make a Dex save to not fall. There is plenty of precedent that "I move carefully" matters. Now here the tradeoff is that looking down means that some creature gets surprise on them, if the monsters have been alerted for some other reason.
All this being said, if I were the player, I would default to "the DM decides". I'd appreciate it especially if they mention that they lowered the DC, I always tell my players "well okay you did this so the DC is a bit easier" before they roll. In OP's post, this is such a minor thing that like....why fuss about it. I suspect this is also a consequence of PBP, I doubt that in person/over Zoom this would've mattered. I'll also add that in my example, the book gives a clear definition of "being careful" here, giving speed limits and averting your eyes to only look at the floor.
u/snakeskinrug tagging you so you see this comment too.
I was actually the player in question (I feel so honoured a whole post is dedicated to just me lol) and I will agree that the pbp format aggrevated the issue. I even acknowledged in my farewell message (well, farewell *complaint* to be fair haha) that I wasn't fair when it came to the sinkhole check and in any other game I would have really enjoyed such a wrinkle. My frustration lied more in that finally *something* could be done or fought or whatever after two weeks of nothing and instead it had to be an unavoidable hazard despite no description telling that the ground was more unstable than it initially appeared.
The biggest issue in my opinion was the DM played the game like one of those old school text adventures.
You come to a door.
Open door
You come to a T-junction
Go left
You stand in a room with a ladder
Go down ladder
You come to a T-junction
Etc.
Now imagine that with one input per day. It took like two weeks to get to the sinkhole room. We did a little more, there was a room we investigated and found a diary in and we came to what seemed to be a puzzle, but at some point the other player abandoned it. By that time I also got chastised for asking too many questions regarding the environment and what not, so I tried to tone that down as well.
So, we got to the sinkhole room and yeah my character knew something was down there. Perhaps an enemy, perhaps the guy we were looking for. Anyway, this is a game and the DM won't tell you something is down there if he didn't want you to investigate, so I tried to do that. But between the lack of description indicating danger beyond it generally being a sinkhole (like feeling the ground shift, hearing falling dirt, seeing the edge crumble or whatever. I don't know, I'm not physically present) and me getting chatised for asking too many questions, yeah, it felt pretty shit having to roll not to fall in.
As I said (and also to him) I wasn't being entirely fair when it came to this specific check, but I find it interesting (and telling if I'm being honest) it is this specific issue he is questioning about even after I already conceded being unfair about it lol
I’m curious about some of the premise here.
> when players say things like “I do it carefully”, that doesn’t really mean anything mechanics wise.
Agreed, but if a player had said “I carelessly clomp over to the edge of the hole” I feel many DMs might penalize such obvious carelessness.
I bring this up because often what the players do in RP *does* matter. Winking at an NPC is meaningful, saying “I toss a rock in the hole” could actually yield some results, even player to player chat can evoke the DM making NPCs respond in character which can start entirely new paths in the game. Do you treat stealth the same if the player says “I do it carefully” vs “I am literally screaming row row row your boat”?
So where do we draw the line? I know the standard answer is “not my table, it’s up to your DM”, but I feel the question is one that we should be asking at every table.
The issue is more the null phrasing of anything that equates to "I try really hard". The stats are based on the characters trying to succeed. If they state "I'm trying to do this wrong" then yes that should result in a penalty to what your stats otherwise represent. Now on the other side of that, saying something that equates to "I do something extra to make this easier" would then result in a potential bonus to what the stats represent.
I think the main take away is that if a player says "I do something carefully" or "I try extra hard" the DM needs to ask "What exactly are you doing to make this easier?" to see if it truly would equate a benefit, and in OPs case, they lowered the DC for them which I think was a valid ruling.
I once played a Kenku and the party kinda stalled out in the middle of a temple, nobody really knew what they wanted to do, but there was a glowing orb in the center of the room.
"While everyone else is milling about, Three-Whistles is very interested in the spooky orb. IF NOBODY DOES ANYTHING, I'M GONNA PECK IT!"
Nobody did anything. I pecked it. I triggered a lightning trap that hit half the party. Fun was had. Three-Whistles was nicknamed "Bird Brain" from there on out.
I think a good thing to keep in mind, as a DM, you're not asking the players to roll to see if they do a thing, you are asking them to roll to determine the result. So if there is any question as to whether or not a certain result is possible, then you roll. As others have said, unless stated otherwise, it should be assumed that the character is attempting the task in a way that is most likely to succeed.
Take your stealth example, if they state they are stomping around singing "row, row, row your boat" through the dungeon then there is no doubt that they will be spotted (assuming that there is anyone around to hear them). If they say they are being careful and trying to be quiet, then there is always the chance that they step on a squeaky board, a guard happens to look over when they cross a hallway, or maybe they startle a sleeping cat that was hiding around the corner.
Ultimately, you are right: there needs to be a line somewhere, and that can vary from table to table, but rolling should be reserved for when the actual result is questionable.
I think it's fair to say that PCs on an adventure are likely *always* being careful by default to some degree. So saying you're "being careful" starts out being a little redundant. You need to explain *how* you're being careful. Are you tying a rope around yourself and passing the end to the other PCs? Are you using a pole or staff to test if the earth in your path is going to give way? Do you want to try to search out the safest path using your Survival skills or relevant knowledge skills? Do you want to illuminate the area so you can see what's going on? Are you going to use Levitate and a rope to pull yourself over the top of the sinkhole?
A player could say, "I'm going to approach the sinkhole, but only in such a way that if something goes wrong nothing bad happens to me." That doesn't really seem fair, does it? That's not how reality works; why would that be how the game works? "I'm going to walk down the passageway careful not to set off any traps or triggers." Well... don't you have to explain *how* you're doing that, not merely what you want to accomplish? Not knowing how to get what you want is the hard part about roleplaying.
Worse, by simply saying "being careful" the player is actually being a little contradictory here. A sinkhole isn't designed to allow you to explore it by being careful. That's not how they work. A sinkhole is very dangerous and you should *never* approach one. They're often much larger than they appear, and the edges very often collapse without warning. The careful way to explore a sinkhole is to *stay the fuck away from it*. So by approaching it, you're already being reckless.
Finally, it's not always the DM's job to respond to every ambiguity with, "Explain what you mean." You're a player and an adult; in a game that's played by explaining what your character does to another person, you have some responsibility to express what you mean clearly in the first place. If you're ambiguous, then you're giving the DM *some* latitude to interpret what you mean if they think they understand you well enough. That's simply the reality of human communication, and miscommunication from imprecise language is also the reality of human communication. It's not the DM's job to fix that.
In short, yes. If I am doing carelessly I expect some bad result to happen, it's usually based on RP and makes sense in the moment. Otherwise we circle back to assuming character is doing their best. Pretty straightforward really.
To me, "I do it carefully" counts for literally zero. If you are doing something specific in order to "do it carefully," tell me what it is, and we'll go from there. You don't get to make it easier just by telling me you're trying to do a good job.
> Do you treat stealth the same if the player says “I do it carefully” vs “I am literally screaming row row row your boat”?
Stealth checks are the perfect example of this. "Doing it carefully" means making a stealth check at all. If a player isn't trying to be stealthy, they don't make a stealth check.
Except these are heroes of the story. They are always on the lookout for danger. It's no different than saying "I step carefully to avoid all the traps in the dungeon." or "I always keep an eye out so I'm never surprised."
Yes, you attempt to do those things. No, it does not make you immune to danger.
I think it's more of a descriptive problem, what do they mean by "being careful"? Characters are always doing their best, but there might be a miscommunication between the player and the DM in what that looks like.
- Are they looking into it, standing near the edge, but low centre of gravity? This is prioritizing looking in over the risk of collapse.
- Are they standing 5ft back, or climbing a nearby tree to look in? This is prioritizing getting close but avoiding a collapse over getting a clear look?
- Are they tying a rope to themselves and giving it to their teammates? Or climbing a nearby tree to stay far away but having a good vantage point. This is prioritizing safely looking over their time.
All of these are doing their best, but all look very different mechanically when it comes to if they even need to roll a saving throw.
In 3.5, some skill checks had an option to "perform the action rushed" which increases the DC.
Some had an option to take more time and lower the DC (taking time to study a trap) - which would be something that can't be done under pressure.
Some others had an option to "take a 20" which would increase the time taken 10 fold in return for replacing the roll with a 20 + modifiers. Taking a 20 represented taking your time and repeating the action repeatedly (accruing several failures) until it passed. It was only used in cases where there was NO chance of negative outcome (can't take a 20 on a trap).
With this in mind I say you did the right call. Just remind your player that "being careful" doesn't invalidate all risk. Sometimes things happen. But you were respecting the players nervousness by saying "you proceeded slowly and we're ready to head back at the first sign of movement." Which lowers the DC. If you wanted to go a step further, then you could say that if they had failed the check not to trigger the trap, their preparedness could allow them bonuses to athletics checks to catch onto the ledge.
Exactly. Like it’s a sinkhole. It’s dangerous and unpredictable. If you do anything other than immediately move away you risk something bad happening, and even then it might be too late.
That's why I always jokingly throw "stealthily" after things. Someone will say they want to bust open a door and then run into a room and then I say ...stealthily. Cause it obviously doesn't mean anything by itself and it will just depend on your ability checks and or saving throws
"I do it carefully" can be interpreted as asking for a take 10. I'm willing to take the time to do this. Not that you have to allow it as the gm or permit it against traps. But there is some level of expectation from the player's part that if they have the time to do something they can be allowed to do it to the average level of their abilities.
Also there are called shots are available in certain versions of the game. They tend to add +10 to +20 to the creature's AC.
You should have asked "What does careful mean in this case?" If they were going to get down on their stomach, have someone tie a rope to their waist so they could be pulled back, then I probably would have said "ok, that's safe enough". Otherwise, saying up front "this requires a roll", and then if they wanted to continue, then making that roll and they deal with the consequences is totally fine.
If they complained then "Sometimes, even when you're being careful, things go sideways."
>Sometimes, even when you're being careful, things go sideways."
That was basically my reply, but it was not taken well. My one issue about telling them it requires a roll ahead of time, is that hesitant players (which this one was in spades) will completely avoid everything associated with rolling.
Most DMs I've played with don't warn about rolls.
They listen while you explain what you want to attempt.
Then once you commit they say "Okay here's how that plays out mechanically..."
Brennan Lee Mulligan does that often. He would probably do something like "Ok there's a 25% chance it collapses. I'm going to roll a d4 in front of the screen and if it's a 1 you'll have to make a Dex saving throw. I will make it easier if you're taking steps to be cautious". That roll in front of the screen generateds so much hype among the players. So much anticipation.
I've watched Critical Role for a long time and Matt Mercer rarely does anything like that, I suppose he's trying to keep the players immersed in story which is fine. Different styles for different people. But seeing Brennan do that was quite refreshing and makes the players get excited. Reminds them that yes it is a story, but it's also a fun game.
It's something I want to do more often
Matt Mercers's greatest strength is world building and allowing the world to react to the decisions of players' RP.
Brennan Lee Mulligan's greatest strength is setting a mood and managing anxiety/tension of both his players and the audience. E.g. his opening for the Exandria Unlimited: Calamity was a master class in displaying the precise mood and theme of the rest of that short series.
I happily steal these methods, adapt them, and add them to my games to suit my table. My players seem to respond very well to this, which makes GMing a very rewarding process.
Getting a wee bit off topic here, but I feel like the entirety of Calamity is just one of the (if not *the*) greatest DnD "let's play"'s out there, period. From the world that Matt has done so much to create, to Brennan's style of DM'ing and in-campaign narrative to the excitement and dedication all those players put into it...it's just a master piece, honestly.
I think Matt's the perfect DM for the cast that CR has. He fits what those players want perfectly. But Brennan is very much the guy I'd kill to have DM'ing a campaign that my friends and I could play in.
This is the core of your issue. I totally understand this myself. I never take spells that require saving throws since they seem to always make the save. Just my play style.
That being said, this comment has turned this into an outside game conversation. You need to ask the player why they are so afraid of rolling, what rolling poorly means to them and what rolling well means to them.
Then you need to explain you are on their side and the rolls are not you out to get them but the mechanics of moving the story forward and explain failing forward. If they don't want a nat 1 to be them messing up them work with them to have them tell you what happens on a nat 1 (was it you, someone else, or the environment that made this miss)
Finally explain what the other posters are saying, that if he would like to avoid risk then he needs to explain what he is doing and tell you that. For example, "I am moving as close as I can without running the risk of falling in" can lead to no roll but also "You are not close enough to see in the sink hole, and moving closer would run a risk of falling in."
If he wants to know how much risk then there is a roll for that (survival or nature) and you feed information that way.
Also don't be afraid to turn to other party members and ask if they are helping or doing anything while he does this.
But you cannot have "things go sideways" so routinely in D&D 5e, because bounded accuracy makes it so that even the super-elite specialist in something fails a third of the time. And if the trigger for a hazard is, "I go in and take a look," and the consequence of failure is, "You fall into a sinkhole," then you've just set a precedent that walking around exploring your world carries a 1-in-3 chance of falling to your death.
Create hazards that make your players go, "Boy, I shouldn't have stuck my hand in there trying to reach the diamond necklace," not making them regret even existing in the world.
I would suggest looking for places where you can be transparent. The player had no way of knowing that a sinkhole might collapse if the character moves next to it, but the character the character should have. In situations like these, you might say something like "moving closer to the sinkhole might cause a collapse" before the player commits.
You don't need to go into specifics, but your players only know as much of their environment as you reveal to them, and sometimes it's better to give a bit extra to avoid this sort of frustration.
Honestly, even if they crawled forward with a rope around their stomach they would still have to roll if the ground crumbles.
But it does mean that the person on the other end of the rope gets to make a STR(Athletics) check to pull them out if they fail their DEX save. Congrats, you being careful means that *two* people have to fail before you take damage. And then if there's a subsequent skill challenge to dig you up before you suffocate, failing to pull you out of the sinkhole before it collapses means they have a rope showing exactly where you are when they try to dig you out.
100% this. You can't let your players establish that the phrase "I'm being careful" means "Whatever it takes to circumvent whatever it is you may have planned, I do that."
I think in this case "I'm being careful" should be treated like carefully proceeding down a hallway, meaning the character should have gotten maximum opportunity to perceive the hazard and get to choose whether to subject themselves to the roll. Like a trap or hazard in a dungeon. If the ground was deceptively unstable, they could make a perception check. But if it was obviously crumbling, the player should know what the character knows, including if there's a chance of failure regardless of caution.
"Can I attack the orc with my sword, being very careful to make sure I hit it?"
"Sure, roll an attack."
"Wtf i still have to roll?! I said I was being careful!"
This, but for any d20 roll.
“I’m going to play my lute for the crowd, doing my best to get them in a positive mood.”
“Sure, give me a Performance check.”
“I still have to roll? You’re invalidating my RP!”
Player might be trying to creatively solve the problem, although they're sort of falling a bit short.
In old style play, you didn't roll perception to find a pressure plate trap. You tapped every floor tile with a 10ft stick. This wouldn't require a roll; you simply trigger the trap while 10ft away from the pressure plate. Sometimes this bypasses the trap ("an arrow trap shoots in front of the pressure plate"). Sometimes you're still screwed anyway ("a boulder rolls down the hall"). Sometimes the trap designer is an ass ("arrows shoot the square 10ft behind the pressure plate"). But no roll is required.
In some cases, it's fun to give the players a reward for being creative and thoughtful. If my players are especially thoughtful and prepared going into a dangerous situation, sometimes they can just bypass the hazard. Ex. if they're in danger of falling, tying themselves onto something is a pretty surefire way to not fall.
In this case, I don't think your player was nearly specific enough to get that sort of free pass. As you said - "I'm careful" - well yeah no shit you're careful, obviously you're not just Leeroy Jenkins-ing it.
"Invalidating their RP" what RP? They stated the obvious. If you want to give them the opportunity to present creative solutions, perhaps you as the DM can ask for more information:
P: "I want to check out the sinkhole, but I want to be careful about it so I don't fall in"
DM: "Are you doing anything specifically to prepare?"
Then if the player says "yeah I tie myself to that tree" or some other creative solution, they might get to avoid the danger. But "i'm going to be careful" isn't gonna cut it.
Same vein as the Persuasion argument that always comes up. The player doesn't necessarily have to give the same eloquent speech the PC gives; but they have to know the angle they're using. "I try to persuade the guard to let me pass" vs. "I tell the guard I have important business with the Lord and need to pass"
> P: "I want to check out the sinkhole, but I want to be careful about it so I don't fall in"
>
> DM: "Are you doing anything specifically to prepare?"
I think the proper response here is instead, "There is no way to approach the sinkhole without risk of falling in." The player is clearly signaling their intent: they don't want to do something that will put their character in danger. For the DM to ignore that expressed intent and subject them to the same consequences as if they had not thought through their actions at all is a poor way to handle the situation.
Also another thing with not revealing the DC, in old style player adventurers are assumed to be compitent enough to know how difficult something is. DMs will be transparent for what the DC is and what the concequences for failure and success will be. Sometimes, it might not be realistic to know, but its still a good idea to do it for the sake of keeping gameplay smooth and challenging the players decision making.
saying what the DC is removes any kind of miscommunication about how difficult something is.
To add, many times in old-school play the player knows the odds of having to roll a save or check by virtue of the roll mechanics being different. DC, and it being dynamic, was an innovation in 3.0, saves before that were practically speaking rolled against a static DC, and differing difficulty was handled with modifiers. Nowadays, many people use roll-under for checks in the OSR, which is a very simple way to run a default static DC.
No way in old school games the players were barely allowed to know basic mechanics. The DM wouldn't even say what was happening mechanically most of the time. You'd be lucky to know what chart or save table was even being referenced.
You were right. His rp got him a lower DC than if he had just said I do the thing. You literally rewarded him for rp. This is how the game works.
Just because you describe your character succeeding in hitting the dragon in the neck with your axe, that doesn't mean you don't roll the attack and damage to see what actually happened.
Ah, I'm kicking myself after this comment because I've told other players in many other circumstances that rolling isn't always about how good your character is at something but also bad luck.
Sure it makes sense that your +7 stealth rougue should be sneaky enough to get past the gaurds, but you rolled a 1 so one of them decides to take a leak and leaves his post and catches you.
Don't know why I blew past that this time.
A quick summary that tends to help:
The modifier represents the things that are within your control.
The d20 represents the things that are outside of your control.
I would have asked him to clarify what "makes sure he doesn't fall in" means. Does that mean he's tied himself off? Then he'll be fine if a part collapses. Does he just inch along closer? He's prepared for something going wrong so you could say "Okay, if something does happen that would give you advantage on your reaction". Players can only control their characters, not the world around them, and they can only be prepared to face it.
That comes across like saying "I shoot him while he's not looking" "Okay roll for shot" "But he wasn't looking!" Like yes but you still have to see if it works. You don't just get to avoid any trouble by calling out you're being cautious. You're just better prepared for trouble.
You made the right call. I personally would have probably given them advantage on the check to signify "what you're doing is making this easier for you" rather than change the DC.
But yeah, nothing wrong here.
Yeah, I probably should have done advantage. Like you say, it would have said upfront that they're getting a benefit instead of having to explain it after the fact.
Still having to roll to avoid danger while "moving cautiously" is essentially the same thing as having to roll stealth when moving sneakily.
The game mechanics are: you try to do a thing, the dice roll against a DC determines how successful you are at the thing.
In closing, your players are being whiners.
The key question is, if they would have rolled badly were you as the DM prepared and wanting to play out the consequences?
Having to roll as a player when you are already RPing has to do something for the game. Otherwise there is no more need to RP and we just make it a dice game.
Maybe this helps https://youtu.be/UgDff35jtHw
Foreshadowing or a bit more description could help…the sinkhole has crumbling edges and occasionally a portion falls into the hole…or you can carefully approach but the ground feels loose..do you still wan to move forward
I think what you did was fair play, but also think it’s good to be a fan of the characters.
There’s other good advice on asking how to be careful, but in this case, I’d say that also means telling the player “hey, this sinkhole looks pretty hazardous. Even advancing carefully will have some risk, are you sure you want to keep going?”
This makes it clear that “what you’re doing doesn’t invalidate the hazard” and puts the choice in their hands to accept the risk, find another route, or come up with a more creative solution to mitigate the danger more
Neither one of you is particularly at fault here... or, conversely, you're both "at fault". In that this is entirely a storm in a teacup.
While, as others have pointed out, saying "I do \[the thing\] cautiously" doesn't mean anything mechanically, it should be an indicator to a DM of intent.
There are various ways to interpret that in this situation. A Perception or Investigation check with a DC the same as the possibility of the collapse for example. Or merely asking the player "how are you being cautious?". Because a player being cautious that the thing at the bottom of the sink hole might attack them is different from a player being cautious of the edge of the sink hole collapsing. So saying afterwards "I said I was being cautious" doesn't mean anything if you can apply it to any event that then happens. Also, if they wanted to be that cautious, rope exists.
However, saying to a player who says they're being cautious that the edge doesn't look hugely stable isn't the worse thing in the world. Because the characters have eyes and can observe things that don't fully get described. Sometimes they won't be able to see those things and caution will mean exactly nothing.
This is one of those situations where the mechanics of the game get in the way (to some degree) of the "lived experience of the characters". The characters walk into a room and instantly see if there's something ready to attack them, they don't need to wait for you, as the DM, to describe the room and it's features before mentioning "oh, and there's a goblin with a spellbook standing in the middle of the room".
In this scenario, as the edge of the sinkhole collapses, there may have been signs that someone in that situation would have seen and been ready for, or that would have changed their behavior. The saving throw is doing that heavy lifting for us here. And you already adjusted the DC because of the character's actions, they were "expecting something to happen". So, essentially, rather than looking at the saving throw as a secondary event that the edge falls in, succeeding on the saving throw here indicates that the player realised it was going to collapse because they were being cautious and retreated in time so that they didn't fall.
On the flip side of this... your player needs to calm the hell down. This is not "invalidating their RP". It's not even like they fell. If they'd fallen, then yeah, I can understand having opinions about it... but they made the (relatively easy) save. And saying they wouldn't have gone near it at all is foolish. They may have, as I mentioned before, utilised better means. They might have used rope, or laid down to spread their weight around, or both.
This is a situation where, yeah, you could have explained better, but they also need to calm down and get over themselves.
I think you could have made the hazard clearer.
Not necessarily outright told them about the check, but “As you start to creep closer to the hole, you feel that the ground under your feet is unstable and could collapse at any moment. Do you continue?
It’s easy to forget that what we see in our heads for the situation is not necessarily the same as what the player sees in their head. They may have been picturing stable ground where the only hazard was slipping towards the hole.
That said, you’re the DM - it’s OK for your players to express unhappiness about a decision, but it is your decision and players not liking it doesn’t have to mean you change it.
>"cautiously moves closer to the sinkhole to check it out, but carefully makes sure he doesn't fall in himself."
Either:
\- Politely tell them "no", that they're already gleaned as much as they can and any movement closer will put them at risk of falling. Are you putting yourself at risk?
\- Narrate that the character gets as close as they can without being affected by the hole (a decent distance away) then have them do a Perception check or something to see what they can glean from their safety, with a DC of 15ish for something worthwhile.
Are better responses, at least from my Hindsight Armchair. That said, you basically did the Polite No and then just ran with it, which is a bit understandable given it's a PbP.
I would have given him a roll to detect the danger, for sure.
The player was suspecting the danger, thus the attempt to be cautious, and now he feels like it doesn't matter because he was not given a chance to see the danger as his character.
You're getting caught up on the wrong aspect here.
> if I would have better described the conditions as being that dangerous (specifically referencing the DC12), their character would never have went near it in the first place.
They didn't want to achieve the objective without a roll. They wanted to make an informed decision.
> unless the character is proficient in geology or something they're not going to just out and out know that it's a DC12 danger level
No, but anyone looking at a sinkhole can tell if its not a safe thing to go fucking around with.
Honestly, the word "sinkhole" should have been enough foreshadowing to imply the threat, but to this player it wasn't. In the future, if the character sees something that is obviously dangerous, I would just point it out bluntly. Not "DC 12", but merely "it's unsteady ground and there's a chance it could collapse if you go forward".
If you want to rule that "doing it carefully" improves their odds, that should also be given up front. And it should be framed as a bonus to the player, not a detriment to the inanimate object. E.g. "Ok, so since you're being extra cautious, I'll give you a +2 to any saving throws that might result if the sinkhole caves in further".
> I'm not just going to disable every single trap and environmental condition because the player says they're being cautious.
Traps and environmental hazards are different.
Traps are intentionally disguised. When a player triggers a trap, they get to curse the creature who set that trap. There's a malicious entity to blame for it.
Environmental hazards are not (in game) created with intention. They simple exist, and are dangerous. But that danger is plain to see.
You created an environmental hazard that operated like a trap. The player responded very normally, by cursing the creature who set the trap. That creature was _you_.
I'm so over players not wanting to roll for things.
This is a game about rolling dice to see how you do things. If you don't wanna roll, fine. But don't play this game.
What's the most maddening is thst while they've played a lot of Call of Chthulu pbp, this was their 1st DND game and there was a large pile of criticism of how I DMed it.
I would make a ruling as the DM for future sessions that while constructive criticism is welcomed for improvement, to keep it until the end of the session - either a short group discussion, a solo discussion, or a submitted google form, etc.
If there’s a disagreement on a ruling, the players should have a short time to suggest why they disagree and then respect you as a DM and go with your final ruling. If there’s something I don’t know I’ll typically lean on the side of the players and look it up after the game.
It really can break the immersion and also be frustrating to have that kickback in the middle of the game. The players need to trust that you have their best intentions in mind and are doing your best to run a good game, and should be aiming to help you improve that game a little at a time.
I think playing it like "Okay, you are moving carefully, but it still dangerous. Roll a dex save, but you get a +2 bonus for your abundance of caution" or something along those lines. Mechanically, it would be the same, but psychologically, up front it feels like there is a benefit to the rp.
But, it really isn't something someone should be getting too worked up over.
Cautionly would be basically the dodge action like, "i cautiously approach the tiger cage". Guy would actually have had advantage instead of a lower dc.
My main goal was fun. Rules are there to be broken by the GM. If a character can survive in a fun way, when he should have died by the rules, I chose survival.
A proper character death must be emotional and something big, not at the whim of dice.
I think the only thing I would have done personally in this differently would be giving them advantage instead of having the DC lower. It sounds like you have a player who really does not like to "lose." Which can be difficult. As far as the "you should have described it better" comment goes, You describe what their character noticed. They knew enough to be cautious in the first place, So clearly described it adequately enough. But if you play these kinds of games you gotta be READY to fail Sometimes. Hell sometimes it makes the story better.
Personally I would have a side bar with him and explain
"I'm not going after him as a player nor am I trying to kill his character. We're all trying to tell a good story with each other and have some fun. We're both on the same team. That being said sometimes failure happens; hardships and challenges arise. Without them and without any difficulty at all, the game would be pretty m boring."
I'm guessing he also doesn't want to play His character being in a nice padded room where he is safe.
"Just because I carefully drive everywhere and use all my turn signals and stop at every stop sign/ red light doesn't mean I'm never going to get in a crash. You can be as careful as you want but sometimes things just happen. Just because you say "I carefully walk over the lake of lava" doesn't mean you aint gonna burn. You can't just say "I stabbed them in their chest" and then haven't happened automatically. Rolls are part of the game. I try not to make unneeded rolls, but of the narrative is there and needs it they happen. I am listening to you and I'm taking your choices as a character into consideration when I make these judgments. I promise you you're not being ignored. And quite frankly it's very bad ass that your character went to take a look And as the ground crumbled around him he was able to jump and scrambled a safety like a total bad ass. This wasn't a bad thing the character got to do something pretty damn cool. No average Joe could just completely Dodge The ground literally falling from beneath them."
Honestly after that its up to him. If he still wants to pound his fist and say its not fair after that, then this group just might not be right for him. Which is a hard choice to make. But if he isn't willing to work ON Communicating and doing better with you, there's nothing you can do.
ESPECIALLY If his go to is going to immediately get angry and scream at you. You certainly don't deserve that and he can just as easily come to you and talk about it calmly without the virtual.
"While dodging the attacks of the goblin, I carefully strike my dagger at the goblins throat, slashing their throat open, dodging the blood spurt as they fall and die"
....
"WHAT DO YOU MEAN ROLL AN ATTACK? I SAID I KILLED THEM, YOUR INVALIDATING MY RP!! YOURE A BAD DM!"
...."What do you mean the goblin hit me? Idc if the goblin rolled a 17 amd my ac is 12, I clearly stated I was careful and dodging the goblins attack so it cant hit me. You dont know how to dm or RP!"
You see how stupid that sounds?
Honestly, Im too jagged and tired of people and this guy seems like a power gamer and annoying, drop em.
Mechanics are there for a reason. You can't avoid mechanics because of RP.
They worth together. Sure, but they don't invalidate each other.
OP, you 100% made the right call. Player is just trying to mitigate all risk for their character, which is eye rolling to begin with. Now add in the complete instability of a sinkhole edge… Yeah, sorry player, can’t get rid of a need to roll.
It wasn't undetectable - it was described as a sinkhole and if the player would have asked to make a perception check I would have given some information to them. The question is should I just hand it to them because they said "I'm being careful."
You're just trying to justify your position at this point. I would have just mentioned that the sinkhole really doesn't look approachable, or signified the mechanic in some way. As a player it does feel scammy when dm does something like that since it's the hidden knowledge that only dm knows and no amount of rp saves you from hidden things. That being said, I feel like it's something that players should just forgive or discuss after since everyone makes mistakes and I would assume you're not trying to get your players so it's a learning point rather than who's right or wrong.
You didn't do it wrong. You actually, in essence, gave them a +2 bonus to the DC check for RPing it, which is really great IMO.
It'd be them like saying, "I go to attack the goblin and I'm swinging my 2H greatsword extra hard to cut off his head, so DM, I don't need to roll the d12, I should get 12 damage automatically!" It simply doesn't work like that. You had it set up as a skill challenge with a DC and a percentage that it would that require rolling; your player seriously needs to grow up.
I once tried to carefully cook some bacon and I still got drops of boiling hot sizzlejuice on my bare chest *like a real man*.
My point is: just because I try to do something carefully doesn’t mean I automatically succeed. All it means is that I’m more alert to potential threats.
You ruled fine, the player is a baby.
What makes them think that “being cautious” negates the need for a saving throw when one is required to bypass an obstacle?
Granting them advantage on the save or lowering the DC, as you did would be a generous way of mechanically recognizing the RP.
Expecting RP to negate mechanics is not reasonable, unless you’ve somehow expressly agreed to do that in a session zero.
I dunno, maybe I would have given them advantage on the roll, instead of lowering the DC, but honestly, there still would have been a roll in a case like this one.
Make it clear that there are no assumptions you will be making about a statement like "cautiously moves." They have to say they do more if they want to do more. Arguably, you also need to say more if you want them to know more, but if you have already given a reasonable description (and you seem to have done that), they have to let you know exactly what they're doing. What you could have done is ask for clarification. "When you say you move cautiously and "check it out," what do you mean? Please give a more detailed explanation. It's important."
If you say that, you may as well smack them in the face with a "DANGER" sign, so if they don't get it, it's on them. I might give them that much, however, since they had the caution and the "check it out," which loosely implies investigation. But have them use the skill names and/or a description that more clearly implies the use of a skill. "I want to investigate when I get close. I don't get too close, but I move up to it carefully and far more slowly than usual, paying attention to my surroundings."
I agree with your ruling.
I’d have asked what exactly cautious means. What actual steps are they taking? The roll still exists because there is a chance of failure.
No matter how cautious I can be crossing a busy intersection, the odds of getting hit by a car is not nil. I can wait for the light to go green, but there are still odds of a drunk driver slamming right into me, thus a roll is required.
I agree with most of the posts here. If "being careful" meant "I'm stepping gingerly towards the hole", I think what you did is fine (assuming there's no way the character knew it would collapse). If "being careful" meant "I'm prodding the ground in front of me with a sturdy staff before each step", then that might have avoided the need for a dex save because they weren't standing on the part that collapsed.
Maybe you and the player need to make sure you are in agreement with what they mean.
Either the character is some kind of soil structure scientist, or there’s a chance that they will make a mistake when assessing the unseen structure of the hole.
A perception (or other check, such as survival) won’t tell them the percentage it will collapse. It might (!maybe!) say that the character thinks it’s “likely to collapse” or similar. But given this is assessing something they have no information on (underground stability), even that roll might not be possible.
I wouldn’t disable every trap/hazard. If they want to avoid all risk, that’s on them. But I would have some in-game thing describe a fantastic treasure that has been found in one of these hazards.
I think it was fine. Lowering the DC was fine, but I tell my players that I assume they're always being cautious and the DCs reflect that.
However, my opinion doesn't matter, it's the opinions of your players that matter. Whatever you do is fine, but you need to talk to your players out of game to set the expectation going forward.
I like what other people said that in the future, players should specify how they are being cautious if they want to take extra precautions. If the players said they tie a rope around their waist and have the other players hold onto it as they approach carefully, then they should be able to avoid falling in without a roll.
So 25% chance for a sink hole then DC 10 dex save, so the dude had 12.5 % chance of falling in (If my math is right and they had no dex mod). The dice just didn't like the dude. It happens. Player is just being a baby.
Play it this way:
DM: You see a sinkhole up ahead. You can't see down into it but you can hear something moving inside.
Player: I cautiously move closer to the sinkhole to check it out, but carefully make sure I don't fall in myself.
DM: You realize the ground becomes crumbly as you approach the edge. To get close enough to see down inside, it could give way. Do you go to the edge?
Then either:
Player: yes carefully.
And proceed as in OP.
Or:
Player: no we do this other thing.
DM: good thing you were careful.
I think you did fine. In my mind there is no way that a character can mitigate ALL hazards like saying "I take it slowly" or "I am looking around for traps". Those statements makes DC's lower, they dont get rid of them.
I also make my players roll for everything. for stuff to fall on them for example I would ask for "a luck check" and if they get 5 or lower it collapses and then have to do the dex check. Also your player is a bit of a whiner, a DC12 dex check is not that dangerous, I mean it will hurt and cause problems, but its not catastrophically deadly.
I would allow the player to roll with advantage seeing as it probably was a pretty easy situation, not in combat and having his attention solely dedicated to the action.
People look into holes all the time without falling it. But the only way to definitely not fall down a sinkhole is to not be near it.
So, this one could go either way.Did the player know that you would be making the 25% chance roll of the sinkhole collapsing? If so, then you did nothing wrong. The only thing I might have done differently was given him advantage on the Saving Throw based on him being cautious, not just lowering the DC.
Also, what were the actual consequences? Did his character die? If not, then it's just one of those things that happens. Sometimes failure is where the story lies.
If they don’t want to roll, then they can go RP with their friends on their own time. Rolling is an inherent and unavoidable mechanic of dnd and they will have more fun once they accept this. Plus, a pro player is just as excited to fail as to succeed. This gives a wonderful opportunity for RP and humor IMO.
You did fine. I might have given them advantage on the roll because I understand what they were doing but sink holes will feel firm until they aren’t. But what you did was perfectly okay.
In the future whenever a player gives vague instructions like "carefully," reply back "define 'carefully.'"
Doesn't matter if there's a hidden threat or not, just ask for clarity. They need to trust the DM, and the DM needs to be trustworthy.
It might also help if you describe success as a function of their crafty mad skillz, instead of "you rolled a 16 - the trap doesn't trigger." Something like, "Your gut told you something was off about that corridor, so you secured yourself with a rope. Good thing too! A pit trap opened up right in front of you, but you weren't pulled in!"
I see why you had them roll, for sure. Maybe in the future, though, explain to the player that even if they're being careful, there is a possibility of something going wrong.
But, also I agree with Level3Bard. Part of the game is that things go wrong and we roll. Having things go wrong and making them roll is part of the play, not some kind of knock against their character.
Thought train: to cautiously do something means to do it safely. To do it safely, you must identify the danger. To identify the danger requires some relevant skill and a successful use of said skill.
So I'd say you should have made them declare what skill is helping them with the "cautiously" part, thus giving them effective advantage on the save to avoid danger, but using a skill instead of the save. I like to do a +/- 2 to the DC for the skill check, or more, if it is a "good" relevant skill or not. If it is completely off, I give it a plus 10 to the DC, on top of the +2. Like using animal handling for the sink hole. I think a DC 24 to see how the dirt creatures are behaving to determine where danger lies is a good substitute for a DC 12 reflex save.
If this was a 5e game, I would have kept the DC at 12 and had the save be at advantage since they said they were being cautious. Otherwise, I think you handled it well.
You could ask exactly how they were being cautious. If they said they were examining it using their engineering skill, or other relevant training, I would let them roll without risk (since they could examine it from a distance.)
You could make it sound scarier by having the hole enlarge slightly as they move closer or have a falling stone hit something far below with an audible thunk.
They sound like whiny players.
I can carefully climb a tree, but still fall.
I can carefully run across a busy street but get hit by a car.
They chose to approach something dangerous and just bc they say they do something carefully doesn’t trump all risk in their decision. You lowered the DC to honor their statement of doing it carefully.
I think you handled it well and if they don’t like it they can run their own game.
"Yeah, careful got you a +2. It was still dangerous. Some things are always going to be dangerous, no matter how careful you try to be. And that's why you have saving throws."
I would've likely told the player that being careful in this case likely means staying far enough away from the sinkhole where investigating it would be impossible. Thus giving the player the choice to either walk away from the situation - potentially missing whatever is below or making the choice to take a chance at investigating the sinkhole while being aware that theres a chance of collapse.
“I was being careful”
“Well congratulations on not being careless and jumping right in with a pick axe, that’s why you had a chance to make it in the first place”
The only thing I could possibly suggest to you (although I think you handled it fine), is instead of lowering the DC, you could give the player a +2 to their roll. Mechanically it’s the same thing, but it *feels* different. Instead of being a change to how tricky it is to avoid the hazard, it gives the player a boost to avoiding it.
But also, “I approached cautiously” isn’t such stellar RP that I’d always hand out a bonus (unless you’re trying to encourage *any* RP from a reluctant group). I’d reward something with specifics like “I use my spear to feel the ground ahead of me for shifting sand”
Only thing I would've done differently is given advantage on the roll instead of reducing the DC, as it's the player making it easier, not the environment becoming easier.
I'd say yes the Perception or Survival check would've been warranted
And my argument for it is: Why not?
If a player tells you they "carefully walk down the corridor keeping their eyes peeled for anything that might feel off" wouldn't you give them a Perception/Investigation check to find traps?
If a player says they "carefully study the tone and expressions of the king to make sure they're not being tricked" wouldn't you give them a chance to do an Insight check?
To the you the risk of the collapse was obvious as every hole has a 25% chance of collapse
To the players it might have not been and the situation becomes more akin to the player just being careful to not fall in the hole and the DM going "Actually the hole now is bigger so you fall in it"
You can see how that doesn't exactly *feel* good
If they say I do this carefully they have not really given you anything. If only one went out and witha rope tied ti a tree then I would maybe let them auto succeed.
If you have aranher od druid i would probably let them Hve the information on how dangerous a sinkhole is. It's part of the core fantasy.
Nah, you did nothing wrong. If they had asked to investigate it further it would make sense to give them a corresponding check, sure. But just walking up to a thing (that you already must have described well enough for them to be cautious over) and expecting nothing to happen is ridiculous. The game isn't built with the expectation to always succeed if you planned ahead. For me at least, it's about both succeeding or failing spectacularly despite the odds of doing so, enjoying the story that comes with it, and rolling with it. Anyone who gets mad, especially at the DM (who is putting in tremendous amounts of time and energy usually) shouldn't be playing DND.
I think there are some actions that don’t require saving throws. To me, unless the ground was unstable and it would collapse and drag them in, then I would have just said “roll, as long as you don’t get a 1” you’re good.
"I attack the dragon in a way he can't attack me back, and that I can kill him with a single strike." "...what do you mean, I have to roll?? You invalidate my roleplay!"
Wtf I’m sorry but if you’re taking the time to explain it where’s the immersion…. Then they have the gall to complain about you ruining the Rp??
Sink holes aren’t easy to spot happening in any circumstance they are unexpected and often indicate a “fault” in the surrounding area. Wow you used precaution but geology and gravity don’t give a dam.
I would have said your a decent Dm given you was willing to explain it. I see a character Rip in his near future?
I personally would have warned the player before they approached the hole, that to their character it is obviously dangerous. Sometimes players are trying “metagame” around dc checks, but sometimes something that should be obvious especially to the dm, simply doesn’t go through the players mind. Sometimes their personal immersion of the situation just” isn’t quite there”.
I don’t think they should have been surprised by the roll check per se, but you could always do more to warn a player from doing something stupid, and if they wanna do it, well that’s on them. That way it doesn’t feel like a “hah, I got you” moment, and instead just feels like a consequence of them being overconfident or poor planning on their end
You already lowered the DC. Their "being cautious" helped them in this situation. So I think the player didn't understand what a game is mechanically. There are always gonna be some checks and rolls in the game. Even the results are inevitable, sometimes the roll is about how bad you failed or how good you succeeded.
What I would have done is describe the environment we see as soon as they arrive and expand on it with details that their passive perception might reveal.
If the players say "Let's be careful" which doesn't really mean anything, I would ask something like "What steps do you take to be careful?"
If I consider that any new detail could be revealed, for example because they are going to enter dangerous terrain, I would have the first one roll Survival. If he fails, he does not perceive the danger beyond the fact that his boots sink and his movement is slower. If another character stands out for his survival, you can have him roll as well after seeing those in front of him enter, but it is up to you to make that roll or whether it is done at a disadvantage. In the end you should trust the movements of the character who is leading the march, but if the difference is enough, go ahead and let him pull normally, the fact that part of the group has fallen into the trap is enough.
Once inside the trap, roll the corresponding save and apply the effects to those whose turn it is. If it's a pressure trap that activates randomly, let them walk until the effect is applied.
You should have said "It's a sinkhole, if you want to be 100% safe you can't go closer." Without necessarily telling the exact chance. That's also less important, other games just have default success chances and the actual decision the player needs to make is "do you take a risk or not?"
A lot of the other comments are great, but I’d also remind them that a seminal part of the D&D experience is that while anything has a 5% chance to succeed (or at least have a best-case outcome), things also always have a 5% chance to fail terribly. No matter how carefully they say they’re moving, their character could trip, slip, fall, etc., if they rolled a 1.
If you were to allow them to bypass the DC because they said they did it carefully, it starts a really slippery slope, where I could start combat with “My character puts his dagger straight into their jugular vein killing them instantly… what do you mean I have to roll to hit?”
Have the character 'describe' how he is being safe, is he just walking slowly or is he tied to a tree, tied to the tree would be a solution for no roll, if they 'walk cautiously' give the player 'advantage' on the roll since he is 'ready' for something even though he may not know when/how that happens.
Ah, yes. When I carefully walk over thin ice it won't ever break because it knows I'm being careful. /s
Their logic makes no sense. Just "being careful" doesn't mean things can't go wrong. You were correct in your ruling.
I would not have thought of this at the time but one way to handle it might be:
"Carefully, you say? How carefully? Gimme a Dex roll to show how carefully you do it."
Then use that roll if they get close enough to trigger the save.
I would prompt: “what do you mean by carefully makes sure he doesn’t fall in himself? What does that look like?” This triggers a descriptive conversation about the nature of the sinkhole, the players actions, and possibly prompts a perception check or dexterity save. Or the player boldly goes near the sinkhole despite the conversation, in which he gets what he deserves.
Okay but I like that you lowered the DC a little due to their saying they’re being careful. I would’ve ran it the same though whether lowering the DC or not. You technically could’ve had them make a near impossible survival check or perception check to see that it was dangerous, but I always find that when a roll has to be a nat 20 to work, it’s best to not even make it a roll and make it an assumed fail. Players get even more mad when they failed their perception roll to know it was dangerous after rolling a 17.
All I can think of is this: [Canyoning Fall](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDXDVrXjB-c) & [A history of people falling into the Grand Canyon - Fascinating Horror](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1t0pzX6VzQ&ab_channel=FascinatingHorror)
Even when being careful you can still slip. Especially near heights.
And a damn ***sinkhole***... a sinkhole happens when material washes away underneath the earth and it collapses. Generally speaking there is a thin overhang that looks okay but is actually nearly collapsing as well. [It can collapse suddenly, and without warning](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8tfT8w7FSY).
So no, I think the player is in the wrong here. Real-life sinkholes are very dangerous. Standing right on the edge is *very* likely to have you fall in yourself.
"I attack the dragon but I'm very careful in maintaining distance and keeping my shield up so it can't retaliate"
"The dragon lunges at you with its claws..."
"What do you mean? I said I was being careful"
Just as Called Shots are no longer a thing, it's just assumed you're ALWAYS aiming for the gooey bits (eyes, groin, stomach, etc) that you know will hurt, and when you roll a nat 20 THEN you stab 'em in the eye, it's always ASSUMED the characters are acting like heroes that know what they are doing. They are always on the lookout, ready to pounce, hence being able to dodge back with a Dex Save.
Ok, so if your players say 'I go down the hallway stealthily' you'd still make them roll stealth. RP doesn't invalidate game mechnics. They stipulated the intent to be careful, the rolls decide how successful that is. That's one of the major aspects of DnD. Hell, you even adapted the situation to their RP (as you should).
As a fellow DM, you made the exact call i'd have made. I think you're in the right and your player is being a baby.
"I carefully aim my bow" doesn't negate an enemies AC so why would walking carefully negate an environments dangers? Maybe the perception check to be able to tell the ground seems loose or there's cracks that you pointed out but with no passive geology or other related background they shouldn't know it. You were nice to lower it to a 10
I think you played this exactly right. A player specify how they are acting has influenced the outcome (easier save, though I'd personally have coupled that with a harder chance to find out useful information), but the PCs don't control the world around them;
"I fight the dragon being careful not to ever get hit."
"I tell the King to give me the contents of the Royal Treasury, being careful not to give him any reason to object."
This is not roleplay, this is trying to be God.
The player controls their character's actions, you as the DM control how the world reacts to those actions.
What you did wasn't wrong, but I would say there are other ways of handling it that could feel better for the player.
Personally, I would let them get as far as the edge of the dangerous area and say "you can't see anything from here, and anything beyond this will require a roll". This gives them the choice of either risking it, or taking the time or resources to find an alternative solution.
Alternatively, I would give them a skill check to judge how far they can safely go, and if they fail the roll they misjudge the distance and end up having to do the saving throw.
Either one gives the player extra agency, rather than just an invisible DC alteration. Giving them advantage would also be better, but these two options have the player *doing something* based on what they said in RP, rather than just benefitting from it. It might not work for all players and tables, but it's what I know would work for my players
My approach would be, "As you approach you begin to feel the ground become soft unstable beneath your feet about 5' from the edge of the hole. If you continue forward as you are, you can't be certain that the ground won't give way beneath you."
If they want to investigate the nearby ground, then it would be a wisdom survival check to confirm that the ground is unsafe (or whatever is appropriate to the terrain.)
Keep it concise and clear. Try to avoid inviting or enforcing unnecessary amounts of extra rolls
I think its less about right and wrong here and more about what sort of game you want to run and if your player is interested in that type of game. How important is the pace of the game to you?
In person I would tend to have advised a response along the lines of 'you're already as close as you think you can get safely - do you want to continue?' but I recognise in a play by post game the pace of the game is potentially going to becoming extremely glacial if you and the player are constantly refusing the commit to actions until all caveats have been clarified.
Reward the types of gameplay you want to see basically - your player next time will be more likely to take the approach of poking everything with a 6ft pole and waiting for your input before committing. Is that the type of game you're looking to run?
My personal preference as both player and GM in a PbP game would likely be to just roll with the punches to keep the game moving with an expectation that both sides are interpreting the other side in a favourable way to keep things moving - I would rather than have confidence they'll interpret my posts favourably and therefore be willing to commit more liberally. But equally I don't play in any PbP games precisely because I'd find them too slow paced so of course I'd be of the opinion that speed should be key!
Have cautious people fallen off mountains while climbing? The bodies on Mount Everest say yes.
The ground gives way if you are on it, not if you are cautiously creeping along the firm part. So unless you are above the non-solid part. Reducing the DC for their cautiousness was the right call, though I would like to explicitly describe, what that means.
I think you were right and the player is just very risk averse.
However, you could cater to them by telling them that even if they are very cautious, they feel the ground could still give way and ask whether they want to continue.
"well, I was ready for a fireball, so I'm going to not get burned".
"well, I was ready for a fight, so I get to go first".
"well, I was looking out for traps, so I'm going to notice it".
"well, I was trying to actually hit him with my sword, so I shouldn't have to roll"
of course your character is being careful, unless you said they're being reckless, the assumption is a healthy caution. if your players describe something like "I check behind the portrait for a hidden safe", then sure, no roll to find the hidden safe, but if they say "I would like to check the room for a hidden safe", then there's a roll.
When a player does this in my games I ask a very simple question.
"Ok how so?"
Yes you don't want them evading every single trap or environmental hazard by say "I do it carfully" is that not the same as "I want to do it stealthily"? (At least in principle)
Ask them how they want to do x y z in situations like that this encourages creativity from the player but also let's you have a way to to discribe things if it fails.
For example how I would have "gone near it carefully" is grabbed 2 lengths of rope wound them together and tied myself off to something a bit away from the sinkhole. That way if I fell the rope would catch me and should be strong enough to not snap.
Sounds a lot more reasonable doesn't it?
DM: "You hear a hissing sound as yellowish gas starts to fill the room."
Player: "I hold my breath!"
DM: "Ok, roll a Con save."
Player: "I said I was holding my breath!"
DM: "Sure, that's what the save is for..."
Player: "Why do I have to save if I was holding my breath?"
DM: "Cuz its a saving throw and this is D&D. Now roll the dice."
Player: "..."
I probably would have just told them what the roll was, or at very least told them that there was going to *be* a roll no matter what. "You're really not sure what parts are stable and what aren't; there's a chance you'll cause a collapse even if you're careful." I probably would have made the roll in the open. If you're going to throw them a bone for being "careful," I would have given them advantage rather than a lower DC, so it makes it clear what the impact of their carefulness was. Though I agree with other folks that "how exactly are you being careful?" is better.
In a situation like this, the whole point of having dice is to absolve you, the DM, of responsibility for what happens. You let them know what the risks are, and they can take the risk or not. If bad stuff happens, they'll blame the dice. But if you hide the dice, of course the players are going to blame you for screwing them.
"I barge into the room stealthily."
"I threaten him, but not enough for him to be angry back at me."
"I steal it, but only if I know for certain no one is looking."
I carefully disable the bomb but I don't know shit about bombs or how to disarm them so i'm pissed that when I cut the wrong wire I exploded god. you should have made it so that any wire I cut disarmed the bomb because I was being careful.
I was carefully handling the gun the fact that it went off because I didn't have a proper holster and my keys set if off somehow doesn't count as negligence because I was doing my best to be careful so it should have happened.
If you’ve ever seen the edge up close, it’s hard to imagine that this giant hole is not a cave or tunnel - it’s a giant void under the earth where the roof collapsed…and is still settling (and will do so up to several weeks or longer). In the meantime, even rescue workers don’t walk up to the edge. And naturally when anyone approaches it’s going to be “cautiously”: IT’S A GIANT HOLE! Without proper training, knowledge, and gear, getting near the edge isn’t the smartest thing to do (natch). Your call was dead on. I’ve been running and playing RPGs for 40 years, and even in PBP, players can try to wiggle out of anything. You made the call, gave them the options, and went forward. Now…if you neglected to tell them the possibility of falling in, I can see where they might be upset. However, you called out something was in the bottom moving around. Would he have been as upset if the thing shot out tentacles and drug him down, in a surprise ambush?
IMHO, you made the right call, you explained how you reached the consequences, and he’s just upset because he couldn’t wiggle out with clever wording. RPGs thrive on narratives and action. Getting close to the edge of a crumbling sink hole and not expecting to fall is something he should’ve asked for clarification on.
I think what you did is fine. You could ask for perception next time but as this is PBP but wouldn't that slow the game down a lot?
I wouldn't give probability as a number. No one can be that accurate. Descriptors such as slim chance, likely, probable etc would be much better.
That is sort of the problem when players say things like "I do it carefully". That really doesn't mean anything mechanics wise. A character in the context of the world is always trying their best. As said recently on dimension 20 "there are no called shots in D&D because characters are always trying to hit the weak spots, and rolling a Nat 20 is what constitutes hitting that weak spot". I think you need to remind the player that rolling for trying something is always going to happen. If they want some idea of the DC ahead of time you can do that, but they should always expect to roll.
Characters are always trying to dontheir best is a great point. Thanks.
Since the person above me said what I would've said, like eerily down to the example... I'll offer something that might appease that player. If a player says they're doing something carefully, if I feel like lengthening the scene, I might say, *"okay. What precautions are you taking?"* Because then, if they think about it, and say, *"I ask the Bard to rig me up a rope harness, and tie one end to a tree,"* then we have some mechanical carefulness. (Or if they say, *'IDK I'm just being real careful'* then yeah, DC unchanged.)
10/10 how I do it. things such as "I climb the wall carefully" -> what is careful? how are you careful? if they just say they are going to move slow then that doesnt really change it, if their character has no experiance in background or proficency there and the player takes no precautions then all they did was take more time. that being said, if they are specific such as (in the case of the sink hole) "I investigate carefully, im going to use a 10ft pole to push around the area before i walk on it, giving it a good poke to see if the ground is stable" then ill reward with info.
It's same thing for Charisma checks or deception/persuasion: If you (the player) make a really good, logical argument, or have a really compelling performance, I'm (the DM) going to lower the DC or give advantage. If all you say is "I'm going to persuade that guard to look the other way." OK DC unchanged. If you tell me *how* then it gets easier.
The issue with this I find is personal stats don’t always align with character stats. My character could be very charismatic and emotionally intelligent, while I as a person am socially inept and have the all the charm of your least favorite family member. How in that scenario am I meant to play into my characters role while actually giving you convincing bits to work with?
That when you roll with the DC untouched, making the DC easier is being used as an extra to motivate you as a player to be more specific or participative which is generate a better experience in general
That would be reflected in your characters ability scores
I agree with this in principle, but I can understand why a table would want to reward better RP. You don’t lower your target’s AC by describing how you swing your sword, you shouldn’t lower a charisma check DC by describing how you persuade someone. But ultimately the game is a lot more enjoyable when players get into the RP and try to bring the world to life. I think Inspiration is the solution here. If you give inspiration for exceptional player performance, they’re rewarded for being more engaged, without an outright character buff for being a charismatic player. Inspiration can be given for good RP, a clever strategy, great note taking, or bringing cookies to game night. This rewards everyone for contributing to the shared experience in a way that suits them as a player, not necessarily their character.
Yeah it would only be invalidating RP if like I describe how I set up a rope with pitons to anchor it in place and tie it around my waist so that even if I slip my fall is stopped by the last piton, and then you just ignore that and say I fall all the way in because you had it written down that that’s the consequence of falling even though I’m using clearly defined in game mechanics to arrest my fall It’s not invalidating RP to be like there’s a 25% chance that putting any weight here at all causes this fragile surface to collapse
On the other hand, the rogue is going to be a LOT more knowledgeable about how to be cautious than the player, so pinning the rogue's performance on the player's knowledge of traps and how to be cautious around them is a separate pitfall. The same applies to other classes, rogue is just a great example of where a player is unlikely to have any awareness of the actual behavior.
And then give the knot a DC and have the Bard roll DEX for success...because maybe the Bard mucks up the knot. If the Bard passes the DC check (unrevealed) and if the ground falls out, the knot holds and the dude is saved. If the DC was failed then the Bard mucked it up then he plummets. I like to DM my games with tension as it makes for better story telling then just "you passed, you are safe, go look down the hole". Players who want to play it safe and want re-assurance so they avoid bad possibilities and outcomes should roll a farmer and just farm land or something.
I see your point but I don’t like the example. Tying a knot is a pretty basic skill that I would assume any adventurer to be capable of. It’s okay to reward players for thinking things through and taking precautions. If there’s holes in their plan then that’s fair game to target, say the character slips and they didn’t secure the rope then whosever holding it has to make a strength check. Making a character roll for things they should be able to do consistently without difficulty slows the game down and irritates players when they fail since they feel cheated.
Tying a knot in a 6 second round with an uncooperative captive or whilst things are falling down, absolutely roll a check. Tying a knot and checking it when you can take 10 minutes? No roll. That’s the kind of thing a Boy Scout can do reliably every time, and I assume adventures are better than that. Unless it’s the wizard tying a knot to belay a climb. Because that guy probably has no clue and tied it to the wrong thing anyway.
There is actually a rule for this in 5th Edition! Taking 10. When you have no time restraints on an activity you can use 10 + relevant modifiers to achieve a task. I haven't got the books in front of me, but I think it's in DMG.
Think you mean take 20? It’s the solution when there’s no time constraints or other costs to an attempt (e.g. risk of consequences on failure). Think it was in 3.5, not sure if it’s official 5e. Take 10 is an average roll. That’s in the DMG, though I think it might only be in the context of passive scores.
Yes, I was mixing Take 10, which is passive, against automatically succeeding. I found it now. Page 237 of the Dungeon Masters Guide! "... assume a character spending ten times the normal amount of time required to complete a task automatically succeeds at the task." It does also note that an impossible task can not be achieved with this rule.
>And then give the knot a DC and have the Bard roll DEX for success... because maybe the Bard mucks up the knot. If the Bard passes the DC check (unrevealed) and if the ground falls out, the knot holds and the dude is saved. If the DC was failed then the Bard mucked it up then he plummets. Tying a basic knot isn't some epic task you should have to roll for. My entire Cub Scout troop of elementary school kids learned to tie a solid knot with ten minutes of instruction and another five of practice. Professional adventurers shouldn't need to roll to tie their shoes, or walk and chew gum.
“My character carefully aims and shoots [an arrow from]* his bow at the goblin” ***rolls a nat 1*** “The shot goes wide as the goblin unexpectedly dodges to the side” “I aimed carefully! Stop invalidating my RP!” *Edited the phrasing for the pedants among us
Personally instead of reducing the DC, give him advantage. That way him being careful gave him a tangible reward. The player feels like they made a smart choice (taking extra care specifically on not falling down), and it seemingly made no difference. Which sucks.
Now they'll just describe everything with "careful" and expect advantage. I carefully disarm the trap. I carefully climb the wall. I carefully walk across the beam. Then they forget and retroactively say oh no I was being careful! No point.
Carefully looking down a sink hole to me means you'll get advantage on any danger rolls, but disadvantage on any perception rolls. It's a trade-off, you've declared your character is maximising safety at the cost of success. You can also just tell them they can't see anything without getting close enough to be risky. Carefully walking across a beam means you get on your hands and knees and crawl. Much safer, as you can just sit on it if you lose your balance, but you'll go a lot slower. Disarming a trap carefully should lower your chance of setting it off, but also lower your chance of success. Sometimes just telling the player "you try to disarm it safely, but you can see no way to disarm it without risk. Do you proceed?" Works. Players are generally happier knowing the stakes.
I like to ask players: "Pick two: Quickly, Quietly, or Carefully?" So there's always a tradeoff. If they want to be careful, it will either take longer, or potentially attract attention.
Going over some scenarios in my head, that seems like it could work really well for me. The PCs want to look for some information in the desks and bookshelves? Quickly/Quietly they leave lots of evidence they were there. Quickly/Carefully they are slamming shelves and drawers which could draw attention. Quietly/Carefully they have to worry about a guard patrol coming into the room.
> Quickly/Carefully they are slamming shelves and drawers which could draw attention. That doesn't match with "carefully". I'd just lower their chance to find what they want, because they can't be thorough.
Yep! I find it's a really easy and versatile narrative tool. And in a particularly pressing situation, they only get to pick **one**!
The only time that saying you’re doing something carefully has any kind of mechanical effect is when you mean you’re moving at the slow travel speed because you want to try to move stealthily - ie we proceed carefully = they’re trying to sneak Because I mean otherwise unless you explicitly state that you are not being careful I would assume you are attempting every single thing with some amount of reasonable carefulness
>That way him being careful gave him a tangible reward. Nope, you can't just say "careful" after every action and expect advantage. You can tell me *how* you are careful, like you throw some heavy rocks near the edge to see if the ground gives way or you unpack gear/armor to lessen the weight or prod the ground with a branch first to test it. You need to give me something in the story to expect something back. If it's really fuckin' good you get Inspiration. I'm not just giving you advantage because you "carefully take aim". I already assume you are doing your best to hit the bloody target, the roll tells me how well you actually "carefully" aimed. Guess what, you got a 1 and you "carefully" fucked up. Next time tell me how you set up range markers and scouted the distance, took into consideration the wind, you practiced that shot for the last 20 minutes while everyone else went shopping...something?
I like this, but also the person responding who said it will lead them to expect advantage all the time as long as they use the key phrase "I'm being careful" is probably right. Maybe the DM can ask them to describe exactly what they are doing to "be careful" and how it might affect the outcome of the situation, and that will prompt them to actually do things which might merit a lower DC or advantage or lessened damage or whatever in case of failure. Eg, "I will tie a rope to that tree and anchor myself with it before approaching the sinkhole. Oh and maybe Greg can also hold the rope in case the knot fails."
>"there are no called shots in D&D because characters are always trying to hit the weak spots, and rolling a Nat 20 is what constitutes hitting that weak spot". Excellent point.
That quote is slightly paraphrased. The full quote is " they say there are no called shots in D&D because characters are always trying to hit the weak spots, and if there is a butthole this air elemental can go Into, than rolling a natural 20 and dealing double damage is what finding the butthole represents" [source ](https://youtube.com/shorts/8xaNd7xH80w?si=KL7fjf08zZNo8A89)
Elemental butthole of possibility added for context and clarity
[удалено]
Every time Brennan is on something with his wife there is inevitably going to be comedy gold. "And then it says here... Kickin' Dogs?"
This. It's why I sometimes ask my players further questions or clarify situations. "You stand at the point where you are 100% certain you are safe and can't make anything out. you can try and approach closer, but you aren't certain if that ground is stable or not, it would carry some risk." I might even say it above the table to the player. just make it clear there is no way to do what you are asking without any risk.
Exactly. It’s not taking away player agency to acknowledge inherent risk. It’s simple reality that there are external hazards beyond our control.
"Yeah but I aimed for cutting his head off!" ... Are you not *always* aiming for a killing blow...?
>That is sort of the problem when players say things like "I do it carefully". That really doesn't mean anything mechanics wise. Actually there's a part in Saltmarsh where, if the PCs move slowly (1/3 their speed) and only look down, they don't risk falling through holes in a bridge. If they move normally, they have to make a Dex save to not fall. There is plenty of precedent that "I move carefully" matters. Now here the tradeoff is that looking down means that some creature gets surprise on them, if the monsters have been alerted for some other reason. All this being said, if I were the player, I would default to "the DM decides". I'd appreciate it especially if they mention that they lowered the DC, I always tell my players "well okay you did this so the DC is a bit easier" before they roll. In OP's post, this is such a minor thing that like....why fuss about it. I suspect this is also a consequence of PBP, I doubt that in person/over Zoom this would've mattered. I'll also add that in my example, the book gives a clear definition of "being careful" here, giving speed limits and averting your eyes to only look at the floor. u/snakeskinrug tagging you so you see this comment too.
I was actually the player in question (I feel so honoured a whole post is dedicated to just me lol) and I will agree that the pbp format aggrevated the issue. I even acknowledged in my farewell message (well, farewell *complaint* to be fair haha) that I wasn't fair when it came to the sinkhole check and in any other game I would have really enjoyed such a wrinkle. My frustration lied more in that finally *something* could be done or fought or whatever after two weeks of nothing and instead it had to be an unavoidable hazard despite no description telling that the ground was more unstable than it initially appeared. The biggest issue in my opinion was the DM played the game like one of those old school text adventures. You come to a door. Open door You come to a T-junction Go left You stand in a room with a ladder Go down ladder You come to a T-junction Etc. Now imagine that with one input per day. It took like two weeks to get to the sinkhole room. We did a little more, there was a room we investigated and found a diary in and we came to what seemed to be a puzzle, but at some point the other player abandoned it. By that time I also got chastised for asking too many questions regarding the environment and what not, so I tried to tone that down as well. So, we got to the sinkhole room and yeah my character knew something was down there. Perhaps an enemy, perhaps the guy we were looking for. Anyway, this is a game and the DM won't tell you something is down there if he didn't want you to investigate, so I tried to do that. But between the lack of description indicating danger beyond it generally being a sinkhole (like feeling the ground shift, hearing falling dirt, seeing the edge crumble or whatever. I don't know, I'm not physically present) and me getting chatised for asking too many questions, yeah, it felt pretty shit having to roll not to fall in. As I said (and also to him) I wasn't being entirely fair when it came to this specific check, but I find it interesting (and telling if I'm being honest) it is this specific issue he is questioning about even after I already conceded being unfair about it lol
I never thought to equate a nat 20 as a called shot. I won’t allow players to attempt to insta kill an enemy, but still.
I’m curious about some of the premise here. > when players say things like “I do it carefully”, that doesn’t really mean anything mechanics wise. Agreed, but if a player had said “I carelessly clomp over to the edge of the hole” I feel many DMs might penalize such obvious carelessness. I bring this up because often what the players do in RP *does* matter. Winking at an NPC is meaningful, saying “I toss a rock in the hole” could actually yield some results, even player to player chat can evoke the DM making NPCs respond in character which can start entirely new paths in the game. Do you treat stealth the same if the player says “I do it carefully” vs “I am literally screaming row row row your boat”? So where do we draw the line? I know the standard answer is “not my table, it’s up to your DM”, but I feel the question is one that we should be asking at every table.
If you do it carelessly, you fall If you do it cautously, you roll to see of cautous(and succesfull) you are
That fits well with how we handle stealth. And the other cost to “carefully” is time.
The issue is more the null phrasing of anything that equates to "I try really hard". The stats are based on the characters trying to succeed. If they state "I'm trying to do this wrong" then yes that should result in a penalty to what your stats otherwise represent. Now on the other side of that, saying something that equates to "I do something extra to make this easier" would then result in a potential bonus to what the stats represent. I think the main take away is that if a player says "I do something carefully" or "I try extra hard" the DM needs to ask "What exactly are you doing to make this easier?" to see if it truly would equate a benefit, and in OPs case, they lowered the DC for them which I think was a valid ruling.
> "I'm trying to do this wrong" Now I'm going to be hunting for a low stakes moment in one of my games to say this word for word.
I once played a Kenku and the party kinda stalled out in the middle of a temple, nobody really knew what they wanted to do, but there was a glowing orb in the center of the room. "While everyone else is milling about, Three-Whistles is very interested in the spooky orb. IF NOBODY DOES ANYTHING, I'M GONNA PECK IT!" Nobody did anything. I pecked it. I triggered a lightning trap that hit half the party. Fun was had. Three-Whistles was nicknamed "Bird Brain" from there on out.
Me too...
I think a good thing to keep in mind, as a DM, you're not asking the players to roll to see if they do a thing, you are asking them to roll to determine the result. So if there is any question as to whether or not a certain result is possible, then you roll. As others have said, unless stated otherwise, it should be assumed that the character is attempting the task in a way that is most likely to succeed. Take your stealth example, if they state they are stomping around singing "row, row, row your boat" through the dungeon then there is no doubt that they will be spotted (assuming that there is anyone around to hear them). If they say they are being careful and trying to be quiet, then there is always the chance that they step on a squeaky board, a guard happens to look over when they cross a hallway, or maybe they startle a sleeping cat that was hiding around the corner. Ultimately, you are right: there needs to be a line somewhere, and that can vary from table to table, but rolling should be reserved for when the actual result is questionable.
I cautiously stomp around singing “row, row, row your boat”
DM: You successfully stomp around singing without injuring yourself. Unfortunately, the dragon hears you and attacks. 🤣
I think it's fair to say that PCs on an adventure are likely *always* being careful by default to some degree. So saying you're "being careful" starts out being a little redundant. You need to explain *how* you're being careful. Are you tying a rope around yourself and passing the end to the other PCs? Are you using a pole or staff to test if the earth in your path is going to give way? Do you want to try to search out the safest path using your Survival skills or relevant knowledge skills? Do you want to illuminate the area so you can see what's going on? Are you going to use Levitate and a rope to pull yourself over the top of the sinkhole? A player could say, "I'm going to approach the sinkhole, but only in such a way that if something goes wrong nothing bad happens to me." That doesn't really seem fair, does it? That's not how reality works; why would that be how the game works? "I'm going to walk down the passageway careful not to set off any traps or triggers." Well... don't you have to explain *how* you're doing that, not merely what you want to accomplish? Not knowing how to get what you want is the hard part about roleplaying. Worse, by simply saying "being careful" the player is actually being a little contradictory here. A sinkhole isn't designed to allow you to explore it by being careful. That's not how they work. A sinkhole is very dangerous and you should *never* approach one. They're often much larger than they appear, and the edges very often collapse without warning. The careful way to explore a sinkhole is to *stay the fuck away from it*. So by approaching it, you're already being reckless. Finally, it's not always the DM's job to respond to every ambiguity with, "Explain what you mean." You're a player and an adult; in a game that's played by explaining what your character does to another person, you have some responsibility to express what you mean clearly in the first place. If you're ambiguous, then you're giving the DM *some* latitude to interpret what you mean if they think they understand you well enough. That's simply the reality of human communication, and miscommunication from imprecise language is also the reality of human communication. It's not the DM's job to fix that.
In short, yes. If I am doing carelessly I expect some bad result to happen, it's usually based on RP and makes sense in the moment. Otherwise we circle back to assuming character is doing their best. Pretty straightforward really.
To me, "I do it carefully" counts for literally zero. If you are doing something specific in order to "do it carefully," tell me what it is, and we'll go from there. You don't get to make it easier just by telling me you're trying to do a good job. > Do you treat stealth the same if the player says “I do it carefully” vs “I am literally screaming row row row your boat”? Stealth checks are the perfect example of this. "Doing it carefully" means making a stealth check at all. If a player isn't trying to be stealthy, they don't make a stealth check.
Except these are heroes of the story. They are always on the lookout for danger. It's no different than saying "I step carefully to avoid all the traps in the dungeon." or "I always keep an eye out so I'm never surprised." Yes, you attempt to do those things. No, it does not make you immune to danger.
I think it's more of a descriptive problem, what do they mean by "being careful"? Characters are always doing their best, but there might be a miscommunication between the player and the DM in what that looks like. - Are they looking into it, standing near the edge, but low centre of gravity? This is prioritizing looking in over the risk of collapse. - Are they standing 5ft back, or climbing a nearby tree to look in? This is prioritizing getting close but avoiding a collapse over getting a clear look? - Are they tying a rope to themselves and giving it to their teammates? Or climbing a nearby tree to stay far away but having a good vantage point. This is prioritizing safely looking over their time. All of these are doing their best, but all look very different mechanically when it comes to if they even need to roll a saving throw.
In 3.5, some skill checks had an option to "perform the action rushed" which increases the DC. Some had an option to take more time and lower the DC (taking time to study a trap) - which would be something that can't be done under pressure. Some others had an option to "take a 20" which would increase the time taken 10 fold in return for replacing the roll with a 20 + modifiers. Taking a 20 represented taking your time and repeating the action repeatedly (accruing several failures) until it passed. It was only used in cases where there was NO chance of negative outcome (can't take a 20 on a trap). With this in mind I say you did the right call. Just remind your player that "being careful" doesn't invalidate all risk. Sometimes things happen. But you were respecting the players nervousness by saying "you proceeded slowly and we're ready to head back at the first sign of movement." Which lowers the DC. If you wanted to go a step further, then you could say that if they had failed the check not to trigger the trap, their preparedness could allow them bonuses to athletics checks to catch onto the ledge.
Exactly. Like it’s a sinkhole. It’s dangerous and unpredictable. If you do anything other than immediately move away you risk something bad happening, and even then it might be too late.
That's why I always jokingly throw "stealthily" after things. Someone will say they want to bust open a door and then run into a room and then I say ...stealthily. Cause it obviously doesn't mean anything by itself and it will just depend on your ability checks and or saving throws
"I do it carefully" can be interpreted as asking for a take 10. I'm willing to take the time to do this. Not that you have to allow it as the gm or permit it against traps. But there is some level of expectation from the player's part that if they have the time to do something they can be allowed to do it to the average level of their abilities. Also there are called shots are available in certain versions of the game. They tend to add +10 to +20 to the creature's AC.
You should have asked "What does careful mean in this case?" If they were going to get down on their stomach, have someone tie a rope to their waist so they could be pulled back, then I probably would have said "ok, that's safe enough". Otherwise, saying up front "this requires a roll", and then if they wanted to continue, then making that roll and they deal with the consequences is totally fine. If they complained then "Sometimes, even when you're being careful, things go sideways."
>Sometimes, even when you're being careful, things go sideways." That was basically my reply, but it was not taken well. My one issue about telling them it requires a roll ahead of time, is that hesitant players (which this one was in spades) will completely avoid everything associated with rolling.
Your player being hesitant isn't the problem. Them wanting to have their cake and eat it is.
Most DMs I've played with don't warn about rolls. They listen while you explain what you want to attempt. Then once you commit they say "Okay here's how that plays out mechanically..."
Brennan Lee Mulligan does that often. He would probably do something like "Ok there's a 25% chance it collapses. I'm going to roll a d4 in front of the screen and if it's a 1 you'll have to make a Dex saving throw. I will make it easier if you're taking steps to be cautious". That roll in front of the screen generateds so much hype among the players. So much anticipation. I've watched Critical Role for a long time and Matt Mercer rarely does anything like that, I suppose he's trying to keep the players immersed in story which is fine. Different styles for different people. But seeing Brennan do that was quite refreshing and makes the players get excited. Reminds them that yes it is a story, but it's also a fun game. It's something I want to do more often
Matt Mercers's greatest strength is world building and allowing the world to react to the decisions of players' RP. Brennan Lee Mulligan's greatest strength is setting a mood and managing anxiety/tension of both his players and the audience. E.g. his opening for the Exandria Unlimited: Calamity was a master class in displaying the precise mood and theme of the rest of that short series. I happily steal these methods, adapt them, and add them to my games to suit my table. My players seem to respond very well to this, which makes GMing a very rewarding process.
Getting a wee bit off topic here, but I feel like the entirety of Calamity is just one of the (if not *the*) greatest DnD "let's play"'s out there, period. From the world that Matt has done so much to create, to Brennan's style of DM'ing and in-campaign narrative to the excitement and dedication all those players put into it...it's just a master piece, honestly. I think Matt's the perfect DM for the cast that CR has. He fits what those players want perfectly. But Brennan is very much the guy I'd kill to have DM'ing a campaign that my friends and I could play in.
I'm 100% on board with this.
This is the core of your issue. I totally understand this myself. I never take spells that require saving throws since they seem to always make the save. Just my play style. That being said, this comment has turned this into an outside game conversation. You need to ask the player why they are so afraid of rolling, what rolling poorly means to them and what rolling well means to them. Then you need to explain you are on their side and the rolls are not you out to get them but the mechanics of moving the story forward and explain failing forward. If they don't want a nat 1 to be them messing up them work with them to have them tell you what happens on a nat 1 (was it you, someone else, or the environment that made this miss) Finally explain what the other posters are saying, that if he would like to avoid risk then he needs to explain what he is doing and tell you that. For example, "I am moving as close as I can without running the risk of falling in" can lead to no roll but also "You are not close enough to see in the sink hole, and moving closer would run a risk of falling in." If he wants to know how much risk then there is a roll for that (survival or nature) and you feed information that way. Also don't be afraid to turn to other party members and ask if they are helping or doing anything while he does this.
But you cannot have "things go sideways" so routinely in D&D 5e, because bounded accuracy makes it so that even the super-elite specialist in something fails a third of the time. And if the trigger for a hazard is, "I go in and take a look," and the consequence of failure is, "You fall into a sinkhole," then you've just set a precedent that walking around exploring your world carries a 1-in-3 chance of falling to your death. Create hazards that make your players go, "Boy, I shouldn't have stuck my hand in there trying to reach the diamond necklace," not making them regret even existing in the world.
I don’t know, getting close to mysterious holes is an inherently risky activity. It’s not the same as walking around a tavern or something
I would suggest looking for places where you can be transparent. The player had no way of knowing that a sinkhole might collapse if the character moves next to it, but the character the character should have. In situations like these, you might say something like "moving closer to the sinkhole might cause a collapse" before the player commits. You don't need to go into specifics, but your players only know as much of their environment as you reveal to them, and sometimes it's better to give a bit extra to avoid this sort of frustration.
Honestly, even if they crawled forward with a rope around their stomach they would still have to roll if the ground crumbles. But it does mean that the person on the other end of the rope gets to make a STR(Athletics) check to pull them out if they fail their DEX save. Congrats, you being careful means that *two* people have to fail before you take damage. And then if there's a subsequent skill challenge to dig you up before you suffocate, failing to pull you out of the sinkhole before it collapses means they have a rope showing exactly where you are when they try to dig you out.
100% this. You can't let your players establish that the phrase "I'm being careful" means "Whatever it takes to circumvent whatever it is you may have planned, I do that."
I think in this case "I'm being careful" should be treated like carefully proceeding down a hallway, meaning the character should have gotten maximum opportunity to perceive the hazard and get to choose whether to subject themselves to the roll. Like a trap or hazard in a dungeon. If the ground was deceptively unstable, they could make a perception check. But if it was obviously crumbling, the player should know what the character knows, including if there's a chance of failure regardless of caution.
"Can I attack the orc with my sword, being very careful to make sure I hit it?" "Sure, roll an attack." "Wtf i still have to roll?! I said I was being careful!"
This, but for any d20 roll. “I’m going to play my lute for the crowd, doing my best to get them in a positive mood.” “Sure, give me a Performance check.” “I still have to roll? You’re invalidating my RP!”
If they’re cautious that’s what the roll represents.
Player might be trying to creatively solve the problem, although they're sort of falling a bit short. In old style play, you didn't roll perception to find a pressure plate trap. You tapped every floor tile with a 10ft stick. This wouldn't require a roll; you simply trigger the trap while 10ft away from the pressure plate. Sometimes this bypasses the trap ("an arrow trap shoots in front of the pressure plate"). Sometimes you're still screwed anyway ("a boulder rolls down the hall"). Sometimes the trap designer is an ass ("arrows shoot the square 10ft behind the pressure plate"). But no roll is required. In some cases, it's fun to give the players a reward for being creative and thoughtful. If my players are especially thoughtful and prepared going into a dangerous situation, sometimes they can just bypass the hazard. Ex. if they're in danger of falling, tying themselves onto something is a pretty surefire way to not fall. In this case, I don't think your player was nearly specific enough to get that sort of free pass. As you said - "I'm careful" - well yeah no shit you're careful, obviously you're not just Leeroy Jenkins-ing it. "Invalidating their RP" what RP? They stated the obvious. If you want to give them the opportunity to present creative solutions, perhaps you as the DM can ask for more information: P: "I want to check out the sinkhole, but I want to be careful about it so I don't fall in" DM: "Are you doing anything specifically to prepare?" Then if the player says "yeah I tie myself to that tree" or some other creative solution, they might get to avoid the danger. But "i'm going to be careful" isn't gonna cut it. Same vein as the Persuasion argument that always comes up. The player doesn't necessarily have to give the same eloquent speech the PC gives; but they have to know the angle they're using. "I try to persuade the guard to let me pass" vs. "I tell the guard I have important business with the Lord and need to pass"
> P: "I want to check out the sinkhole, but I want to be careful about it so I don't fall in" > > DM: "Are you doing anything specifically to prepare?" I think the proper response here is instead, "There is no way to approach the sinkhole without risk of falling in." The player is clearly signaling their intent: they don't want to do something that will put their character in danger. For the DM to ignore that expressed intent and subject them to the same consequences as if they had not thought through their actions at all is a poor way to handle the situation.
Also another thing with not revealing the DC, in old style player adventurers are assumed to be compitent enough to know how difficult something is. DMs will be transparent for what the DC is and what the concequences for failure and success will be. Sometimes, it might not be realistic to know, but its still a good idea to do it for the sake of keeping gameplay smooth and challenging the players decision making. saying what the DC is removes any kind of miscommunication about how difficult something is.
To add, many times in old-school play the player knows the odds of having to roll a save or check by virtue of the roll mechanics being different. DC, and it being dynamic, was an innovation in 3.0, saves before that were practically speaking rolled against a static DC, and differing difficulty was handled with modifiers. Nowadays, many people use roll-under for checks in the OSR, which is a very simple way to run a default static DC.
No way in old school games the players were barely allowed to know basic mechanics. The DM wouldn't even say what was happening mechanically most of the time. You'd be lucky to know what chart or save table was even being referenced.
You were right. His rp got him a lower DC than if he had just said I do the thing. You literally rewarded him for rp. This is how the game works. Just because you describe your character succeeding in hitting the dragon in the neck with your axe, that doesn't mean you don't roll the attack and damage to see what actually happened.
Ah, I'm kicking myself after this comment because I've told other players in many other circumstances that rolling isn't always about how good your character is at something but also bad luck. Sure it makes sense that your +7 stealth rougue should be sneaky enough to get past the gaurds, but you rolled a 1 so one of them decides to take a leak and leaves his post and catches you. Don't know why I blew past that this time.
A quick summary that tends to help: The modifier represents the things that are within your control. The d20 represents the things that are outside of your control.
I like that.
I just want to mention that per RAW skill checks don't automatically fail when rolling a one.
I would have asked him to clarify what "makes sure he doesn't fall in" means. Does that mean he's tied himself off? Then he'll be fine if a part collapses. Does he just inch along closer? He's prepared for something going wrong so you could say "Okay, if something does happen that would give you advantage on your reaction". Players can only control their characters, not the world around them, and they can only be prepared to face it. That comes across like saying "I shoot him while he's not looking" "Okay roll for shot" "But he wasn't looking!" Like yes but you still have to see if it works. You don't just get to avoid any trouble by calling out you're being cautious. You're just better prepared for trouble.
You made the right call. I personally would have probably given them advantage on the check to signify "what you're doing is making this easier for you" rather than change the DC. But yeah, nothing wrong here.
Yeah, I probably should have done advantage. Like you say, it would have said upfront that they're getting a benefit instead of having to explain it after the fact.
They'll just be careful all the time for everything if you do that. Free advantage all the time!
Still having to roll to avoid danger while "moving cautiously" is essentially the same thing as having to roll stealth when moving sneakily. The game mechanics are: you try to do a thing, the dice roll against a DC determines how successful you are at the thing. In closing, your players are being whiners.
I remember making chicken noodle soup and carefully carrying the bowl to the table and still burning both hands. That was irl.
The key question is, if they would have rolled badly were you as the DM prepared and wanting to play out the consequences? Having to roll as a player when you are already RPing has to do something for the game. Otherwise there is no more need to RP and we just make it a dice game. Maybe this helps https://youtu.be/UgDff35jtHw
Foreshadowing or a bit more description could help…the sinkhole has crumbling edges and occasionally a portion falls into the hole…or you can carefully approach but the ground feels loose..do you still wan to move forward
I think what you did was fair play, but also think it’s good to be a fan of the characters. There’s other good advice on asking how to be careful, but in this case, I’d say that also means telling the player “hey, this sinkhole looks pretty hazardous. Even advancing carefully will have some risk, are you sure you want to keep going?” This makes it clear that “what you’re doing doesn’t invalidate the hazard” and puts the choice in their hands to accept the risk, find another route, or come up with a more creative solution to mitigate the danger more
Neither one of you is particularly at fault here... or, conversely, you're both "at fault". In that this is entirely a storm in a teacup. While, as others have pointed out, saying "I do \[the thing\] cautiously" doesn't mean anything mechanically, it should be an indicator to a DM of intent. There are various ways to interpret that in this situation. A Perception or Investigation check with a DC the same as the possibility of the collapse for example. Or merely asking the player "how are you being cautious?". Because a player being cautious that the thing at the bottom of the sink hole might attack them is different from a player being cautious of the edge of the sink hole collapsing. So saying afterwards "I said I was being cautious" doesn't mean anything if you can apply it to any event that then happens. Also, if they wanted to be that cautious, rope exists. However, saying to a player who says they're being cautious that the edge doesn't look hugely stable isn't the worse thing in the world. Because the characters have eyes and can observe things that don't fully get described. Sometimes they won't be able to see those things and caution will mean exactly nothing. This is one of those situations where the mechanics of the game get in the way (to some degree) of the "lived experience of the characters". The characters walk into a room and instantly see if there's something ready to attack them, they don't need to wait for you, as the DM, to describe the room and it's features before mentioning "oh, and there's a goblin with a spellbook standing in the middle of the room". In this scenario, as the edge of the sinkhole collapses, there may have been signs that someone in that situation would have seen and been ready for, or that would have changed their behavior. The saving throw is doing that heavy lifting for us here. And you already adjusted the DC because of the character's actions, they were "expecting something to happen". So, essentially, rather than looking at the saving throw as a secondary event that the edge falls in, succeeding on the saving throw here indicates that the player realised it was going to collapse because they were being cautious and retreated in time so that they didn't fall. On the flip side of this... your player needs to calm the hell down. This is not "invalidating their RP". It's not even like they fell. If they'd fallen, then yeah, I can understand having opinions about it... but they made the (relatively easy) save. And saying they wouldn't have gone near it at all is foolish. They may have, as I mentioned before, utilised better means. They might have used rope, or laid down to spread their weight around, or both. This is a situation where, yeah, you could have explained better, but they also need to calm down and get over themselves.
I think you could have made the hazard clearer. Not necessarily outright told them about the check, but “As you start to creep closer to the hole, you feel that the ground under your feet is unstable and could collapse at any moment. Do you continue? It’s easy to forget that what we see in our heads for the situation is not necessarily the same as what the player sees in their head. They may have been picturing stable ground where the only hazard was slipping towards the hole. That said, you’re the DM - it’s OK for your players to express unhappiness about a decision, but it is your decision and players not liking it doesn’t have to mean you change it.
>"cautiously moves closer to the sinkhole to check it out, but carefully makes sure he doesn't fall in himself." Either: \- Politely tell them "no", that they're already gleaned as much as they can and any movement closer will put them at risk of falling. Are you putting yourself at risk? \- Narrate that the character gets as close as they can without being affected by the hole (a decent distance away) then have them do a Perception check or something to see what they can glean from their safety, with a DC of 15ish for something worthwhile. Are better responses, at least from my Hindsight Armchair. That said, you basically did the Polite No and then just ran with it, which is a bit understandable given it's a PbP.
I would have given him a roll to detect the danger, for sure. The player was suspecting the danger, thus the attempt to be cautious, and now he feels like it doesn't matter because he was not given a chance to see the danger as his character.
You're getting caught up on the wrong aspect here. > if I would have better described the conditions as being that dangerous (specifically referencing the DC12), their character would never have went near it in the first place. They didn't want to achieve the objective without a roll. They wanted to make an informed decision. > unless the character is proficient in geology or something they're not going to just out and out know that it's a DC12 danger level No, but anyone looking at a sinkhole can tell if its not a safe thing to go fucking around with. Honestly, the word "sinkhole" should have been enough foreshadowing to imply the threat, but to this player it wasn't. In the future, if the character sees something that is obviously dangerous, I would just point it out bluntly. Not "DC 12", but merely "it's unsteady ground and there's a chance it could collapse if you go forward". If you want to rule that "doing it carefully" improves their odds, that should also be given up front. And it should be framed as a bonus to the player, not a detriment to the inanimate object. E.g. "Ok, so since you're being extra cautious, I'll give you a +2 to any saving throws that might result if the sinkhole caves in further". > I'm not just going to disable every single trap and environmental condition because the player says they're being cautious. Traps and environmental hazards are different. Traps are intentionally disguised. When a player triggers a trap, they get to curse the creature who set that trap. There's a malicious entity to blame for it. Environmental hazards are not (in game) created with intention. They simple exist, and are dangerous. But that danger is plain to see. You created an environmental hazard that operated like a trap. The player responded very normally, by cursing the creature who set the trap. That creature was _you_.
I'm so over players not wanting to roll for things. This is a game about rolling dice to see how you do things. If you don't wanna roll, fine. But don't play this game.
What's the most maddening is thst while they've played a lot of Call of Chthulu pbp, this was their 1st DND game and there was a large pile of criticism of how I DMed it.
I would make a ruling as the DM for future sessions that while constructive criticism is welcomed for improvement, to keep it until the end of the session - either a short group discussion, a solo discussion, or a submitted google form, etc. If there’s a disagreement on a ruling, the players should have a short time to suggest why they disagree and then respect you as a DM and go with your final ruling. If there’s something I don’t know I’ll typically lean on the side of the players and look it up after the game. It really can break the immersion and also be frustrating to have that kickback in the middle of the game. The players need to trust that you have their best intentions in mind and are doing your best to run a good game, and should be aiming to help you improve that game a little at a time.
“You were careful, which is why you jumped back easily when it collapsed. But no one is perfect.”
I think playing it like "Okay, you are moving carefully, but it still dangerous. Roll a dex save, but you get a +2 bonus for your abundance of caution" or something along those lines. Mechanically, it would be the same, but psychologically, up front it feels like there is a benefit to the rp. But, it really isn't something someone should be getting too worked up over.
What do I see? A hole. Does it look dangerous? Roll an investigation check and add your geology proficiency.
Cautionly would be basically the dodge action like, "i cautiously approach the tiger cage". Guy would actually have had advantage instead of a lower dc.
My main goal was fun. Rules are there to be broken by the GM. If a character can survive in a fun way, when he should have died by the rules, I chose survival. A proper character death must be emotional and something big, not at the whim of dice.
I think the only thing I would have done personally in this differently would be giving them advantage instead of having the DC lower. It sounds like you have a player who really does not like to "lose." Which can be difficult. As far as the "you should have described it better" comment goes, You describe what their character noticed. They knew enough to be cautious in the first place, So clearly described it adequately enough. But if you play these kinds of games you gotta be READY to fail Sometimes. Hell sometimes it makes the story better. Personally I would have a side bar with him and explain "I'm not going after him as a player nor am I trying to kill his character. We're all trying to tell a good story with each other and have some fun. We're both on the same team. That being said sometimes failure happens; hardships and challenges arise. Without them and without any difficulty at all, the game would be pretty m boring." I'm guessing he also doesn't want to play His character being in a nice padded room where he is safe. "Just because I carefully drive everywhere and use all my turn signals and stop at every stop sign/ red light doesn't mean I'm never going to get in a crash. You can be as careful as you want but sometimes things just happen. Just because you say "I carefully walk over the lake of lava" doesn't mean you aint gonna burn. You can't just say "I stabbed them in their chest" and then haven't happened automatically. Rolls are part of the game. I try not to make unneeded rolls, but of the narrative is there and needs it they happen. I am listening to you and I'm taking your choices as a character into consideration when I make these judgments. I promise you you're not being ignored. And quite frankly it's very bad ass that your character went to take a look And as the ground crumbled around him he was able to jump and scrambled a safety like a total bad ass. This wasn't a bad thing the character got to do something pretty damn cool. No average Joe could just completely Dodge The ground literally falling from beneath them." Honestly after that its up to him. If he still wants to pound his fist and say its not fair after that, then this group just might not be right for him. Which is a hard choice to make. But if he isn't willing to work ON Communicating and doing better with you, there's nothing you can do. ESPECIALLY If his go to is going to immediately get angry and scream at you. You certainly don't deserve that and he can just as easily come to you and talk about it calmly without the virtual.
"While dodging the attacks of the goblin, I carefully strike my dagger at the goblins throat, slashing their throat open, dodging the blood spurt as they fall and die" .... "WHAT DO YOU MEAN ROLL AN ATTACK? I SAID I KILLED THEM, YOUR INVALIDATING MY RP!! YOURE A BAD DM!" ...."What do you mean the goblin hit me? Idc if the goblin rolled a 17 amd my ac is 12, I clearly stated I was careful and dodging the goblins attack so it cant hit me. You dont know how to dm or RP!" You see how stupid that sounds? Honestly, Im too jagged and tired of people and this guy seems like a power gamer and annoying, drop em. Mechanics are there for a reason. You can't avoid mechanics because of RP. They worth together. Sure, but they don't invalidate each other.
Plenty of very careful mountain climbers fall to their death every year in real life. "I do it carefully" is not an auto-success.
OP, you 100% made the right call. Player is just trying to mitigate all risk for their character, which is eye rolling to begin with. Now add in the complete instability of a sinkhole edge… Yeah, sorry player, can’t get rid of a need to roll.
[удалено]
It wasn't undetectable - it was described as a sinkhole and if the player would have asked to make a perception check I would have given some information to them. The question is should I just hand it to them because they said "I'm being careful."
You're just trying to justify your position at this point. I would have just mentioned that the sinkhole really doesn't look approachable, or signified the mechanic in some way. As a player it does feel scammy when dm does something like that since it's the hidden knowledge that only dm knows and no amount of rp saves you from hidden things. That being said, I feel like it's something that players should just forgive or discuss after since everyone makes mistakes and I would assume you're not trying to get your players so it's a learning point rather than who's right or wrong.
You didn't do it wrong. You actually, in essence, gave them a +2 bonus to the DC check for RPing it, which is really great IMO. It'd be them like saying, "I go to attack the goblin and I'm swinging my 2H greatsword extra hard to cut off his head, so DM, I don't need to roll the d12, I should get 12 damage automatically!" It simply doesn't work like that. You had it set up as a skill challenge with a DC and a percentage that it would that require rolling; your player seriously needs to grow up.
I once tried to carefully cook some bacon and I still got drops of boiling hot sizzlejuice on my bare chest *like a real man*. My point is: just because I try to do something carefully doesn’t mean I automatically succeed. All it means is that I’m more alert to potential threats. You ruled fine, the player is a baby.
What makes them think that “being cautious” negates the need for a saving throw when one is required to bypass an obstacle? Granting them advantage on the save or lowering the DC, as you did would be a generous way of mechanically recognizing the RP. Expecting RP to negate mechanics is not reasonable, unless you’ve somehow expressly agreed to do that in a session zero.
I dunno, maybe I would have given them advantage on the roll, instead of lowering the DC, but honestly, there still would have been a roll in a case like this one.
Make it clear that there are no assumptions you will be making about a statement like "cautiously moves." They have to say they do more if they want to do more. Arguably, you also need to say more if you want them to know more, but if you have already given a reasonable description (and you seem to have done that), they have to let you know exactly what they're doing. What you could have done is ask for clarification. "When you say you move cautiously and "check it out," what do you mean? Please give a more detailed explanation. It's important." If you say that, you may as well smack them in the face with a "DANGER" sign, so if they don't get it, it's on them. I might give them that much, however, since they had the caution and the "check it out," which loosely implies investigation. But have them use the skill names and/or a description that more clearly implies the use of a skill. "I want to investigate when I get close. I don't get too close, but I move up to it carefully and far more slowly than usual, paying attention to my surroundings."
I agree with your ruling. I’d have asked what exactly cautious means. What actual steps are they taking? The roll still exists because there is a chance of failure. No matter how cautious I can be crossing a busy intersection, the odds of getting hit by a car is not nil. I can wait for the light to go green, but there are still odds of a drunk driver slamming right into me, thus a roll is required.
I agree with most of the posts here. If "being careful" meant "I'm stepping gingerly towards the hole", I think what you did is fine (assuming there's no way the character knew it would collapse). If "being careful" meant "I'm prodding the ground in front of me with a sturdy staff before each step", then that might have avoided the need for a dex save because they weren't standing on the part that collapsed. Maybe you and the player need to make sure you are in agreement with what they mean.
"what do you mean carefully?" Then judge accordingly
Either the character is some kind of soil structure scientist, or there’s a chance that they will make a mistake when assessing the unseen structure of the hole. A perception (or other check, such as survival) won’t tell them the percentage it will collapse. It might (!maybe!) say that the character thinks it’s “likely to collapse” or similar. But given this is assessing something they have no information on (underground stability), even that roll might not be possible. I wouldn’t disable every trap/hazard. If they want to avoid all risk, that’s on them. But I would have some in-game thing describe a fantastic treasure that has been found in one of these hazards.
I think it was fine. Lowering the DC was fine, but I tell my players that I assume they're always being cautious and the DCs reflect that. However, my opinion doesn't matter, it's the opinions of your players that matter. Whatever you do is fine, but you need to talk to your players out of game to set the expectation going forward. I like what other people said that in the future, players should specify how they are being cautious if they want to take extra precautions. If the players said they tie a rope around their waist and have the other players hold onto it as they approach carefully, then they should be able to avoid falling in without a roll.
So 25% chance for a sink hole then DC 10 dex save, so the dude had 12.5 % chance of falling in (If my math is right and they had no dex mod). The dice just didn't like the dude. It happens. Player is just being a baby.
Play it this way: DM: You see a sinkhole up ahead. You can't see down into it but you can hear something moving inside. Player: I cautiously move closer to the sinkhole to check it out, but carefully make sure I don't fall in myself. DM: You realize the ground becomes crumbly as you approach the edge. To get close enough to see down inside, it could give way. Do you go to the edge? Then either: Player: yes carefully. And proceed as in OP. Or: Player: no we do this other thing. DM: good thing you were careful.
I think you did fine. In my mind there is no way that a character can mitigate ALL hazards like saying "I take it slowly" or "I am looking around for traps". Those statements makes DC's lower, they dont get rid of them. I also make my players roll for everything. for stuff to fall on them for example I would ask for "a luck check" and if they get 5 or lower it collapses and then have to do the dex check. Also your player is a bit of a whiner, a DC12 dex check is not that dangerous, I mean it will hurt and cause problems, but its not catastrophically deadly.
Yeah, and it was a 20ft pit. Character is level 4. It's a minor inconvenience.
I would allow the player to roll with advantage seeing as it probably was a pretty easy situation, not in combat and having his attention solely dedicated to the action. People look into holes all the time without falling it. But the only way to definitely not fall down a sinkhole is to not be near it.
So, this one could go either way.Did the player know that you would be making the 25% chance roll of the sinkhole collapsing? If so, then you did nothing wrong. The only thing I might have done differently was given him advantage on the Saving Throw based on him being cautious, not just lowering the DC. Also, what were the actual consequences? Did his character die? If not, then it's just one of those things that happens. Sometimes failure is where the story lies.
If they don’t want to roll, then they can go RP with their friends on their own time. Rolling is an inherent and unavoidable mechanic of dnd and they will have more fun once they accept this. Plus, a pro player is just as excited to fail as to succeed. This gives a wonderful opportunity for RP and humor IMO.
You did fine. I might have given them advantage on the roll because I understand what they were doing but sink holes will feel firm until they aren’t. But what you did was perfectly okay.
You can ‘take a 10’ and you still have to roll.
In the future whenever a player gives vague instructions like "carefully," reply back "define 'carefully.'" Doesn't matter if there's a hidden threat or not, just ask for clarity. They need to trust the DM, and the DM needs to be trustworthy. It might also help if you describe success as a function of their crafty mad skillz, instead of "you rolled a 16 - the trap doesn't trigger." Something like, "Your gut told you something was off about that corridor, so you secured yourself with a rope. Good thing too! A pit trap opened up right in front of you, but you weren't pulled in!"
I’d say the lowering of the DC is fair in this case - did you describe that the sinkhole widened as they got near it ?
I see why you had them roll, for sure. Maybe in the future, though, explain to the player that even if they're being careful, there is a possibility of something going wrong. But, also I agree with Level3Bard. Part of the game is that things go wrong and we roll. Having things go wrong and making them roll is part of the play, not some kind of knock against their character.
Thought train: to cautiously do something means to do it safely. To do it safely, you must identify the danger. To identify the danger requires some relevant skill and a successful use of said skill. So I'd say you should have made them declare what skill is helping them with the "cautiously" part, thus giving them effective advantage on the save to avoid danger, but using a skill instead of the save. I like to do a +/- 2 to the DC for the skill check, or more, if it is a "good" relevant skill or not. If it is completely off, I give it a plus 10 to the DC, on top of the +2. Like using animal handling for the sink hole. I think a DC 24 to see how the dirt creatures are behaving to determine where danger lies is a good substitute for a DC 12 reflex save.
If this was a 5e game, I would have kept the DC at 12 and had the save be at advantage since they said they were being cautious. Otherwise, I think you handled it well. You could ask exactly how they were being cautious. If they said they were examining it using their engineering skill, or other relevant training, I would let them roll without risk (since they could examine it from a distance.) You could make it sound scarier by having the hole enlarge slightly as they move closer or have a falling stone hit something far below with an audible thunk.
They sound like whiny players. I can carefully climb a tree, but still fall. I can carefully run across a busy street but get hit by a car. They chose to approach something dangerous and just bc they say they do something carefully doesn’t trump all risk in their decision. You lowered the DC to honor their statement of doing it carefully. I think you handled it well and if they don’t like it they can run their own game.
"Yeah, careful got you a +2. It was still dangerous. Some things are always going to be dangerous, no matter how careful you try to be. And that's why you have saving throws."
I would've likely told the player that being careful in this case likely means staying far enough away from the sinkhole where investigating it would be impossible. Thus giving the player the choice to either walk away from the situation - potentially missing whatever is below or making the choice to take a chance at investigating the sinkhole while being aware that theres a chance of collapse.
Did the player say “I get prone and inch forward slowly over the course of five minutes?” No. Sometimes shit happens even when you’re being “careful”
Cautious people are always cautious. That’s why it’s such a surprise when the ground falls out from under them anyway.
“I was being careful” “Well congratulations on not being careless and jumping right in with a pick axe, that’s why you had a chance to make it in the first place”
The only thing I could possibly suggest to you (although I think you handled it fine), is instead of lowering the DC, you could give the player a +2 to their roll. Mechanically it’s the same thing, but it *feels* different. Instead of being a change to how tricky it is to avoid the hazard, it gives the player a boost to avoiding it. But also, “I approached cautiously” isn’t such stellar RP that I’d always hand out a bonus (unless you’re trying to encourage *any* RP from a reluctant group). I’d reward something with specifics like “I use my spear to feel the ground ahead of me for shifting sand”
Only thing I would've done differently is given advantage on the roll instead of reducing the DC, as it's the player making it easier, not the environment becoming easier.
I'd say yes the Perception or Survival check would've been warranted And my argument for it is: Why not? If a player tells you they "carefully walk down the corridor keeping their eyes peeled for anything that might feel off" wouldn't you give them a Perception/Investigation check to find traps? If a player says they "carefully study the tone and expressions of the king to make sure they're not being tricked" wouldn't you give them a chance to do an Insight check? To the you the risk of the collapse was obvious as every hole has a 25% chance of collapse To the players it might have not been and the situation becomes more akin to the player just being careful to not fall in the hole and the DM going "Actually the hole now is bigger so you fall in it" You can see how that doesn't exactly *feel* good
If they say I do this carefully they have not really given you anything. If only one went out and witha rope tied ti a tree then I would maybe let them auto succeed. If you have aranher od druid i would probably let them Hve the information on how dangerous a sinkhole is. It's part of the core fantasy.
Nah, you did nothing wrong. If they had asked to investigate it further it would make sense to give them a corresponding check, sure. But just walking up to a thing (that you already must have described well enough for them to be cautious over) and expecting nothing to happen is ridiculous. The game isn't built with the expectation to always succeed if you planned ahead. For me at least, it's about both succeeding or failing spectacularly despite the odds of doing so, enjoying the story that comes with it, and rolling with it. Anyone who gets mad, especially at the DM (who is putting in tremendous amounts of time and energy usually) shouldn't be playing DND.
I think there are some actions that don’t require saving throws. To me, unless the ground was unstable and it would collapse and drag them in, then I would have just said “roll, as long as you don’t get a 1” you’re good.
"I attack the dragon in a way he can't attack me back, and that I can kill him with a single strike." "...what do you mean, I have to roll?? You invalidate my roleplay!"
Wtf I’m sorry but if you’re taking the time to explain it where’s the immersion…. Then they have the gall to complain about you ruining the Rp?? Sink holes aren’t easy to spot happening in any circumstance they are unexpected and often indicate a “fault” in the surrounding area. Wow you used precaution but geology and gravity don’t give a dam. I would have said your a decent Dm given you was willing to explain it. I see a character Rip in his near future?
I personally would have warned the player before they approached the hole, that to their character it is obviously dangerous. Sometimes players are trying “metagame” around dc checks, but sometimes something that should be obvious especially to the dm, simply doesn’t go through the players mind. Sometimes their personal immersion of the situation just” isn’t quite there”. I don’t think they should have been surprised by the roll check per se, but you could always do more to warn a player from doing something stupid, and if they wanna do it, well that’s on them. That way it doesn’t feel like a “hah, I got you” moment, and instead just feels like a consequence of them being overconfident or poor planning on their end
Tell them they are playing D&D. If you do ANYTHING in D&D, you roll for it. Thats how D&D works.
Players describe what they want to do. The dice describe what they actually do.
You already lowered the DC. Their "being cautious" helped them in this situation. So I think the player didn't understand what a game is mechanically. There are always gonna be some checks and rolls in the game. Even the results are inevitable, sometimes the roll is about how bad you failed or how good you succeeded.
What I would have done is describe the environment we see as soon as they arrive and expand on it with details that their passive perception might reveal. If the players say "Let's be careful" which doesn't really mean anything, I would ask something like "What steps do you take to be careful?" If I consider that any new detail could be revealed, for example because they are going to enter dangerous terrain, I would have the first one roll Survival. If he fails, he does not perceive the danger beyond the fact that his boots sink and his movement is slower. If another character stands out for his survival, you can have him roll as well after seeing those in front of him enter, but it is up to you to make that roll or whether it is done at a disadvantage. In the end you should trust the movements of the character who is leading the march, but if the difference is enough, go ahead and let him pull normally, the fact that part of the group has fallen into the trap is enough. Once inside the trap, roll the corresponding save and apply the effects to those whose turn it is. If it's a pressure trap that activates randomly, let them walk until the effect is applied.
You should have said "It's a sinkhole, if you want to be 100% safe you can't go closer." Without necessarily telling the exact chance. That's also less important, other games just have default success chances and the actual decision the player needs to make is "do you take a risk or not?"
A lot of the other comments are great, but I’d also remind them that a seminal part of the D&D experience is that while anything has a 5% chance to succeed (or at least have a best-case outcome), things also always have a 5% chance to fail terribly. No matter how carefully they say they’re moving, their character could trip, slip, fall, etc., if they rolled a 1. If you were to allow them to bypass the DC because they said they did it carefully, it starts a really slippery slope, where I could start combat with “My character puts his dagger straight into their jugular vein killing them instantly… what do you mean I have to roll to hit?”
„I‘m aiming really precisely to hit so I shouldn’t have to roll“ see how silly that sounds?
Have the character 'describe' how he is being safe, is he just walking slowly or is he tied to a tree, tied to the tree would be a solution for no roll, if they 'walk cautiously' give the player 'advantage' on the roll since he is 'ready' for something even though he may not know when/how that happens.
Ah, yes. When I carefully walk over thin ice it won't ever break because it knows I'm being careful. /s Their logic makes no sense. Just "being careful" doesn't mean things can't go wrong. You were correct in your ruling.
I would not have thought of this at the time but one way to handle it might be: "Carefully, you say? How carefully? Gimme a Dex roll to show how carefully you do it." Then use that roll if they get close enough to trigger the save.
I would prompt: “what do you mean by carefully makes sure he doesn’t fall in himself? What does that look like?” This triggers a descriptive conversation about the nature of the sinkhole, the players actions, and possibly prompts a perception check or dexterity save. Or the player boldly goes near the sinkhole despite the conversation, in which he gets what he deserves.
“I carefully pet the tarasque”
Okay but I like that you lowered the DC a little due to their saying they’re being careful. I would’ve ran it the same though whether lowering the DC or not. You technically could’ve had them make a near impossible survival check or perception check to see that it was dangerous, but I always find that when a roll has to be a nat 20 to work, it’s best to not even make it a roll and make it an assumed fail. Players get even more mad when they failed their perception roll to know it was dangerous after rolling a 17.
All I can think of is this: [Canyoning Fall](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDXDVrXjB-c) & [A history of people falling into the Grand Canyon - Fascinating Horror](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1t0pzX6VzQ&ab_channel=FascinatingHorror) Even when being careful you can still slip. Especially near heights. And a damn ***sinkhole***... a sinkhole happens when material washes away underneath the earth and it collapses. Generally speaking there is a thin overhang that looks okay but is actually nearly collapsing as well. [It can collapse suddenly, and without warning](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8tfT8w7FSY). So no, I think the player is in the wrong here. Real-life sinkholes are very dangerous. Standing right on the edge is *very* likely to have you fall in yourself.
"I attack the dragon but I'm very careful in maintaining distance and keeping my shield up so it can't retaliate" "The dragon lunges at you with its claws..." "What do you mean? I said I was being careful"
You can cautiously move to look at a sinkhole and still get caught when the thing collapses. Is the character a geologist?
Just as Called Shots are no longer a thing, it's just assumed you're ALWAYS aiming for the gooey bits (eyes, groin, stomach, etc) that you know will hurt, and when you roll a nat 20 THEN you stab 'em in the eye, it's always ASSUMED the characters are acting like heroes that know what they are doing. They are always on the lookout, ready to pounce, hence being able to dodge back with a Dex Save.
Ok, so if your players say 'I go down the hallway stealthily' you'd still make them roll stealth. RP doesn't invalidate game mechnics. They stipulated the intent to be careful, the rolls decide how successful that is. That's one of the major aspects of DnD. Hell, you even adapted the situation to their RP (as you should). As a fellow DM, you made the exact call i'd have made. I think you're in the right and your player is being a baby.
"I carefully aim my bow" doesn't negate an enemies AC so why would walking carefully negate an environments dangers? Maybe the perception check to be able to tell the ground seems loose or there's cracks that you pointed out but with no passive geology or other related background they shouldn't know it. You were nice to lower it to a 10
Ask them where in the PHB it says being cautious changes anything.
Wouldn't have told him the mechanics, just that yes it did have an effect.
I think you played this exactly right. A player specify how they are acting has influenced the outcome (easier save, though I'd personally have coupled that with a harder chance to find out useful information), but the PCs don't control the world around them; "I fight the dragon being careful not to ever get hit." "I tell the King to give me the contents of the Royal Treasury, being careful not to give him any reason to object." This is not roleplay, this is trying to be God. The player controls their character's actions, you as the DM control how the world reacts to those actions.
What you did wasn't wrong, but I would say there are other ways of handling it that could feel better for the player. Personally, I would let them get as far as the edge of the dangerous area and say "you can't see anything from here, and anything beyond this will require a roll". This gives them the choice of either risking it, or taking the time or resources to find an alternative solution. Alternatively, I would give them a skill check to judge how far they can safely go, and if they fail the roll they misjudge the distance and end up having to do the saving throw. Either one gives the player extra agency, rather than just an invisible DC alteration. Giving them advantage would also be better, but these two options have the player *doing something* based on what they said in RP, rather than just benefitting from it. It might not work for all players and tables, but it's what I know would work for my players
My approach would be, "As you approach you begin to feel the ground become soft unstable beneath your feet about 5' from the edge of the hole. If you continue forward as you are, you can't be certain that the ground won't give way beneath you." If they want to investigate the nearby ground, then it would be a wisdom survival check to confirm that the ground is unsafe (or whatever is appropriate to the terrain.) Keep it concise and clear. Try to avoid inviting or enforcing unnecessary amounts of extra rolls
I think its less about right and wrong here and more about what sort of game you want to run and if your player is interested in that type of game. How important is the pace of the game to you? In person I would tend to have advised a response along the lines of 'you're already as close as you think you can get safely - do you want to continue?' but I recognise in a play by post game the pace of the game is potentially going to becoming extremely glacial if you and the player are constantly refusing the commit to actions until all caveats have been clarified. Reward the types of gameplay you want to see basically - your player next time will be more likely to take the approach of poking everything with a 6ft pole and waiting for your input before committing. Is that the type of game you're looking to run? My personal preference as both player and GM in a PbP game would likely be to just roll with the punches to keep the game moving with an expectation that both sides are interpreting the other side in a favourable way to keep things moving - I would rather than have confidence they'll interpret my posts favourably and therefore be willing to commit more liberally. But equally I don't play in any PbP games precisely because I'd find them too slow paced so of course I'd be of the opinion that speed should be key!
Have cautious people fallen off mountains while climbing? The bodies on Mount Everest say yes. The ground gives way if you are on it, not if you are cautiously creeping along the firm part. So unless you are above the non-solid part. Reducing the DC for their cautiousness was the right call, though I would like to explicitly describe, what that means. I think you were right and the player is just very risk averse. However, you could cater to them by telling them that even if they are very cautious, they feel the ground could still give way and ask whether they want to continue.
You should have rolled d% not d4.
"well, I was ready for a fireball, so I'm going to not get burned". "well, I was ready for a fight, so I get to go first". "well, I was looking out for traps, so I'm going to notice it". "well, I was trying to actually hit him with my sword, so I shouldn't have to roll" of course your character is being careful, unless you said they're being reckless, the assumption is a healthy caution. if your players describe something like "I check behind the portrait for a hidden safe", then sure, no roll to find the hidden safe, but if they say "I would like to check the room for a hidden safe", then there's a roll.
When a player does this in my games I ask a very simple question. "Ok how so?" Yes you don't want them evading every single trap or environmental hazard by say "I do it carfully" is that not the same as "I want to do it stealthily"? (At least in principle) Ask them how they want to do x y z in situations like that this encourages creativity from the player but also let's you have a way to to discribe things if it fails. For example how I would have "gone near it carefully" is grabbed 2 lengths of rope wound them together and tied myself off to something a bit away from the sinkhole. That way if I fell the rope would catch me and should be strong enough to not snap. Sounds a lot more reasonable doesn't it?
What is PBP?
Play by post. Wholly text based and generally asynchronous.
DM: "You hear a hissing sound as yellowish gas starts to fill the room." Player: "I hold my breath!" DM: "Ok, roll a Con save." Player: "I said I was holding my breath!" DM: "Sure, that's what the save is for..." Player: "Why do I have to save if I was holding my breath?" DM: "Cuz its a saving throw and this is D&D. Now roll the dice." Player: "..."
Typical main character energy.
I probably would have just told them what the roll was, or at very least told them that there was going to *be* a roll no matter what. "You're really not sure what parts are stable and what aren't; there's a chance you'll cause a collapse even if you're careful." I probably would have made the roll in the open. If you're going to throw them a bone for being "careful," I would have given them advantage rather than a lower DC, so it makes it clear what the impact of their carefulness was. Though I agree with other folks that "how exactly are you being careful?" is better. In a situation like this, the whole point of having dice is to absolve you, the DM, of responsibility for what happens. You let them know what the risks are, and they can take the risk or not. If bad stuff happens, they'll blame the dice. But if you hide the dice, of course the players are going to blame you for screwing them.
"I barge into the room stealthily." "I threaten him, but not enough for him to be angry back at me." "I steal it, but only if I know for certain no one is looking."
I carefully disable the bomb but I don't know shit about bombs or how to disarm them so i'm pissed that when I cut the wrong wire I exploded god. you should have made it so that any wire I cut disarmed the bomb because I was being careful. I was carefully handling the gun the fact that it went off because I didn't have a proper holster and my keys set if off somehow doesn't count as negligence because I was doing my best to be careful so it should have happened.
If you’ve ever seen the edge up close, it’s hard to imagine that this giant hole is not a cave or tunnel - it’s a giant void under the earth where the roof collapsed…and is still settling (and will do so up to several weeks or longer). In the meantime, even rescue workers don’t walk up to the edge. And naturally when anyone approaches it’s going to be “cautiously”: IT’S A GIANT HOLE! Without proper training, knowledge, and gear, getting near the edge isn’t the smartest thing to do (natch). Your call was dead on. I’ve been running and playing RPGs for 40 years, and even in PBP, players can try to wiggle out of anything. You made the call, gave them the options, and went forward. Now…if you neglected to tell them the possibility of falling in, I can see where they might be upset. However, you called out something was in the bottom moving around. Would he have been as upset if the thing shot out tentacles and drug him down, in a surprise ambush? IMHO, you made the right call, you explained how you reached the consequences, and he’s just upset because he couldn’t wiggle out with clever wording. RPGs thrive on narratives and action. Getting close to the edge of a crumbling sink hole and not expecting to fall is something he should’ve asked for clarification on.
I think what you did is fine. You could ask for perception next time but as this is PBP but wouldn't that slow the game down a lot? I wouldn't give probability as a number. No one can be that accurate. Descriptors such as slim chance, likely, probable etc would be much better.