When the party comes across a locked door, the first course of action (or close to it, I don't know how paranoid your group is with traps) is for the one or two PCs who know how to pick locks to roll for that.
If they try and fail, do you then have *everyone else* roll to pick the lock just in case they get incredibly lucky? That doesn't really make sense to me, yet it's usually better than not trying.
Either you know what you're doing or you don't, and if the untrained PC just happens to succeed it's hard to explain without making a fool of the very trained one.
Are there any tabletop RPGs where a party out of combat is treated as a single character for pass-or-fail rolls like that?
>>47662970
You could just say "You've failed to pick the lock, and it's now jammed/broken/stuck."
You're the GM, you can rule it however you want and give them as many or as little tries as you see fit.
>>47662970
Only have the PCs roll if they're under some kind of pressure or there's consequences for failing.
>>47663013
I want to have a discussion about hard rules and potentially find alternative rule systems. I don't care about GM fiat. It's a useless answer that can apply to everything.
>>47663028
There is a consequence for failing. They can't open the door that way.
How about you have everyone make the assist roll DC of 15 and its a pass or fail. It's a +2 to the roll for every successful assist, up to a +8 bonus.
>>47663095
>I want to have a discussion about hard rules and potentially find alternative rule systems.
Funny, because you might think that's what it looks like, when it's obvious that-
>I want to shitpost about nonissues
Just get over your butthurt already.
>>47663095
Okay, meaningful consequence. "You don't do the thing" is a consequence, sure, but there's nothing stopping them from just trying again. In which case, why'd you make them roll in the first place?
If failure just means they don't do the thing and nothing else happens, then they'll just try again until they get it or until the GM pulls something out of his ass to say they can't anymore. Lockpicks breaking just because they've tried the door over and over again until you got sick of it is a lame cop out.
>>47663125
What's so bad about having an interest in rules? Why is the G part of RPG so often seen as a hindrance?
If I wanted to GM fiat everything, it would just be freeform.
>>47662970
Unless there's some reason they should have at least a novice understanding of locksmithing or lockpicking, no.
You don't get to roll for a skill just because that skill exists. For the same reason you can't just try casting magic when you don't know shit about it. Unless it's something that doesn't require technical knowledge or training to even ATTEMPT, like swinging a weapon or running really fast, you absolutely will fail if you try. Luck has nothing to do with it
>>47663155
The way I usually play it is that they roll for lockpicking and if the roll fails, that means the lock either breaks, was already broken, or is of a specific model which has something about it they don't understand and therefore can't pick, as contextually appropriate.
>>47663155
>but there's nothing stopping them from just trying again
In the case of picking a lock, I imagine the consequence being "you tried everything you could but you don't know how to pick this particular lock", so there's no point in trying again, they would just do the same thing they know is incorrect.
>>47663223
One might argue that if they keep at it, though, then they'll eventually figure out the lock - excepting, of course, if the DC is higher than the highest possible roll they could make, since you can't critical on a skill check. So if you only have a +5 to Open Lock and the DC is 30, you're SOL.
>>47663155
Because trying takes time. And sometimes time matters, especially in dangerous places.
the idea that the world is static is stupid, and worse, it's a common failure on the part of the GM.
>>47663269
Typically to figure out a lock you have to take it apart and look at the bits.
>>47663287
This. If you want to take 20 in a dungeon, I roll for wandering monsters.
I'm not saying for sure one will approach you, but it's possible, even if you cleared this room.
>>47663287
>>47663345
read
>>47663028
Time constraints and dangerous places are the PCs being under pressure. You're proving the point and doing it right.
>>47662970
That only matters on systems that are incredibly luck based. In other systems if the guy built around picking locks couldn't pick it, the chances of anyone else in the party doing so are next to zero.
>>47662970
It really depends on what a skill check represents in your system of choice.
Sometimes it corresponds to a physical action, like D&D and most d20 systems. In which case, sure you can take 20 and keep picking till the cows come home.
Sometimes it's a narrative success or failure, in which case it could represent this particular task being beyond your ability right now, and you need to progress some other way.
If failure doesn't change anything, you probably don't need them to roll for it. Just check if they have the ability to get past this at all (sufficient bonuses to take 20 and succeed) and let them go.
A much better design as a GM would be to make sure failure has a consequence. Maybe picking the lock alerts the other side that someone's coming through, and you start the next combat in a more challenging position, or against readied actions.
>>47662970
If the only consequence for failure is a reroll, you're probably better off skipping the tedium by either just giving it to them or limiting things to one roll. The lockbreak is a fine solution. Just letting the party take 20 (or what have you) is also a fine solution. If there's time pressure, actually fucking track time or do something at intervals and make sure that they know each attempt costs them something. You could codify when you'd use each approach into rules, but it would be largely pointless.
If you really want to expand the party's door breaking repertoire, make sure you know which way the door opens and which side the hinges are on. If you've got hinges on your side, you can just take the door off the wall (but now you can't bar it when you need to retreat). If you've got a door that opens away from you, there could be a lowered DC to break it (but again no barring later, and it's loud as fuck).
>>47662970
Usually my groups course of actions are
1- Pick Lock
2- Knock on Door
3- Break Door down if not made of stone because wood doors of a usually medieval themed universe are flimsy as shit.
>>47663581
>knock on door
I love when this happens. Why is this so rare?
>>47662970
what circumstances?
In a dungeon and the door is the only way to progress?
In a nobles house, he left for a bit and you try and get his desk open to look at documents he's been hiding?
Escaping from prison and trying to undo other party members shackles?
>>47663178
Why don't you try being honest for once?
>>47662970
> If they try and fail, do you then have *everyone else* roll to pick the lock just in case they get incredibly lucky?
1. Why? Is there no retry?
2. That is the result of using a 20-sided die.
3. What's a "Take 10"?
I have absolutely no idea why such a thing happens. The only occasion such a thing happens in the games I'm in is knowledge checks.
And even then, we should all roll at once, not simple watch the knowledgeable character proceeds and roll only if he rolled low enough that his result can be beaten.
> Are there any tabletop RPGs where a party out of combat is treated as a single character for pass-or-fail rolls like that?
Why would you want that, unless you control a party of 3+ by yourself, in which case I would suggest playing a good ol' Vidya RPG?
>>47664504
Not everyone likes freeform as much as you.
>>47665296
No, I'm talking about how you think your bizarre D&D hate that you're hoping to hide, pretending that you're asking about other systems when all you really want to do is complain.
>>47665488
Whatever you say, Professor X. At least you're only using your mind reading to shitpost rather than world domination.
>>47662970
Almost all games have binary success and failure, and many parties are missing critical gaps to move the game forward. It is the GM's responsibility to facilitate the story, and saying "you fail guess the dungeon crawl ends here" is the lowest tier garbage DMing short of him inserting a piss forest.
A only happens outside of 3.pf when there is a branching point in the story. Most books discuss this philosophy more extensively than D&D, but the DMGs I have read definitely include it.
If the GM puts a door in front of you, he should also think "this is perfect for the rogue to pick the lock" and "what happens if he succeeds" and "what happens if he fails". The lazy consequence is wasting time, though that can be funny (like the critical role clip of them trying to open a large door with three STR 8 characters). Most of the time you escalate the danger in response to a failure.
>You drop your lock picks and he sound carries down the silent halls
>The door opens before you finish revealing a confused guard
>Someone jammed gum in the lock!
>The lock is open, but there is a bolt holding the door in place!
>Trap! (Also lazy, but just allowing a save for a random damage is fine)
>>47666182
I got interrupted, but I personally add partial successes in my games.
In D&D (1e, 2e, and 5e really) it's easy because it's roughly taking 5 off the target for a partial success due to lowered target numbers. It's much harder when the modifiers are massive.
The other game I like to GM is RuneQuest where adjusting the difficulty already automatically gives a partial success range - that and crits/fumbles are defined in the skills.
This is nit advice that was unique. AW and (blech) FFG Star Wars do it OK, but it actually makes it impossible to easily implement binary choices when they are appropriate.
>>47662970
Actions have consequences, whether good or bad. Someone who blows a check to pick a lock either fucks up their tools, fucks up the lock, or takes an inordinarily long time to pick it (and if something time-sensitive is happening, it proceeds as such). There's no point in having someone else come pick the lock, unless they're in dire straits and need the lock picked now, and the party lock-picker is bumbling the job.
>>47666182
What you're saying is true, but you completely missed the point.
It's not about providing an alternate path in case [appropriate class] fails to overcome [skill-based obstacle], it's about understanding that if [appropriate class] didn't succeed, someone untrained surely can't do any better no matter what the dice say, so don't bother trying.
This isn't an issue exclusive to D&D, and it applies to any skill that would realistically never work by luck alone. The example of a locked door is just the most direct one.
>>47666182
As funny as that clip is, I'm pretty sure Mercer just wanted them to keep failing regardless of what they rolled.
>Everyone in this thread forgetting that open lock or its equivalent is a trained-only skill in most systems.
>In b4 "muh obscure better than 3.5 system where anyone rolls anything blag blah blah"
>>47662970
Why don't you ask, "how?" ?
In my party the lockpicker failed and went "would you like to try, anon?", I go all fabulous "Sure, I take the point of my spear and use it as a key on the big lock", roll nat 20, everyone has funs.
>>47667499
For fuck's sake can we go one fucking day without someone claiming 3.pf is the only fucking D&D when they frame their shitty arguments!?
>>47662970
Assuming it survives the Safety Stick V2.13 test we'd honestly check to see if the hinges are on our side first and just take the door off. Second would be picklock and if we can't do that we check to see whats stronger the door or surrounding wall.
>>47667499
>>47672125
This argument does not even work for 3.5.
Open lock is a trained only skill along with being fuck all easy if you have someone helping you. Fuck, even a rogue with 1 point in Open Lock and no dex modifier can take 20 and open simple locks. By 5th level, a rogue is probably going to have the equivalent of 8 ranks in it, along with a +6 ability mod and +2 for master work tools. A rogue like this ,with 20 rounds, could open anything but amazing locks. With 10 rounds, he can open an average lock.
Not every system has to be like FFG Star Wars where you get 40 points of stun damage but succeed or Strike! where you fail forward as you go through life.
Imagine yourself in the situation with a bunch of friends (I know this can be hard for some of you , bear with me). You had a night out drinking or what have you, and you decide to go back to one friends to play some DnD. Your group reaches the door, and for some reason, his key wont turn the lock. He cant get in his own house, it just wont fucking turn. Most people in this situation say "hang on m8 let me haev a go at er" and try to jimmy the lock themselves. Everybody gets a turn, then finally the guy who owns the house has another go and gets it open, or maybe one of his buddies got it.
When I run games, I see no problem with players trying the same rolls as one another, so long as they are under some kind of pressure or dont break the flow of the game.
>>47662970
rule of 20 doesnt work on skill checks by vanilla. unless your pick locker is a scrub a player who gets as lucky as they can get will not be able to beat their check.
>>47672248
>not using your own DCs
>>47672423
Why argue about the rules if the first step is going off the reservation when discussing them?
>>47672248
>friendly reminder that "failing forward" is not only away to continue a plot line, it can bring up interesting plot developments.
even in D&D, it's a good sign of good DMing.
>>47662970
Not quite what you're asking for, but Dungeon World's task resolution system gets rid of this problem pretty quickly. When characters undertake a risky action, the GM asks them to roll 2d6 + Stat. On a 10+ they succeed completely, on a 7-9 it's a partial success with some kind of cost, and on a 6 or less things go badly, the GM narrates what happens, they suffer a consequence, and the character gets 1 XP. Most of these actions are listed with specific consequences, and the GM is expected to come up with reasonable, on-the-fly consequences for actions that are particularly unusual. I'll give an example using the one you presented:
GM: You check out the door and it's got a heavy padlock.
Player: Okay, my character takes out her lockpicks and starts picking the lock.
GM: Make a Dexterity check.
(On a 10+) GM: Okay, it takes you about 30 seconds but you've unlocked the door. What next?
(On a 7-9) GM: Okay, you wrestle with the lock for a good two minutes. Just as you manage to open the padlock, your lockpick breaks off inside. You'll need to replace that sometime. What next?
(On a 6-) GM: Okay, you're about two minutes into unlocking this door when it suddenly opens, hitting you in the face and sending you sprawling. There's now a rather confused-looking guard looking down at you. You're not sure if he realizes what you were doing, but he's certainly giving you a firm, harsh look. Take an XP. What next?
Another system that explicitly uses this method of 'failing forward' (and the first place I heard about it) is 13th Age. I find DW is slightly better at presenting this way of playing because 13th Age is otherwise mostly 'all or nothing' with its task resolution. I recommend both DW and 13th Age if you like the idea of moving the story along and penalizing characters for failure rather than just telling them they failed completely.
>>47663345
What exactly are you trying to encourage your players to do instead?
>>47662970
Unclear what the problem is, or even what edition of D&D you're playing. Depending on the edition of D&D:
-not every character may have the tools or expertise to pick locks, so not every character can try.
-No D&D system gives auto-success on a 20, either; generally critical success or failure only apply to combat and not to other rolls, so there's no possibility of someone "getting lucky".
-Each successive lock-picking attempt takes time, and depending on the edition adds an extra chance to jam the lock, or alternately for a wandering monster check (most rulesets specify the time it takes for a lock-picking attempt, and many older editions are very strict about rolling wandering monster encounters every X turns in the dungeon).
-It actually may make more sense for other characters to try to bash the lock or smash the door/chest open, in which case the resolution is a completely different roll altogether.
>>47662970
So if the rest of the party gets a shot, why don't you just let the first guy try a second time?
>>47672484
>failing a lockpicking check summons a guard, but still opens the door
Fucking narrativist gamers.
>>47674668
Not sure if you are just being facetious or not, but here goes:
It's an example. A guard could have discovered him and sounded the alarm with the door unopened, and that'd have been a perfectly legit outcome on a 6-.
Then he could just break the door down, or kill the guard and take the keys, or abandon this door or something.
We generally allow two people to make a check, and if they both fail then no one else can attempt it.
Take 10 rule.
If that doesn't apply then, roll a d6 on failure
1-2: Lock is jammed now
3-4: Dicking with the lock has attracted the attention of the guards/monsters. It remains unopened and they have new problems
5: They're free to try again
6: As they attempt to pick the lock, something opens the door from the other side
>>47662970
You're not supposed to let people roll on shit they have no chance of succeeding at you dingus, just like you're not supposed to make them roll for shit they're guaranteed to succeed at.
Would you let the whole party attempt brain surgery without a medical degree just in case someone rolls a natural 20 or whatever?
You're
1: wasting time
2: ruining peoples immersion since that shit makes no sense and it feels cheap and gamey.
Stop it.
>>47663178
The game rules are there to avoid running on pure GM fiat, they're there to help the players and GM arbitrate challenges and conflicts.
But they're not the fucking point of the game, you're not supposed to let them ruin or cheapen the experience by letting them run the game for you.
>>47663155
>Okay, meaningful consequence. "You don't do the thing" is a consequence, sure, but there's nothing stopping them from just trying again. In which case, why'd you make them roll in the first place?
Real World Security Advice:
All locks can be opened.
All.
Locks.
Can.
Be.
Opened.
All security can be bypassed, all computers hacked, all doors can be removed with enough application of force.
Against the dedicated adversary (Red Team in the parlance) you cannot protect yourself with passive means.
Relevant factors, when assessing a lock, include:
1) Will it deter casual intruders into looking elsewhere
2) Will it deter skilled intruders into looking elsewhere
3) For the skilled intruder who cannot be deterred, for how long will it resist?
The third one is often forgotten, but is the most important one. The best commonly-available key-based lock last time I checked (2012 or so) took the guy opening it half an hour with specialist tools that he had created ahead of time. But of course, if mounted in a simple door, it could also just be kicked open.
Good possible consequences of a failed roll:
>The lock is scratched, so the normal user will see that you entered.
>You wasted time and the guard might soon be back
>You broke the lock or your tools and will have to get out an axe
"But Anon, what if there aren't any guards"
Then "a lock" is a terrible challenge, gb2DM school.
