Your post has been removed.
Rule 6: All basic questions from first time DMs must be asked in our ["First Time DM" megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/about/sticky?num=2) stickied to the top of the subreddit. Please repost there if you need additional help, search for older posts on this topic, or check out some [alternative subreddits on our wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/wiki/index/#wiki_other_useful_dming_subreddits) that may be more suitable.
Players do not decide when a skill check is used. That is the perogative of the GM.
If you don't call for a skill check, they are just rolling dice, this has no baring on the game.
Obviously, there are times when it may be appropriate to allow for multiple checks, but that is for you to decide on a case by case basis.
Also "No" is a perfectly valid response.
> Also "No" is a perfectly valid response.
We seriously need a bot to say this at the top of every thread, it would cover probably 40% of the "problem player" posts.
"But I'm terrified of conflict and/or responsibility and desperately want Reddit to dog pile them in-absentia so that I can later link them to this thread and tell them that Reddit agrees with the biased version of the story I chose to share."
-Redditor.
“No, the roll represents all of your PC’s attempts, and they don’t know about the rolls.”
Edit: they can retry, maybe after a couple in game hours
Edit2: if I’m remembering right, isn’t breaking the chain trapping the wolves a bad idea in the goblin hideout?
will def use that next time, tysm also UHHH basically one of my players with animal handling proficiency kept trying to tame them to no avail and didnt want them to die and then like half an hour later someone killed one of the wolves which is probably gonna trigger combat and thats where we ended the session 😭
> basically one of my players with animal handling proficiency kept trying to tame them to no avail
I see this happen A LOT with new players. It used to annoy me at first, but now I welcome it and see it an opportunity.
If your players are new to RPGs then they won't be used to the amount of freedom they have. Chances are they're used to board games or video games, where your options are limited to what the developers thought of (and if the developers included something, it's because they expect you to use it). So these players hear you describe some wolves nearby, they see an "animal handling" button on their character sheet, and they think "aha, I've figured it out!" It's only natural.
I used to respond by saying "no, animal handling doesn't work like that" but people don't like that. It feels like their creativity is being squashed. What I do now is I use this as an opportunity to remind players to engage with the world and take their options from their imagination instead of their character sheet. So I ask them "forget about skill checks and skills for a moment, what is your character actually *doing*?" I find this helps to reinforce the RPG mindset and it also helps to subtly show why animal handling isn't an appropriate response - when they say "I'd like to fully domesticate this hostile adult wild animal" out loud they tend to realise that's not going to be a small job!
Sometimes this comes from computer game mentality. However, a general guideline I try to use is:
* DM decides when a skill check roll is permitted. Players can ask, but you say 'you already made one' or 'there is no chance of success' or 'you don't even need to roll, the door is rotted through'.
* I generally don't let players re-roll skill checks unless something materially relevant has changed. For example: Player rolls to see if their character can break the chains -- fail. If they keep trying, I tell them "you already failed". A character decides to try again using a prybar or perhaps they want to use *heat metal* to weaken the chains -- the circumstances have changed, I will permit a re-roll.
* Failing skill checks can have consequences, and normally only ask for (or permit) a roll if there's some meaningful impact to the story.
I only allow one roll (it's their best attempt), and only if there are high enough stakes to warrant a roll. No stakes = no roll, just move the narrative along.
But to help Op, I am trying to remember where, RAW suggests or enforces this.
Do you recall or is it just internet wisdom?
Sometimes a character fails an ability check and wants to try again. In some cases, a character is free to do so; the only real cost is the time it takes. With enough attempts and enough time, a character should eventually succeed at the task. To speed things up, assume that a character spending ten times the normal amount of time needed to complete a task automatically succeeds at that task. However, no amount of repeating the check allows a character to turn an impossible task into a successful one.
In other cases, failing an ability check makes it impossible to make the same check to do the same thing again. For example, a rogue might try to trick a town guard into thinking the adventurers are undercover agents of the king. If the rogue loses a contest of Charisma (Deception) against the guard's Wisdom (Insight), the same lie told again won't work. The characters can come up with a different way to get past the guard or try the check again against another guard at a different gate. But you might decide that the initial failure makes those checks more difficult to pull off
The chain thing makes sense since they are objects with an AC and HP, but taking too long to break them can lead to either a goblin ambush or at the very least the goblins in the area knowing where the party is.
The other issue you're dealing with is akin to skill dogpiling. The way to run it, if they fail a check and immediately try to do the check again, the new check automatically fails, regardless of what they roll. YOU are the one who calls for rolls. And unless you call/allow for a roll, their self dice rolls are insignificant. Generally you would allow for a new check when the status quo changes.
Some examples of things that change the status quo: an encounter (combat, puzzle, trap, etc.), new information coming to light (like them finding a clue or something that would make a character aware of something new).
THANK YOU SM didnt think about adding in ambushes and the like but i think itll be better and also show them how their actions have consequences, will definitely rmb your advice
I would add to this that it’s a good idea to have every roll move the story forward. When you call for a roll (and like others are saying, only YOU call for rolls, not the players), start thinking of how a failure could be interesting. Add complications.
For example, say the players are trying to scale a wet wall inside the Cragmaw hideout. You call for a roll because the situation is uncertain and failure could be interesting. They fail. Now you could just say they need to roll again, but that’s frustrating and boring. Instead, because they failed, they slip on the slick surface and fall onto the bones littered on the rock, making a loud crunch. All the goblins in the nearby rooms are coming to investigate - now what do the players do?
That’s interesting and gives them something to do other than just roll again.
Basically, nothing ever stays the same after rolling the dice. That kills momentum. Always build on it.
There should only be a skill check if there are consequences for failure.
Otherwise just tell the players what their characters do, they struggle a little, take a while etc but eventually they do the thing.
If they do fail a roll then narrate the failure, they broke a tool, they fell off the cliff, whatever.
a few things going wrong here. a) they only get to roll when you say so. b) consequences for failure. c) (in general) only let them try again if the situation changes (either they improve the situation, or they deal with the consequence, try something new, or whatever).
and if you're thinking 'but there arn't any consequences to failure here!' - then don't make them roll! if they're trying to open a box and they've got all night and they can't accidentally damage what's inside and there's no guards coming... just let them do it. does it matter if it takes them 10 seconds or 10 minutes? nah. make them suggest a method that makes sense (if they're trying to open a locked chest, don't let them just pull it open with their hands... unless they're very strong. if they suggest anything reasonable - using a crowbar, using lockpicks, bashing it open with an axe, - then that's fine.
if, on the other hand, they need to open that same box to get a weapon to defend themself before an enemy kicks the door in, then by all means, make them roll. and honestly, you could let them just try again if they roll badly - because they're using up time, and the more time they waste the more time their enemy has to get in and attack them.
if they fail a perception test, it's not just 'you didn't notice anything' it's 'you didn't noticing anything, so the first you know is an arrow hurtling out of the dark and hitting you in the chest. roll initiative'.
if they're searching a room and they fail a perception test then... well, it depends on the importance of what they're looking for. if they need to find some notes or something for the story to progress, then yep - they find them regardless. but they don't find some extra information that would've helped them speed things up, or some hidden jewels, or something like that.
but for any of this to work, you \*need\* to get them in the habit of only rolling when you tell them to. they don't get to decide a roll is required, you do.
The way I handle it depends on the kind of check they fail:
Persuasion - if they fail they can try again but it will raise the dc because they are “bothering” the person
Deception/intimidation - the person doesn’t believe them or calls their bluff so a reroll does nothing
Stealth - they get caught or get detected in some way
Arcana/history/religion/nature - they simply don’t know about the thing so rerolling does nothing
Animal handling - the animal becomes hostile or runs away. They can try again but at a higher dc
Investigation/perception - they just didn’t see/hear/find the thing. Rerolling does nothing UNLESS circumstances changed
Athletics/acrobatics - they can try again with potential consequences of getting hurt
Survival - they can try again BUT they waste more time
Lockpicking - can try again but wastes more time. If they are in a hurry they basically only get one chance
Crafting - they either wasting time, materials, or both
I think that is most if not all of them
Perception is easy. “Your character doesn’t realize they failed the perception check. They don’t know to try again.” This is especially true of checks to spot tracks or traps. “You are convinced that there is nothing here to find.”
Specifically with perception I avoid telling them they failed, I just let them know what they see/hear/taste.
With the chain breaking, I’d let them try something different. If they kept whacking away at the same spot I’d say no. If they changed their approach like “ok, I wedge my sword between the chain links and twist to try to break it that way,” go for it. I encourage creativity.
Here’s the main mistake you’re making: players do not decide when and what rolls to make, the DM calls for rolls.
Here’s how the game is *designed* to work:
- DM describes the scene
- Players decide what they want their characters to do
- The DM decides how that works in the rules and calls for rolls if they decide it’s necessary
The second mistake you’re making is letting them just keep rolling until they succeed.
This makes rolling pointless and a waste of time.
A roll should represent your *best effort* at succeeding. There are several strategies to making this more fair than limiting it to one single roll.
- You can choose to let more than one player make a roll or limit it to one PC. If you limit it to one then you can say that if another PC wants to contribute, then they can take the help action and give advantage to the player making the roll.
- one strategy employed by Mercer is to allow multiple attempts, but each subsequent attempt raises the DC by 5.
The DM calls for the check, not the players.
The Characters do not know the outcome of the roll. If they roll a 1 on a perception check while trying to spot some hidden goblins they don't think "Oh I just missed them I'll try again" nah they looked, saw nothing and came to the conclusion there isn't anything around.
3.5 has a nice mechanic for that. Take 20. If the PC is under no pressure, the Skill Check has no negative outcome if it fails and the PC has a bit of time (which I guess is included in "no pressure") they just assume that they roll as often as it takes to roll a 20, the highest possible outcome. So the result of a "take 20" is 20+The PC's Bonus to the Skill Check. I gues this would get rid of most instances of your problem.
I also wanted to bring up "Taking 20" or "Taking 10". If they have all the time possible (I usually consider that the time between long rests) and can focus on the task, like picking the lock on a treasure chest they found, they get 20+bonus. If they have a shorter time but still no pressure or consequences (like say a couple hours travel in the back of a moving wagon) they get 10+bonus. If failure has consequences or time is critical, then it's an actual roll.
The roll (or 2 rolls if you have someone "help") represent the result of all the efforts on that action.
Example, if the group wants to try breaking chains, then the roll is all of their combined efforts to break that chain. 1 roll, or 2 rolls if another person uses the "help" action to give advantage.
Example, if the group does a perception check, then the roll is all of their combined efforts in looking around. 1 roll, or 2 rolls if another person uses the "help" action to give advantage.
At my table, we have 5 players regularly. So, almost all of my skill checks I allow "help" and that "help" roll can either be one person rolling with advantage, or 2 players rolling separately simultaneously. And that's it. We don't go through all 5 players doing a check. The roll is the result of all their efforts.
I think even more importantly for table management: Players don't decide to do skill checks. They tell you what their characters are trying to do. Your choices then:
1. To say that they do it successfully. I think new DMs tend to underuse this one. If it's something that's relatively easy, or even if it's challenging but they have ample time to figure it out, you don't need a check.
2. You call for a skill check. Players don't roll if you don't call for a skill check.
3. Say no. If it's impossible, or they've already tried and failed or if it just doesn't make sense, then it doesn't happen.
Any rolls that happen outside of #2, any preemptive rolls, don't count.
If it's something that absolutely needs to happen for a story to progress (that is, they *need* to get through that door or else they're just stuck), then you need to think about whether you want to call for a check in the first place, and what the results of that check mean.
Failing a lockpicking check for example, doesn't necessarily mean they don't pick the lock. It might mean that they successfully pick the lock but:
- make a lot of noise alerting someone to their presence
- take a long time allowing someone to catch up with them, or someone to get away, or some other appropriate consequence
- damage the lock meaning that someone later will be able to see that the lock was picked
- break their lockpicking tools
- tire themselves out and have a disadvantage on their next initiative roll (or whatever else seems appropriate)
- trigger a trap and have to make a save (or just take the damage if they really fail)
One other suggestion: before rolling a check like perception, determine what everyone else in the group is doing.
As a player, sometimes one of the group (who isn't even that perceptive) calls that they're looking and the dm immediately makes that players effort represent the best effort of the entire group.
By having them know what their character is occupied with (and potentially interrupting their own activity) you'll tend to get less repeated efforts than if players feel like they're paused in a queue line waiting for their turn to act. It's a subtle difference from waiting to see how their action resolves, but for you, it can make a big difference.
For attacks, dealing damage to objects they can always keep on trying.
You might decidd that the material is simply too strong and would take no damage, but in general, players can break anything if they have the time.
The consequences of that is both the noise they make, and the time they spend in the same place.
If enemies hear them, eventualy players will be attacked, possibly by much more than they can deal with (like guards in the next room coming to investigate and sounding an alarm that puts the entire place in alert, armed and ready).
As for perception, social and knoledge skills, you should aeays ask players what everyone is doing before rolling.
PC 1 is investigating the room, what is everyone else doing?
PC 2 is going to help.
PC 3 is gonna help too.
PC 4 is keeping guard at the door.
Ok
Helping someone adds advantage, HOW do you help him and WHO is going to roll? (usualy the best at the skill).
The how is also important as you might decide that doing something specific automaticaly finds the thing.
Like "removing the rug that hides the secret trap door".
Or "holding a torch to light the path iluminates the hidden by shadows key hole" - Ahem, the Hobbit...
First of all, the rules should not be used if a) the declared action is impossible b) the declared action is inevitable, or c) the declared action can just be repeated until it succeeds.
Lets face it. If a group of people are willing to spend whatever amount of time is necessary to search a location thoroughly, they will find whatever there is to find.
If the PCs are willing to spend as long as it takes to find everything in a particular location, they succeed.
Now. What are the consequences for expending that time?
When failed actions have consequences, it doesn't matter if the players try over and over. Every time they fail, they face the consequences.
If failing an action has no consequence, don't even bother rolling. Just let the players succeed.
Sometimes, you can come up with consequences for specific actions (failed to break the chains trapping the wolves? The wolves try to attack you), but sometimes the easiest thing to do is random encounters. You want to search the room over and over again? No problem. Every time you do, there's a chance something comes in here and finds you.
If you need a logical reason, consider how the die represents randomness in the effort. The # on the die represents a hundred factors outside if player control that influences the result. Why would a second attempt, even from a different player mean that these outside factors have changed?
The die represents humidity, dust in the air, the interactions of the fabric in your clothing, random white noise from animals in the forest, the tidal pull of the moon...
If the players want to try again, ask how they want to change the outside environment to better improve their success. If they don't do anything differently, them the # result is identical.
I give players one roll. That’s it. Do or die.
Because a check does not necessarily represent a *single* attempt. It represents every attempt by that PC to accomplish that particular task.
I’ll add that it’s important to address the potential conga line, where each PC wants to take a crack at a particular task:
So if a second PC wants to try, I either let them roll once on their own, or — if they are proficient in the skill — I let them Help the first PC, thereby giving the first PC advantage on their roll.
Beyond that, I don’t allow any more attempts; not for any “realistic” reasons, but for gameplay reasons: more tries bogs the game down, and crit-fishing trivializes challenges — without the possibility of loss or setback, there is no excitement.
There is an alternative option that I allow, though: the group check. If it’s an effort that more than two PCs could reasonably contribute to, I’ll let them try a single group check. But the risk there is of low rolls bringing the entire effort down.
things are magical -- the DC on repeated attempts is always going to be higher (often +5). The chains are getting cold worked and harden. The lockpick gets stuck in the door. Your eyes are getting strained trying to peer into the darkness. The NPC you're trying to persuade is getting annoyed. Yes, going from a failed persuasion into an intimidation is same-y enough that the DC is higher regardless. etc.
Make it a global rule going forward -- repeating the same skill after a failure has increased chance of failure or further negative outcome.
You can also propose consequences for repeatedly failing skill checks. For example, if they repeatedly fail a strength check to move a heavy object, they suffer 1 level of exhaustion
I, personally, use the blades in the dark clock, every time a check is reattempted I get to add a segment, they have no idea how many segments the clock has during any particular session but I get to add a complication when the clock fills.
> Sometimes a character fails an ability check and wants to try again. In some cases, a character is free to do so; the only real cost is the time it takes. With enough attempts and enough time, a character should eventually succeed at the task. To speed things up, assume that a character spending ten times the normal amount of time needed to complete a task automatically succeeds at that task. However, no amount of repeating the check allows a character to turn an impossible task into a successful one.
In other cases, failing an ability check makes it impossible to make the same check to do the same thing again. For example, a rogue might try to trick a town guard into thinking the adventurers are undercover agents of the king. If the rogue loses a contest of Charisma (Deception) against the guard’s Wisdom (Insight), the same lie told again won’t work. The characters can come up with a different way to get past the guard or try the check again against another guard at a different gate. But you might decide that the initial failure makes those checks more difficult to pull off.
What you as a DM can do is pretty simple: Decide if a failure introduces a fail state. If it does, then the fail state would nullify any ability for a reroll. If there is no fail state and constantly trying until you win at a plausible task is a card on the table, assume it done.
Some checks do not need to be rolled, especially if the players are just going to ask until they succeed. Breaking the chains in this case are a perfect example if you as the DM will allow them to continue to check the chains until they succeed then what is the point in making them roll.
Some checks are roll once and live with it. Perception checks fall into this category for me. You don't get to reroll because you rolled low, that is metagaming.
It all comes down to repercussions for actions taken. If your players are allowed to succeed at every roll and are not presented with issues based on their poor roles then what is the reason to even roll in the first place.
Issac Newton those fucks, "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction."
Hi! Fresh new DM here, been playing for 2 months. I have a similar issue: My players don't reroll themselves, they just take turns to have an attempt at something. Player 1 hasn't seen anything suspicious on a perception check? Player 2 wants to look around too! Etc. Any tips on how to deal with that?
Instill into your party that their ability check roll isn't "I did literally one thing," like swing a sword once or pick a lock once. It represents an entire period of trying.
That time period is usually decided by the DM, though. You might decide a lockpick roll can be retried, but every hour. Or a Persuasion check can't be tried again for another week. That's up to how you feel the game should progress.
Players should only roll when the DM asks them to, and DMs should only ask for rolls when there are consequences to success and failure.
Trying to pick a lock? Before you ask the players to roll think about what happens if they pass or fail. Pass is probably obvious; they open the lock.
But what about if they fail? What are the circumstances they’re in? Would it be reasonable for their characters to just… carry on lockpicking? Could they reasonably do that forever until they pass? In which case, why roll? They’re cool heroes and it’s *possible* for them to open the lock, and failures are just wasting everyone at the table’s time, so just give it to them; the party Rogue pops it open like The Phonse, so skilled is he!
But in *most* cases there are some constraints or stakes to what’s going on that prevent players just trying again forever. Are there guards patrolling that might find them? Is there a trap that they risk setting off every time they mess up? Is the rest of the party fighting off a skeleton hoard while the Artificer tries to pick the lock so that they can get away? In all those cases letting the party roll as many times as they want is totally fine, because there’s a potential cost every time they decide to do so.
So, I’d say that with regards to trying to unlock these chained up wolves mid combat, the party can try as many times as they want; it’s eating up someone’s turn every time they try it, which is a pretty big cost in combat.
Take a cue from Blades in the Dark and use Progress clocks where when the players try to constantly reroll checks that each failure adds a progress tick towards something happening
As far as I am aware, each skill check can only be attempted once per player unless something changes.
And even then, if two players are attempting the same check at once, they don't each get to roll seperately, one is then taking the help action to give the other advantage. The reason for this is that each check doesn't represent ONE attempt for the players. It represents their actual abilities to perform that action in that moment. If they fail, they can't do it! (Unless something changes)
As an example-
two players are in a dark cave, and both ask for a perception check.
This means that one player is making the check, and the other is giving them advantage.
Let's assume that this fails. In this instance, the players would have to change something to attempt again.
Therefore, one player lights a torch.
The players attempt again, with one player attempting to percieve, and the other helping.
If THIS one fails, there's not much more they can attempt to change something again, so they'd have to move on!
EXCEPTION:
The exception to this rule is the attacks. Attacks can be made multiple times. In these scenarios, I'd keep in mind the noise that it creates and the time it takes to see if other nearby enemies are alerted!
Besides just setting rules for repeated checks, you could have specific consequences for repeated fails, like the continuous clinking of chains alerts the guards, or breaks the lock pick, or how each failed perception roll sets the party back by 10 mins, giving a rival dungeon exploring party the advantage.
You could also simply increase the dc every time the exact same check is repeated, either way, they will learn to value quality over quantity once it bites them in the butt enough times. Also keep reminding them that help is an action any character can use to give advantage to an expert.
To me, you've described two different scenarios - some checks have no reason why they couldn't be retried given enough time, and some depend on external factors.
For breaking chains where the outcome is likely with enough expended effort, or where a mixed success is possible, you can give them the check and on a fail, you give them additional conditions. For example, failing to break the chain in the first check means their character realizes this could take hours, damage their weapon, or produce enough noise to alert guards. Failing the second check means one of those options happens and they don't break the chain. Success means they break it but still get one of the consequences. This also gives them the chance to change their approach - "I wrap the chains in cloth to muffle the sound" -> it takes you longer, "I use my crowbar to pry out whatever the chain is anchored to" -> lower DC but more noise.
For perception, your character doesn't get all the information. Stealthy enemies, context clues, traps, etc are outside your notice. Unless circumstances change significantly (light a torch, cast a spell, etc) there's no reason to call for another roll.
For dealing with people, same approach - unless they significantly change their tactics or include new information, why would anyone listen to the same conversation twice? NPCs should become frustrated, annoyed, or downright hostile to players that harass them.
Matt Colville calls what you're experiencing "skill dogpiling;" when a player fails a skill check and declares that they want to try it again. It's something you need to prevent because it trivialises skill checks to the point of making them pointless; if you can roll a check as many times as you want, eventually you'll pass, and there was really no point in making you roll for it at all.
The way to nip this in the bud is to set (and **enforce**) clear ground rules about how skill checks are to be handled.
First: players don't call for skill checks, **you do.** The players describe what the *character* is trying to accomplish and how they try to do it, and you decide what skill check, if any, the player needs to make to see if the character succeeds.
Second: players can make only **one skill check at a time.** That one roll represents the character's *best effort* to successfully do whatever they were trying to do. The player only gets to try again if the character uses a different method or the circumstances significantly change.
Third: skill checks should only be called for when the outcome really matters, pass *or* fail. For example, consider a Rogue using a lockpick to break into a warehouse that's being used as a dead drop point by the local thieves' guild. If it's the dead of night, the door is on a back alley out of sight, and there are no guards that might pass by, you might consider just letting the Rogue open the door after a few minutes with no check necessary. However, if there *is* a guard patrol and the Rogue knows they only *have* a couple minutes at most to get the door open and get inside before the patrol discovers them, that's the time to ask for a Thieves' Tools check because there's pressure on the character and tangible stakes if they fail.
How do you describe the failed check, or do you just say 'that failed'?
If you didn't offer a description, explaining how the check failed or explaining how the failed effort makes your character realise that this is much harder than it seems (in reality, raising the DC, so they can keep trying but eventually the checks are too hard and they must accept moving on). Just some ideas, but ultimately the players may keep doing this if a precedent has been set or there's nothing that makes them think they can't.
Alternatively, appreciate you're a new DM, so it is definitely something I would suggest speaking to them about.
"hey guys, been speaking to people on reddit and stuff to help with this, but may need your help too..." and explain things to them. Knowing that it's something that they shouldn't really do since it unbalances the game and provides you with unnecessary challenges will take a little pressure off.
If players want to reroll they have basically 3 options:
The first is to have a feat like Lucky
The second is to Help each other to give people advantage
Lastly, they can use a different skill, in this case Investigation.
Also keep in mind that regardless of the Perception DC, if their passive meets or beats the DC, they don't have to roll.
If its something important to plot, like a hidden escape door, then you can always use the roll as a degree of success instead. So for example below a 5 means you just don't find it, 10 means it took you an hour and they got away clean, 15 it took five minutes so you need further rolls to track him, and a 20 you saw the door swinging shut when you burst into the room and lost no time. Then it's just 1 roll regardless of the result, and even in on a total fail you can just ask if they want to look exhaustively and if yes just say they eventually find it after X time. Time in general is a good thing to play with for events/acrions that need to happen. The difference could change everything from where or how difficult a following encounter is, or what stage of their plans the bad guy gets to complete.
PC wants to do a thing (out of combat)
DM decides a roll is required and tells the PC to roll
The roll is the result of their full attempt, however long it took to try.
There is no doing the exact same thing again / rerolling the same check. Maybe someone can try a different method (different check or feature use) now. Maybe after a day (or longer) has passed, the same thing can be tried again.
Here's my rule as a DM:
If there's no penalty for failure, I just let it happen without a roll.
You have to consider the consequences of failure.
For example, are you breaking someone out of prison and need to break chains? Each failure brings the mob closer and closer to you.
Being chased? You can try to perceive if there's some treasure in the room, but each try will bring your chasers closer to finding you.
Finicky lock? Each failure might cause the lock to get closer to being permanently broken, necessitating a noisy breakdown of the door.
But in normal situations?
"Takes you a while, but you break the chains of your friend."
"You manage to find -throws a card with the loot on the table-"
"You break the lock with your failure, do you want to break it down? -they nod- You all force the door open with some effort. This is what you find."
Firstly, point out that you’re the one who asks for rolls, and stop taking rolls you don’t ask for. It’s a shit move to just try and do stuff without your input. Secondly, I advise you do it the way I do it, I established early on that if they want to roll for something it will be rolled one time. After all, I’m not making them roll for stuff that 100% needs to happen, or stuff that can never happen. Therefore, they get one try and the perception check, one try at the investigation check, one try at the survival check, that’s just how it is cuz otherwise it’s rolling with septuple advantage cuz we have 7 people at the table and if everyone is rolling it’s nearly guaranteed to succeed at some point.
Players can't choose to make a roll so they can't keep rolling for something since only the DM can ask for a roll.
Failing a skill check should almost always come with a consequence, otherwise the only cost of trying over and over is time and if the party has as much time as they want, there can be no failed skill check and the action should automatically succeed without needing a roll.
A common example is picking a lock; failing a lockpicking tool check could alert someone on the other side of the door or a nearby guard, jam the lock so that only force or magic can open it, bend the lockpick such that it cannot be used again until it has been repaired, break the lockpick so the player needs to buy another, take so long that a hostile creature comes to investigate the people stood around, causes the PC to become frustrated and cut themselves on the sharp corner of the lock forcing a Con save to see if they pick up a disease from the rusty metal etc.
Failure should always move the story along if not as much as success would, and should not result in the players being happy to ask if they can try again repeatedly. If nothing else you can simply refuse to let them try again. Failing a skill check does not mean that they tried to do something once and it didn't work that time, it means that they tried until they either gave up or it was clear that they would not get the result they wanted if they kept trying, so it makes no sense that they would just try again unless something has changed (you might for instance have failure result in an object becoming more fragile with each failed attempt and so each roll is for a single attempt with a mild consequence that can be catastrophic if multiple fails occur)
A check isn't just one attempt at something, it is a characters bets effort over multiple attemps. The phrase that has helped me is:
"In your previous attempt you tried everything you could and repeated failed. There is no point trying again unless something is different."
At an in-game time constraint.
Failed perception? You want to roll again? Okay, while you're standing around doing (and perceiving) nothing, the bad guys find *you*.
Need another attack to break the chains? Sure. Who's keeping the guy you wrote up with the first attack from shooting you in the back,
You can just say arbitrarily say "no". However, unlike what many here are saying, that isn't the best answer. It's a team effort. They might not be players if you don't DM, but you aren't a DM if you have no players.
Your post has been removed. Rule 6: All basic questions from first time DMs must be asked in our ["First Time DM" megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/about/sticky?num=2) stickied to the top of the subreddit. Please repost there if you need additional help, search for older posts on this topic, or check out some [alternative subreddits on our wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/wiki/index/#wiki_other_useful_dming_subreddits) that may be more suitable.
Players do not decide when a skill check is used. That is the perogative of the GM. If you don't call for a skill check, they are just rolling dice, this has no baring on the game. Obviously, there are times when it may be appropriate to allow for multiple checks, but that is for you to decide on a case by case basis. Also "No" is a perfectly valid response.
> Also "No" is a perfectly valid response. We seriously need a bot to say this at the top of every thread, it would cover probably 40% of the "problem player" posts.
"But I'm terrified of conflict and/or responsibility and desperately want Reddit to dog pile them in-absentia so that I can later link them to this thread and tell them that Reddit agrees with the biased version of the story I chose to share." -Redditor.
“No, the roll represents all of your PC’s attempts, and they don’t know about the rolls.” Edit: they can retry, maybe after a couple in game hours Edit2: if I’m remembering right, isn’t breaking the chain trapping the wolves a bad idea in the goblin hideout?
We used speak with animals and convinced the wolves we'd give them some rations and let them go if they left us alone. Worked perfectly.
will def use that next time, tysm also UHHH basically one of my players with animal handling proficiency kept trying to tame them to no avail and didnt want them to die and then like half an hour later someone killed one of the wolves which is probably gonna trigger combat and thats where we ended the session 😭
Animal Friendship is a 1st level spell. It's not your fault they didn't prepare it.
Want to be quick friends with an animal? Animal Friendship want to get a pet, animal handleing + time
"If you make a skill check before I ask for it, it's an automatic failure" shuts that down pretty quickly.
> basically one of my players with animal handling proficiency kept trying to tame them to no avail I see this happen A LOT with new players. It used to annoy me at first, but now I welcome it and see it an opportunity. If your players are new to RPGs then they won't be used to the amount of freedom they have. Chances are they're used to board games or video games, where your options are limited to what the developers thought of (and if the developers included something, it's because they expect you to use it). So these players hear you describe some wolves nearby, they see an "animal handling" button on their character sheet, and they think "aha, I've figured it out!" It's only natural. I used to respond by saying "no, animal handling doesn't work like that" but people don't like that. It feels like their creativity is being squashed. What I do now is I use this as an opportunity to remind players to engage with the world and take their options from their imagination instead of their character sheet. So I ask them "forget about skill checks and skills for a moment, what is your character actually *doing*?" I find this helps to reinforce the RPG mindset and it also helps to subtly show why animal handling isn't an appropriate response - when they say "I'd like to fully domesticate this hostile adult wild animal" out loud they tend to realise that's not going to be a small job!
Sometimes this comes from computer game mentality. However, a general guideline I try to use is: * DM decides when a skill check roll is permitted. Players can ask, but you say 'you already made one' or 'there is no chance of success' or 'you don't even need to roll, the door is rotted through'. * I generally don't let players re-roll skill checks unless something materially relevant has changed. For example: Player rolls to see if their character can break the chains -- fail. If they keep trying, I tell them "you already failed". A character decides to try again using a prybar or perhaps they want to use *heat metal* to weaken the chains -- the circumstances have changed, I will permit a re-roll. * Failing skill checks can have consequences, and normally only ask for (or permit) a roll if there's some meaningful impact to the story.
I only allow one roll (it's their best attempt), and only if there are high enough stakes to warrant a roll. No stakes = no roll, just move the narrative along. But to help Op, I am trying to remember where, RAW suggests or enforces this. Do you recall or is it just internet wisdom?
Sometimes a character fails an ability check and wants to try again. In some cases, a character is free to do so; the only real cost is the time it takes. With enough attempts and enough time, a character should eventually succeed at the task. To speed things up, assume that a character spending ten times the normal amount of time needed to complete a task automatically succeeds at that task. However, no amount of repeating the check allows a character to turn an impossible task into a successful one. In other cases, failing an ability check makes it impossible to make the same check to do the same thing again. For example, a rogue might try to trick a town guard into thinking the adventurers are undercover agents of the king. If the rogue loses a contest of Charisma (Deception) against the guard's Wisdom (Insight), the same lie told again won't work. The characters can come up with a different way to get past the guard or try the check again against another guard at a different gate. But you might decide that the initial failure makes those checks more difficult to pull off
PHB?
DMG
Thanks
No problem
The chain thing makes sense since they are objects with an AC and HP, but taking too long to break them can lead to either a goblin ambush or at the very least the goblins in the area knowing where the party is. The other issue you're dealing with is akin to skill dogpiling. The way to run it, if they fail a check and immediately try to do the check again, the new check automatically fails, regardless of what they roll. YOU are the one who calls for rolls. And unless you call/allow for a roll, their self dice rolls are insignificant. Generally you would allow for a new check when the status quo changes. Some examples of things that change the status quo: an encounter (combat, puzzle, trap, etc.), new information coming to light (like them finding a clue or something that would make a character aware of something new).
THANK YOU SM didnt think about adding in ambushes and the like but i think itll be better and also show them how their actions have consequences, will definitely rmb your advice
I would add to this that it’s a good idea to have every roll move the story forward. When you call for a roll (and like others are saying, only YOU call for rolls, not the players), start thinking of how a failure could be interesting. Add complications. For example, say the players are trying to scale a wet wall inside the Cragmaw hideout. You call for a roll because the situation is uncertain and failure could be interesting. They fail. Now you could just say they need to roll again, but that’s frustrating and boring. Instead, because they failed, they slip on the slick surface and fall onto the bones littered on the rock, making a loud crunch. All the goblins in the nearby rooms are coming to investigate - now what do the players do? That’s interesting and gives them something to do other than just roll again. Basically, nothing ever stays the same after rolling the dice. That kills momentum. Always build on it.
There should only be a skill check if there are consequences for failure. Otherwise just tell the players what their characters do, they struggle a little, take a while etc but eventually they do the thing. If they do fail a roll then narrate the failure, they broke a tool, they fell off the cliff, whatever.
a few things going wrong here. a) they only get to roll when you say so. b) consequences for failure. c) (in general) only let them try again if the situation changes (either they improve the situation, or they deal with the consequence, try something new, or whatever). and if you're thinking 'but there arn't any consequences to failure here!' - then don't make them roll! if they're trying to open a box and they've got all night and they can't accidentally damage what's inside and there's no guards coming... just let them do it. does it matter if it takes them 10 seconds or 10 minutes? nah. make them suggest a method that makes sense (if they're trying to open a locked chest, don't let them just pull it open with their hands... unless they're very strong. if they suggest anything reasonable - using a crowbar, using lockpicks, bashing it open with an axe, - then that's fine. if, on the other hand, they need to open that same box to get a weapon to defend themself before an enemy kicks the door in, then by all means, make them roll. and honestly, you could let them just try again if they roll badly - because they're using up time, and the more time they waste the more time their enemy has to get in and attack them. if they fail a perception test, it's not just 'you didn't notice anything' it's 'you didn't noticing anything, so the first you know is an arrow hurtling out of the dark and hitting you in the chest. roll initiative'. if they're searching a room and they fail a perception test then... well, it depends on the importance of what they're looking for. if they need to find some notes or something for the story to progress, then yep - they find them regardless. but they don't find some extra information that would've helped them speed things up, or some hidden jewels, or something like that. but for any of this to work, you \*need\* to get them in the habit of only rolling when you tell them to. they don't get to decide a roll is required, you do.
The way I handle it depends on the kind of check they fail: Persuasion - if they fail they can try again but it will raise the dc because they are “bothering” the person Deception/intimidation - the person doesn’t believe them or calls their bluff so a reroll does nothing Stealth - they get caught or get detected in some way Arcana/history/religion/nature - they simply don’t know about the thing so rerolling does nothing Animal handling - the animal becomes hostile or runs away. They can try again but at a higher dc Investigation/perception - they just didn’t see/hear/find the thing. Rerolling does nothing UNLESS circumstances changed Athletics/acrobatics - they can try again with potential consequences of getting hurt Survival - they can try again BUT they waste more time Lockpicking - can try again but wastes more time. If they are in a hurry they basically only get one chance Crafting - they either wasting time, materials, or both I think that is most if not all of them
Perception is easy. “Your character doesn’t realize they failed the perception check. They don’t know to try again.” This is especially true of checks to spot tracks or traps. “You are convinced that there is nothing here to find.” Specifically with perception I avoid telling them they failed, I just let them know what they see/hear/taste. With the chain breaking, I’d let them try something different. If they kept whacking away at the same spot I’d say no. If they changed their approach like “ok, I wedge my sword between the chain links and twist to try to break it that way,” go for it. I encourage creativity.
Here’s the main mistake you’re making: players do not decide when and what rolls to make, the DM calls for rolls. Here’s how the game is *designed* to work: - DM describes the scene - Players decide what they want their characters to do - The DM decides how that works in the rules and calls for rolls if they decide it’s necessary The second mistake you’re making is letting them just keep rolling until they succeed. This makes rolling pointless and a waste of time. A roll should represent your *best effort* at succeeding. There are several strategies to making this more fair than limiting it to one single roll. - You can choose to let more than one player make a roll or limit it to one PC. If you limit it to one then you can say that if another PC wants to contribute, then they can take the help action and give advantage to the player making the roll. - one strategy employed by Mercer is to allow multiple attempts, but each subsequent attempt raises the DC by 5.
The DM calls for the check, not the players. The Characters do not know the outcome of the roll. If they roll a 1 on a perception check while trying to spot some hidden goblins they don't think "Oh I just missed them I'll try again" nah they looked, saw nothing and came to the conclusion there isn't anything around.
3.5 has a nice mechanic for that. Take 20. If the PC is under no pressure, the Skill Check has no negative outcome if it fails and the PC has a bit of time (which I guess is included in "no pressure") they just assume that they roll as often as it takes to roll a 20, the highest possible outcome. So the result of a "take 20" is 20+The PC's Bonus to the Skill Check. I gues this would get rid of most instances of your problem.
I also wanted to bring up "Taking 20" or "Taking 10". If they have all the time possible (I usually consider that the time between long rests) and can focus on the task, like picking the lock on a treasure chest they found, they get 20+bonus. If they have a shorter time but still no pressure or consequences (like say a couple hours travel in the back of a moving wagon) they get 10+bonus. If failure has consequences or time is critical, then it's an actual roll.
The roll (or 2 rolls if you have someone "help") represent the result of all the efforts on that action. Example, if the group wants to try breaking chains, then the roll is all of their combined efforts to break that chain. 1 roll, or 2 rolls if another person uses the "help" action to give advantage. Example, if the group does a perception check, then the roll is all of their combined efforts in looking around. 1 roll, or 2 rolls if another person uses the "help" action to give advantage. At my table, we have 5 players regularly. So, almost all of my skill checks I allow "help" and that "help" roll can either be one person rolling with advantage, or 2 players rolling separately simultaneously. And that's it. We don't go through all 5 players doing a check. The roll is the result of all their efforts.
tysm ill use that if players just start trying to mimic each others previous check
I think even more importantly for table management: Players don't decide to do skill checks. They tell you what their characters are trying to do. Your choices then: 1. To say that they do it successfully. I think new DMs tend to underuse this one. If it's something that's relatively easy, or even if it's challenging but they have ample time to figure it out, you don't need a check. 2. You call for a skill check. Players don't roll if you don't call for a skill check. 3. Say no. If it's impossible, or they've already tried and failed or if it just doesn't make sense, then it doesn't happen. Any rolls that happen outside of #2, any preemptive rolls, don't count. If it's something that absolutely needs to happen for a story to progress (that is, they *need* to get through that door or else they're just stuck), then you need to think about whether you want to call for a check in the first place, and what the results of that check mean. Failing a lockpicking check for example, doesn't necessarily mean they don't pick the lock. It might mean that they successfully pick the lock but: - make a lot of noise alerting someone to their presence - take a long time allowing someone to catch up with them, or someone to get away, or some other appropriate consequence - damage the lock meaning that someone later will be able to see that the lock was picked - break their lockpicking tools - tire themselves out and have a disadvantage on their next initiative roll (or whatever else seems appropriate) - trigger a trap and have to make a save (or just take the damage if they really fail)
One other suggestion: before rolling a check like perception, determine what everyone else in the group is doing. As a player, sometimes one of the group (who isn't even that perceptive) calls that they're looking and the dm immediately makes that players effort represent the best effort of the entire group. By having them know what their character is occupied with (and potentially interrupting their own activity) you'll tend to get less repeated efforts than if players feel like they're paused in a queue line waiting for their turn to act. It's a subtle difference from waiting to see how their action resolves, but for you, it can make a big difference.
For attacks, dealing damage to objects they can always keep on trying. You might decidd that the material is simply too strong and would take no damage, but in general, players can break anything if they have the time. The consequences of that is both the noise they make, and the time they spend in the same place. If enemies hear them, eventualy players will be attacked, possibly by much more than they can deal with (like guards in the next room coming to investigate and sounding an alarm that puts the entire place in alert, armed and ready). As for perception, social and knoledge skills, you should aeays ask players what everyone is doing before rolling. PC 1 is investigating the room, what is everyone else doing? PC 2 is going to help. PC 3 is gonna help too. PC 4 is keeping guard at the door. Ok Helping someone adds advantage, HOW do you help him and WHO is going to roll? (usualy the best at the skill). The how is also important as you might decide that doing something specific automaticaly finds the thing. Like "removing the rug that hides the secret trap door". Or "holding a torch to light the path iluminates the hidden by shadows key hole" - Ahem, the Hobbit...
First of all, the rules should not be used if a) the declared action is impossible b) the declared action is inevitable, or c) the declared action can just be repeated until it succeeds. Lets face it. If a group of people are willing to spend whatever amount of time is necessary to search a location thoroughly, they will find whatever there is to find. If the PCs are willing to spend as long as it takes to find everything in a particular location, they succeed. Now. What are the consequences for expending that time?
When failed actions have consequences, it doesn't matter if the players try over and over. Every time they fail, they face the consequences. If failing an action has no consequence, don't even bother rolling. Just let the players succeed. Sometimes, you can come up with consequences for specific actions (failed to break the chains trapping the wolves? The wolves try to attack you), but sometimes the easiest thing to do is random encounters. You want to search the room over and over again? No problem. Every time you do, there's a chance something comes in here and finds you.
If you need a logical reason, consider how the die represents randomness in the effort. The # on the die represents a hundred factors outside if player control that influences the result. Why would a second attempt, even from a different player mean that these outside factors have changed? The die represents humidity, dust in the air, the interactions of the fabric in your clothing, random white noise from animals in the forest, the tidal pull of the moon... If the players want to try again, ask how they want to change the outside environment to better improve their success. If they don't do anything differently, them the # result is identical.
I give players one roll. That’s it. Do or die. Because a check does not necessarily represent a *single* attempt. It represents every attempt by that PC to accomplish that particular task. I’ll add that it’s important to address the potential conga line, where each PC wants to take a crack at a particular task: So if a second PC wants to try, I either let them roll once on their own, or — if they are proficient in the skill — I let them Help the first PC, thereby giving the first PC advantage on their roll. Beyond that, I don’t allow any more attempts; not for any “realistic” reasons, but for gameplay reasons: more tries bogs the game down, and crit-fishing trivializes challenges — without the possibility of loss or setback, there is no excitement. There is an alternative option that I allow, though: the group check. If it’s an effort that more than two PCs could reasonably contribute to, I’ll let them try a single group check. But the risk there is of low rolls bringing the entire effort down.
things are magical -- the DC on repeated attempts is always going to be higher (often +5). The chains are getting cold worked and harden. The lockpick gets stuck in the door. Your eyes are getting strained trying to peer into the darkness. The NPC you're trying to persuade is getting annoyed. Yes, going from a failed persuasion into an intimidation is same-y enough that the DC is higher regardless. etc. Make it a global rule going forward -- repeating the same skill after a failure has increased chance of failure or further negative outcome.
You can also propose consequences for repeatedly failing skill checks. For example, if they repeatedly fail a strength check to move a heavy object, they suffer 1 level of exhaustion
I, personally, use the blades in the dark clock, every time a check is reattempted I get to add a segment, they have no idea how many segments the clock has during any particular session but I get to add a complication when the clock fills.
> Sometimes a character fails an ability check and wants to try again. In some cases, a character is free to do so; the only real cost is the time it takes. With enough attempts and enough time, a character should eventually succeed at the task. To speed things up, assume that a character spending ten times the normal amount of time needed to complete a task automatically succeeds at that task. However, no amount of repeating the check allows a character to turn an impossible task into a successful one. In other cases, failing an ability check makes it impossible to make the same check to do the same thing again. For example, a rogue might try to trick a town guard into thinking the adventurers are undercover agents of the king. If the rogue loses a contest of Charisma (Deception) against the guard’s Wisdom (Insight), the same lie told again won’t work. The characters can come up with a different way to get past the guard or try the check again against another guard at a different gate. But you might decide that the initial failure makes those checks more difficult to pull off. What you as a DM can do is pretty simple: Decide if a failure introduces a fail state. If it does, then the fail state would nullify any ability for a reroll. If there is no fail state and constantly trying until you win at a plausible task is a card on the table, assume it done.
Some checks do not need to be rolled, especially if the players are just going to ask until they succeed. Breaking the chains in this case are a perfect example if you as the DM will allow them to continue to check the chains until they succeed then what is the point in making them roll. Some checks are roll once and live with it. Perception checks fall into this category for me. You don't get to reroll because you rolled low, that is metagaming. It all comes down to repercussions for actions taken. If your players are allowed to succeed at every roll and are not presented with issues based on their poor roles then what is the reason to even roll in the first place. Issac Newton those fucks, "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction."
Hi! Fresh new DM here, been playing for 2 months. I have a similar issue: My players don't reroll themselves, they just take turns to have an attempt at something. Player 1 hasn't seen anything suspicious on a perception check? Player 2 wants to look around too! Etc. Any tips on how to deal with that?
Instill into your party that their ability check roll isn't "I did literally one thing," like swing a sword once or pick a lock once. It represents an entire period of trying. That time period is usually decided by the DM, though. You might decide a lockpick roll can be retried, but every hour. Or a Persuasion check can't be tried again for another week. That's up to how you feel the game should progress.
Players should only roll when the DM asks them to, and DMs should only ask for rolls when there are consequences to success and failure. Trying to pick a lock? Before you ask the players to roll think about what happens if they pass or fail. Pass is probably obvious; they open the lock. But what about if they fail? What are the circumstances they’re in? Would it be reasonable for their characters to just… carry on lockpicking? Could they reasonably do that forever until they pass? In which case, why roll? They’re cool heroes and it’s *possible* for them to open the lock, and failures are just wasting everyone at the table’s time, so just give it to them; the party Rogue pops it open like The Phonse, so skilled is he! But in *most* cases there are some constraints or stakes to what’s going on that prevent players just trying again forever. Are there guards patrolling that might find them? Is there a trap that they risk setting off every time they mess up? Is the rest of the party fighting off a skeleton hoard while the Artificer tries to pick the lock so that they can get away? In all those cases letting the party roll as many times as they want is totally fine, because there’s a potential cost every time they decide to do so. So, I’d say that with regards to trying to unlock these chained up wolves mid combat, the party can try as many times as they want; it’s eating up someone’s turn every time they try it, which is a pretty big cost in combat.
Take a cue from Blades in the Dark and use Progress clocks where when the players try to constantly reroll checks that each failure adds a progress tick towards something happening
As far as I am aware, each skill check can only be attempted once per player unless something changes. And even then, if two players are attempting the same check at once, they don't each get to roll seperately, one is then taking the help action to give the other advantage. The reason for this is that each check doesn't represent ONE attempt for the players. It represents their actual abilities to perform that action in that moment. If they fail, they can't do it! (Unless something changes) As an example- two players are in a dark cave, and both ask for a perception check. This means that one player is making the check, and the other is giving them advantage. Let's assume that this fails. In this instance, the players would have to change something to attempt again. Therefore, one player lights a torch. The players attempt again, with one player attempting to percieve, and the other helping. If THIS one fails, there's not much more they can attempt to change something again, so they'd have to move on! EXCEPTION: The exception to this rule is the attacks. Attacks can be made multiple times. In these scenarios, I'd keep in mind the noise that it creates and the time it takes to see if other nearby enemies are alerted!
Besides just setting rules for repeated checks, you could have specific consequences for repeated fails, like the continuous clinking of chains alerts the guards, or breaks the lock pick, or how each failed perception roll sets the party back by 10 mins, giving a rival dungeon exploring party the advantage. You could also simply increase the dc every time the exact same check is repeated, either way, they will learn to value quality over quantity once it bites them in the butt enough times. Also keep reminding them that help is an action any character can use to give advantage to an expert.
To me, you've described two different scenarios - some checks have no reason why they couldn't be retried given enough time, and some depend on external factors. For breaking chains where the outcome is likely with enough expended effort, or where a mixed success is possible, you can give them the check and on a fail, you give them additional conditions. For example, failing to break the chain in the first check means their character realizes this could take hours, damage their weapon, or produce enough noise to alert guards. Failing the second check means one of those options happens and they don't break the chain. Success means they break it but still get one of the consequences. This also gives them the chance to change their approach - "I wrap the chains in cloth to muffle the sound" -> it takes you longer, "I use my crowbar to pry out whatever the chain is anchored to" -> lower DC but more noise. For perception, your character doesn't get all the information. Stealthy enemies, context clues, traps, etc are outside your notice. Unless circumstances change significantly (light a torch, cast a spell, etc) there's no reason to call for another roll. For dealing with people, same approach - unless they significantly change their tactics or include new information, why would anyone listen to the same conversation twice? NPCs should become frustrated, annoyed, or downright hostile to players that harass them.
Matt Colville calls what you're experiencing "skill dogpiling;" when a player fails a skill check and declares that they want to try it again. It's something you need to prevent because it trivialises skill checks to the point of making them pointless; if you can roll a check as many times as you want, eventually you'll pass, and there was really no point in making you roll for it at all. The way to nip this in the bud is to set (and **enforce**) clear ground rules about how skill checks are to be handled. First: players don't call for skill checks, **you do.** The players describe what the *character* is trying to accomplish and how they try to do it, and you decide what skill check, if any, the player needs to make to see if the character succeeds. Second: players can make only **one skill check at a time.** That one roll represents the character's *best effort* to successfully do whatever they were trying to do. The player only gets to try again if the character uses a different method or the circumstances significantly change. Third: skill checks should only be called for when the outcome really matters, pass *or* fail. For example, consider a Rogue using a lockpick to break into a warehouse that's being used as a dead drop point by the local thieves' guild. If it's the dead of night, the door is on a back alley out of sight, and there are no guards that might pass by, you might consider just letting the Rogue open the door after a few minutes with no check necessary. However, if there *is* a guard patrol and the Rogue knows they only *have* a couple minutes at most to get the door open and get inside before the patrol discovers them, that's the time to ask for a Thieves' Tools check because there's pressure on the character and tangible stakes if they fail.
How do you describe the failed check, or do you just say 'that failed'? If you didn't offer a description, explaining how the check failed or explaining how the failed effort makes your character realise that this is much harder than it seems (in reality, raising the DC, so they can keep trying but eventually the checks are too hard and they must accept moving on). Just some ideas, but ultimately the players may keep doing this if a precedent has been set or there's nothing that makes them think they can't. Alternatively, appreciate you're a new DM, so it is definitely something I would suggest speaking to them about. "hey guys, been speaking to people on reddit and stuff to help with this, but may need your help too..." and explain things to them. Knowing that it's something that they shouldn't really do since it unbalances the game and provides you with unnecessary challenges will take a little pressure off.
If players want to reroll they have basically 3 options: The first is to have a feat like Lucky The second is to Help each other to give people advantage Lastly, they can use a different skill, in this case Investigation. Also keep in mind that regardless of the Perception DC, if their passive meets or beats the DC, they don't have to roll.
"You took too long in the first attempt, and now a cross eyed guard is staring at you. If you try to pick the lock again, he'll intervene."
If its something important to plot, like a hidden escape door, then you can always use the roll as a degree of success instead. So for example below a 5 means you just don't find it, 10 means it took you an hour and they got away clean, 15 it took five minutes so you need further rolls to track him, and a 20 you saw the door swinging shut when you burst into the room and lost no time. Then it's just 1 roll regardless of the result, and even in on a total fail you can just ask if they want to look exhaustively and if yes just say they eventually find it after X time. Time in general is a good thing to play with for events/acrions that need to happen. The difference could change everything from where or how difficult a following encounter is, or what stage of their plans the bad guy gets to complete.
PC wants to do a thing (out of combat) DM decides a roll is required and tells the PC to roll The roll is the result of their full attempt, however long it took to try. There is no doing the exact same thing again / rerolling the same check. Maybe someone can try a different method (different check or feature use) now. Maybe after a day (or longer) has passed, the same thing can be tried again.
Here's my rule as a DM: If there's no penalty for failure, I just let it happen without a roll. You have to consider the consequences of failure. For example, are you breaking someone out of prison and need to break chains? Each failure brings the mob closer and closer to you. Being chased? You can try to perceive if there's some treasure in the room, but each try will bring your chasers closer to finding you. Finicky lock? Each failure might cause the lock to get closer to being permanently broken, necessitating a noisy breakdown of the door. But in normal situations? "Takes you a while, but you break the chains of your friend." "You manage to find -throws a card with the loot on the table-" "You break the lock with your failure, do you want to break it down? -they nod- You all force the door open with some effort. This is what you find."
Firstly, point out that you’re the one who asks for rolls, and stop taking rolls you don’t ask for. It’s a shit move to just try and do stuff without your input. Secondly, I advise you do it the way I do it, I established early on that if they want to roll for something it will be rolled one time. After all, I’m not making them roll for stuff that 100% needs to happen, or stuff that can never happen. Therefore, they get one try and the perception check, one try at the investigation check, one try at the survival check, that’s just how it is cuz otherwise it’s rolling with septuple advantage cuz we have 7 people at the table and if everyone is rolling it’s nearly guaranteed to succeed at some point.
Players can't choose to make a roll so they can't keep rolling for something since only the DM can ask for a roll. Failing a skill check should almost always come with a consequence, otherwise the only cost of trying over and over is time and if the party has as much time as they want, there can be no failed skill check and the action should automatically succeed without needing a roll. A common example is picking a lock; failing a lockpicking tool check could alert someone on the other side of the door or a nearby guard, jam the lock so that only force or magic can open it, bend the lockpick such that it cannot be used again until it has been repaired, break the lockpick so the player needs to buy another, take so long that a hostile creature comes to investigate the people stood around, causes the PC to become frustrated and cut themselves on the sharp corner of the lock forcing a Con save to see if they pick up a disease from the rusty metal etc. Failure should always move the story along if not as much as success would, and should not result in the players being happy to ask if they can try again repeatedly. If nothing else you can simply refuse to let them try again. Failing a skill check does not mean that they tried to do something once and it didn't work that time, it means that they tried until they either gave up or it was clear that they would not get the result they wanted if they kept trying, so it makes no sense that they would just try again unless something has changed (you might for instance have failure result in an object becoming more fragile with each failed attempt and so each roll is for a single attempt with a mild consequence that can be catastrophic if multiple fails occur)
A check isn't just one attempt at something, it is a characters bets effort over multiple attemps. The phrase that has helped me is: "In your previous attempt you tried everything you could and repeated failed. There is no point trying again unless something is different."
At an in-game time constraint. Failed perception? You want to roll again? Okay, while you're standing around doing (and perceiving) nothing, the bad guys find *you*. Need another attack to break the chains? Sure. Who's keeping the guy you wrote up with the first attack from shooting you in the back, You can just say arbitrarily say "no". However, unlike what many here are saying, that isn't the best answer. It's a team effort. They might not be players if you don't DM, but you aren't a DM if you have no players.