D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[FrogReaver]

Just guessing, but, “In my experience, yes”?

So you believe that making one part of something "more fun" necessarily makes the whole thing more fun?

 

[Charlaquin]

So you believe that making one part of something "more fun" necessarily makes the whole thing more fun?

To be honest, I haven’t been following the exchange between you and Ovinomancer, I was just trying to be funny.

 

[Ovinomancer]

All I said was that it wasn't necessarily going to make the game more fun. Is that a general statement or a specific one?

There was a sentence after that.

If you try to shift to a specific method that's different from your current one, but don't also change how you play the game, you will have a bad experience. If you're looking to keep playing exactly how you currently are -- and here I mean scene framing, conflict framing, and general context of how the characters interact -- then you will very likely follow your statement and miss out in having good experiences. I'd go so far as to say that you're likely to have a bad experience. Changing method will not improve your game if you do not also change how you play (I'm repeating this, it's important).

I looked at how my games were working, and I was doing a lot of what you've discussed doing, and I was dissatisfied. I changed my method but also changes how I played the game, and I've had much better success since. My players routinely and spontaneously say how much fun they're having. So, yeah, I generally disagree with your last paragraph as a generally true statement.

 

[Lanefan]

I was giving a general definition of role playing, not necessarily specific to D&D, or even tabletop role playing games.

Ah. As the conversation had thus far been mostly about D&D, I didn't realize you'd broadened the scope that much.

What inherent value does the “integrity” of role playing have? Or, if you prefer, what ill comes from violating that integrity?

Interestingly, the answer to this ties in with the goals involved. See below.

See, I as a DM wouldn’t do that. I don’t call for checks except in response to actions described by the player. So, I wouldn’t just say, “make a Stealth check” when the player passed the third door. I would give them that Metal Gear exclamation point first.

Sorry, this reference is lost on me - what's Metal Gear, other than electric guitars and a wall of amps?

Maybe I describe a “what was that?” Coming from the other side of the door, and then ask the player what they do. That insures I’m asking them what they do about something, and the check, if needed, resolves what they do about it.

Sometimes doing this is cool. But if there's something behind the door that's also stealthy, do you telegraph that too?

I don't want to know what they do about something in reaction, I want to know what they proactively do in general before any of those somethings come up.

And now. This...

It may be realistic, but realism isn’t my goal.

...directly conflicts with...

My goal is to create opportunities for the players to imagine themselves as other people, in a fictional scenario, and make decisions as they imagine those people would do in that scenario.

...this.

Without a strong element of realism backing things up it becomes impossible to make decisions based on what people would do in that scenario. Put another way, without realism as a goal your other goals become unattainable.

And here, by 'realism' I don't necessarily mean things being true to the real world (though that's always a good start for those who don't design their own settings), I mean a setting that has its own built-in realism based on strongly enforced internal consistency and reliable cause-effect loops.

And some of that internal consistency is represented by the PCs not always knowing everything...and sometimes barely knowing anything...about their situation. You set out to sneak down a hallway past 5 doors, all closed. You don't know how many, if any, of those doors might have observers or threats (or treasure!) behind them - hell, for all you know one or more of the doors is an illusion!

If there's a dog behind one of the doors it might smell you and rattle its chain a bit, or even bark. If there's a guard behind another door she might hear you and raise the alarm; or not. The prisoner (who, if released, could become a useful ally) behind a third door might hear you and try to get your attention. A fourth door is an illusion with a trap behind it - a pure thief-catcher. And the fifth door is, well, just a door; with nothing behind it but a closet.

How many stealth checks?

Conversely, all five doors might hide no threat or problem at all.

How many stealth checks?

As the PCs don't know what's behind the doors, the answer to "How many stealth checks?" should be the same in either case. Now what that specific answer might be will of course vary from DM to DM - some might call for one per door, some might just let one roll ride for the whole hallway, and so on.

Telling them to make Stealth checks as they pass doors that enemies may or may not be hiding behind to preserve a sense of role playing integrity does not, in my opinion, serve that goal. Telegraphing that they might be in danger of being detected and asking them what their character does about that serves that goal very well (again, in my opinion.)

My point is that it in fact doesn't serve that goal well at all.

Your goal is to "create opportunities for the players to imagine themselves as other people, in a fictional scenario". That's cool! But it only works if they players are exposed to the fictional scenario as it would really be, i.e. with info that the PCs don't and can't know kept hidden from the players and not unduly telegraphed or hinted at. And yes, this naturally means that sometimes you're gonna hit 'em with a 'gotcha'; but that too is only realistic.

 

[FrogReaver]

There was a sentence after that.

If you try to shift to a specific method that's different from your current one, but don't also change how you play the game, you will have a bad experience. If you're looking to keep playing exactly how you currently are -- and here I mean scene framing, conflict framing, and general context of how the characters interact -- then you will very likely follow your statement and miss out in having good experiences. I'd go so far as to say that you're likely to have a bad experience. Changing method will not improve your game if you do not also change how you play (I'm repeating this, it's important).

I looked at how my games were working, and I was doing a lot of what you've discussed doing, and I was dissatisfied. I changed my method but also changes how I played the game, and I've had much better success since. My players routinely and spontaneously say how much fun they're having. So, yeah, I generally disagree with your last paragraph as a generally true statement.

Sorry, when you reply to a whole 3 paragraph post with a snippy post (observably snippy due to it's length) then, it's hard to know which specific paragraph you intended to disagree with.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ah. As the conversation had thus far been mostly about D&D, I didn't realize you'd broadened the scope that much.

Interestingly, the answer to this ties in with the goals involved. See below.

Sorry, this reference is lost on me - what's Metal Gear, other than electric guitars and a wall of amps?

Sometimes doing this is cool. But if there's something behind the door that's also stealthy, do you telegraph that too?

I don't want to know what they do about something in reaction, I want to know what they proactively do in general before any of those somethings come up.

And now. This...
...directly conflicts with...

...this.

Without a strong element of realism backing things up it becomes impossible to make decisions based on what people would do in that scenario. Put another way, without realism as a goal your other goals become unattainable.

And here, by 'realism' I don't necessarily mean things being true to the real world (though that's always a good start for those who don't design their own settings), I mean a setting that has its own built-in realism based on strongly enforced internal consistency and reliable cause-effect loops.

And some of that internal consistency is represented by the PCs not always knowing everything...and sometimes barely knowing anything...about their situation. You set out to sneak down a hallway past 5 doors, all closed. You don't know how many, if any, of those doors might have observers or threats (or treasure!) behind them - hell, for all you know one or more of the doors is an illusion!

If there's a dog behind one of the doors it might smell you and rattle its chain a bit, or even bark. If there's a guard behind another door she might hear you and raise the alarm; or not. The prisoner (who, if released, could become a useful ally) behind a third door might hear you and try to get your attention. A fourth door is an illusion with a trap behind it - a pure thief-catcher. And the fifth door is, well, just a door; with nothing behind it but a closet.

How many stealth checks?

Conversely, all five doors might hide no threat or problem at all.

How many stealth checks?

As the PCs don't know what's behind the doors, the answer to "How many stealth checks?" should be the same in either case. Now what that specific answer might be will of course vary from DM to DM - some might call for one per door, some might just let one roll ride for the whole hallway, and so on.

My point is that it in fact doesn't serve that goal well at all.

Your goal is to "create opportunities for the players to imagine themselves as other people, in a fictional scenario". That's cool! But it only works if they players are exposed to the fictional scenario as it would really be, i.e. with info that the PCs don't and can't know kept hidden from the players and not unduly telegraphed or hinted at. And yes, this naturally means that sometimes you're gonna hit 'em with a 'gotcha'; but that too is only realistic.

I fundamentally disagree that your presentation of roleplaying is objectively true. I think it's a very valid preference, but is not actually necessary. I don't follow your strictures and I have a great game, with lots of interesting interactions and honest roleplaying. I do this by not caring about the cross-over between player knowledge and PC knowledge, but also because I don't frame anything in my game such that it's vulnerable to being ruined by such cross-over. I want my PCs to know stuff, so having knowledgeable players is a good thing for may game -- it lets us concentrate on playing the characters' traits and wants instead of being concerned if we need to make a check to be able to use fire on a troll.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sorry, when you reply to a whole 3 paragraph post with a snippy post (observably snippy due to it's length) then, it's hard to know which specific paragraph you intended to disagree with.

A few things going on here. Firstly, length of reply isn't a really good judge of snippyness. I was in a hurry and on my phone and wanted to register that I disagreed because of personal experience.

Secondly, you engaged that comment, and I elaborated in a much more verbose reply, but it's only now you're standing on my earlier reply was too snippy (an incorrect assertion)) and that's why you can't engage with my longer reply? Weird, but I guess I'm okay with that. Nice talk?

 

[FrogReaver]

Ah. As the conversation had thus far been mostly about D&D, I didn't realize you'd broadened the scope that much.

Interestingly, the answer to this ties in with the goals involved. See below.

Sorry, this reference is lost on me - what's Metal Gear, other than electric guitars and a wall of amps?

Sometimes doing this is cool. But if there's something behind the door that's also stealthy, do you telegraph that too?

I don't want to know what they do about something in reaction, I want to know what they proactively do in general before any of those somethings come up.

And now. This...
...directly conflicts with...

...this.

Without a strong element of realism backing things up it becomes impossible to make decisions based on what people would do in that scenario. Put another way, without realism as a goal your other goals become unattainable.

And here, by 'realism' I don't necessarily mean things being true to the real world (though that's always a good start for those who don't design their own settings), I mean a setting that has its own built-in realism based on strongly enforced internal consistency and reliable cause-effect loops.

And some of that internal consistency is represented by the PCs not always knowing everything...and sometimes barely knowing anything...about their situation. You set out to sneak down a hallway past 5 doors, all closed. You don't know how many, if any, of those doors might have observers or threats (or treasure!) behind them - hell, for all you know one or more of the doors is an illusion!

If there's a dog behind one of the doors it might smell you and rattle its chain a bit, or even bark. If there's a guard behind another door she might hear you and raise the alarm; or not. The prisoner (who, if released, could become a useful ally) behind a third door might hear you and try to get your attention. A fourth door is an illusion with a trap behind it - a pure thief-catcher. And the fifth door is, well, just a door; with nothing behind it but a closet.

How many stealth checks?

Conversely, all five doors might hide no threat or problem at all.

How many stealth checks?

As the PCs don't know what's behind the doors, the answer to "How many stealth checks?" should be the same in either case. Now what that specific answer might be will of course vary from DM to DM - some might call for one per door, some might just let one roll ride for the whole hallway, and so on.

My point is that it in fact doesn't serve that goal well at all.

Your goal is to "create opportunities for the players to imagine themselves as other people, in a fictional scenario". That's cool! But it only works if they players are exposed to the fictional scenario as it would really be, i.e. with info that the PCs don't and can't know kept hidden from the players and not unduly telegraphed or hinted at. And yes, this naturally means that sometimes you're gonna hit 'em with a 'gotcha'; but that too is only realistic.

While I tend to agree with much of what you said, In all likelihood there game feels just as real as you, they just restrict the fictional situations they play out a little bit, while you do not. If they simply never play fictional situations exactly as the one you described, but telegraph everything, then there's nothing about any given situation that's unrealistic. The collection of the whole might reveal a pattern of the PC's never encountering something stealthy on the other side of a closed door - or maybe they do and a check is called right at the moment they would notice it to see if they notice it in time.

 

[Ovinomancer]

While I tend to agree with much of what you said, In all likelihood there game feels just as real as you, they just restrict the fictional situations they play out a little bit, while you do not. If they simply never play fictional situations exactly as the one you described, but telegraph everything, then there's nothing about any given situation that's unrealistic. The collection of the whole might reveal a pattern of the PC's never encountering something stealthy on the other side of a closed door - or maybe they do and a check is called right at the moment they would notice it to see if they notice it in time.

Okay, this will be a tad snippy.

I do love having someone that disagrees with my playstyle trying to explain to others how my game works and why. It's doubly patronizing -- you both respond as if we can't defend our own play and need you to explain it for us and also it gets described in dismissive terms because, well, you disagree. That the above has glaring errors is just icing on the cake. And, no, I'm not going to explain to you at length how your unsolicited explanation of my play is incorrect. If you actually cared, you'd have asked in the first place.

 

[FrogReaver]

A few things going on here. Firstly, length of reply isn't a really good judge of snippyness. I was in a hurry and on my phone and wanted to register that I disagreed because of personal experience.

My apologies.

Secondly, you engaged that comment, and I elaborated in a much more verbose reply, but it's only now you're standing on my earlier reply was too snippy (an incorrect assertion)) and that's why you can't engage with my longer reply? Weird, but I guess I'm okay with that. Nice talk?

It's not that I'm trying to avoid it or not engage with it. I really don't have anything more to add to it. You believe that more risk vs reward always brings more fun and I think you are likely giving something else up that impacts fun but in a different way in order to have your risk vs reward skill checks at all times. I can't prove that. You can't prove your not. I'm happy to talk about other points that aren't just going to be flat out disagreement.