D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[FrogReaver]

Because not correct. In my last session I had sneaky bad guys, some that got the drop on the party and others that did not. One that was never seen by the party.

I'm confused, were you not one of the posters that telegraph such things?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Not really suggesting it happens more, just suggesting that chasing for more fun in specific isolated parts of the game may lead to less fun overall. This was in response to (I believe it was you), asking which method was more fun. I was just observing that while your method is more fun on a specific basis, that having fun with the game as a whole isn't really about the sum of each piece but rather the game as a whole.




On that we can agree!




Sure, it seems to me like you are trying to have constant climatic events (or at least every time a roll is called for it to be a climatic event). My view is that that will diminish the climaticness of rolls overall since that will now be a familiar and expected feeling for any roll.

Last paragraph, entire paragraph: You'd be very wrong, and your formulation is wrong. A climax is the pinnacle of the action. Having tense actions before, that are interesting and engaging at the table, are not climaxes. If every roll is meaningful and some are even fraught, this doesn't speak to climax at all.

Example: my last session -- the party rushed a group of gnolls lead by a flind, but, due to initiative and actions declared, ended up in a position where the dwarven barbarian was in the room killing some gnolls but the rest of the part was still in the hallway. Two of the gnolls rushed the door, closed it, and dropped the bar on it, separating the party. The barbarian quickly went down to the flind and the gnolls. In the meantime, the party ranger tried to bash down the door, figuring this would be the quickest path to access. The other party members either tried to assist or tried to think of a different way through the door. The door resisted the bashing until the dwarf went down on the other side, at which point the cleric suggested the vial of acid she'd picked up on a previous adventure. As the immediate time constraint was gone, I ruled that applying the acid and letting it do the work so that the door could be broken open would take a minute of time.

Here we have an example of a check that had a big reward for success and a bad consequence for failure (in this case, just time, as it was another round the dwarf had to fight all the gnolls alone). This was a very fraught moment, as I'm the kind of DM that will kill characters in this kind of situation. It was not a climax, though.

The dwarf was knocked unconscious instead of killed because the flind, wily as it was, had other problems in the complex and so took a hostage to bargain with the party to go soften up the other problems (assuming the party would die, because he'd already beaten them). The party managed to engage in some negotiation by noting the arrogance of the flind (insight check) and then leveraging that into advantage on the ask for the dwarf back instead of being kept as hostage ("You've already defeated the dwarf, mighty warrior that you are, surely you don't need to keep him and he will help us help you."). The agreement struck, the dwarf was returned to consciousness and the party was locked into a different hallway (triple barred door this time) with a Stone Golem. Which was, amusingly, exactly where they wanted to be.

Again, checks with consequence and reward, but not climaxes. The ask for the dwarf was fraught, though, as it meant leaving a party member behind with murderous gnolls and lacking his strong axe arm in any fights.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm confused, were you not one of the posters that telegraph such things?

Perhaps you misunderstand the nature of telegraphing? Protip: it's not the scenario you presented.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Sure, it seems to me like you are trying to have constant climatic events (or at least every time a roll is called for it to be a climatic event). My view is that that will diminish the climaticness of rolls overall since that will now be a familiar and expected feeling for any roll.

Oh oh oh.

I think I have miscommunicated.

(This explains so much.)

I did not mean to suggest that every roll needs to herald an event that gets told and retold around the gaming table for years to come.

I just meant that the structure of the task resolution should support this being possible, even if the majority of the time the stakes are too low for it to become a legend. But I think there has to be some kind of gamble, some kind of negative consequences you are risking, for this to be possible.

By way of contrast, "I'll check for traps." "Gimme an Investigation roll." "X." just isn't going to ever produce a great story. Maybe what ensues because of the roll will be a great story, but that could as easily have been determined by the DM without dice, so it's not the same thing.

And, no, there's nothing inherently wrong with checking for traps. (God knows I've done it enough times.) . But there's nothing great about it, either. So maybe it's superfluous? That's all I'm saying/asking.

Does that make more sense?

 

[Beleriphon]

I had a thought, and I gave up reading each post around page 9 so bear with me. On any kind of check without a relatively obvious consequence (history, knowledge, whatever) on a success we get the info we want, on a failure we get helpful but indirect info. Not rolling we get nothing.

As an example. Players find a book written in an obscure language, maybe in code maybe not. They ask questions of the DM, something about makes the wizard think it might be magic in some way (trained in Aracan, no check needed). Wizard wants to decipher here and now. DM decides it is possible, but difficult so a check is needed. Success results in a decipher tome of whatever. Failure results in the wizard not deciphering, but recalling a master cryptologist lives in Waterdeep... six week journey away. Not rolling means no info of any kind.

 

[FrogReaver]

Perhaps you misunderstand the nature of telegraphing? Protip: it's not the scenario you presented.

A good place to start explaining would be how you had an NPC that was never seen by the party while telegraphing his existence. Are you simply saying that he was there and they knew it but they never saw him? Or when you say they never seen him do you mean that they never detected him in the slightest and had no idea he was there?

 

[Guest 6801328]

A good place to start explaining would be how you had an NPC that was never seen by the party while telegraphing his existence. Are you simply saying that he was there and they knew it but they never saw him? Or when you say they never seen him do you mean that they never detected him in the slightest and had no idea he was there?

The latter scenario is entirely possible. Not every telegraph is correctly interpreted by the players.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I had a thought, and I gave up reading each post around page 9 so bear with me. On any kind of check without a relatively obvious consequence (history, knowledge, whatever) on a success we get the info we want, on a failure we get helpful but indirect info. Not rolling we get nothing.

As an example. Players find a book written in an obscure language, maybe in code maybe not. They ask questions of the DM, something about makes the wizard think it might be magic in some way (trained in Aracan, no check needed). Wizard wants to decipher here and now. DM decides it is possible, but difficult so a check is needed. Success results in a decipher tome of whatever. Failure results in the wizard not deciphering, but recalling a master cryptologist lives in Waterdeep... six week journey away. Not rolling means no info of any kind.

If even a failure is better than not trying, wouldn't every member of the party make a "what the heck" roll?

Sure, you could apply a metagame solution like declaring that only one person gets to try, but that always feels weak to me.

 

[LassiterKeshell]

I don't know if this is helpful or not, but the way I run checks is to decide what the check is accomplishing and if it's important to the task at hand.

For example, "I want to sneak past the sleeping dragon."
Now if it's important to fight the dragon for some reason (because I have some elaborate fight planned), then the stealth check is really to see if you get the jump on the dragon or not (the dragon is going to wake up either way).
If it isn't important, then the character is going to sneak past regardless (whatever is on the other side is more important than the dragon). In this case, the stealth roll is to see if the dragon wakes and chases the character or not.

Another example, "I check the lock for traps."
If the trap is there to stall for some reason, or rolling to investigate needlessly adds a roll and is going to ruin the pacing, then I don't even bother and I announce the player finds the trap. Disarming the trap is more important than looking for it, so why bother rolling to investigate? Then like before, I may determine the trap isn't important and will be disabled no matter what, but the disarming roll is to see if the character disarms the trap before the guards arrive.
If I do have a investigation roll planned, then I'll probably let the character know, "Ok, roll Investigation, but if you fail, then you've spring the trap." If the player meta-games and says then they won't bother since me saying that admits the lock is trapped, then I'll remind them that player knowledge and character knowledge are different things.

 

[Beleriphon]

If even a failure is better than not trying, wouldn't every member of the party make a "what the heck" roll?

Sure, you could apply a metagame solution like declaring that only one person gets to try, but that always feels weak to me.

I'd suggest that anybody saying "me too" on the same effort applies the Help action instead.

Also, failure for me here is: "You want to take six weeks to figure this sucker out?"

Alternatively, success with a setback. Sure you decipher the crazy book but for the next 24 hours your character has disadvantage on saves vs potatoes. Or whatever you want.