D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[5ekyu]

I think sometimes it's not a question of what the PC remembers per se about any specific thing. It can be just as much, have they ever encountered this information, studied it in detail or taken an interest in it. Ask any random paleontologist and most will have areas of expertise. A paleontologist may be able to tell you all about sauropods in the Jurassic period but only have passing knowledge of marine life in the Mesozoic.

I also like to give people a reason to put limited resources into things like history and I want to reward it. If I just hand out all the information all the time (I do sometimes or if someone has previously established knowledge) then why even have skills?



I think this represents a good example of how different people approach the role of dice differently.

Some people would say that is a contest of some kind, the character trying to hold the door shut while the zombies try to push it open. What's the result? Well, I'm not sure. Depends on the strength of the PC, how good his footing is, is the floor slippery did he get to it moments before they had started opening, how strong is the door? Multiple uncertainties, who knows how this will end? Dice to the rescue!

I do rely on the dice quite a bit, but the players can increase their odds of success. For example if they had propped the door with a loose board (that may or may not have been part of my narrative) they may get advantage or lower the DC.

You happen to be on the other side. If the dice don't decide, who does? The player? Okay. I don't want my PC to be eaten by zombies, I win! Yay! DM? Where's the player agency? I'm not saying it's wrong, just not sure how it would be applied to this situation.

"DM? Where's the player agency? I'm not saying it's wrong, just not sure how it would be applied to this situation."

The gets at a bit of something that's nagged me. It's a clear case of a preference of mine and the players who join my games (I assume.)

I do not want as GM to bring "what I the GM may want" into the success-fail mechanics.

So, if I see a task being performed as uncertain on the merits of the scene - the setup, the action and the character - then I dont want to start also considering whether to declare it an auto-success or auto-fail due to other concerns like "do I see a meaningful consequence for failure" or "would a 20 be fun." Those are more in the line of meta-gamey style of play issues that I would apply either at "session design" ("is this a scene or event I want to plan in?") or as part of the narrative representation of the results ("ok, do what does the 23 "look like"?")

To me, that has crossed a bit of a borderline, putting "me" into the pass/fail not as a judge but as a participant more in a way that I dont prefer.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think sometimes it's not a question of what the PC remembers per se about any specific thing. It can be just as much, have they ever encountered this information, studied it in detail or taken an interest in it. Ask any random paleontologist and most will have areas of expertise. A paleontologist may be able to tell you all about sauropods in the Jurassic period but only have passing knowledge of marine life in the Mesozoic.

I also like to give people a reason to put limited resources into things like history and I want to reward it. If I just hand out all the information all the time (I do sometimes or if someone has previously established knowledge) then why even have skills?

Like I said, I give additional information based on the PCs’ backgrounds and Proficiencies. So, if you want to be the guy who knows lots of historical facts, taking Proficiency in History is still the best way to do that. When I give you additional information for having Proficiency in Histoy, I’ll also point that out, e.g. “Thanks to your training in History, you recognize this mural as depicting the great battle of blablablah...” that way the impact of your character building decision is not invisible. As well, your Proficiency acts as insurance against failure on actions made to learn historical information, such as research.

One of the things that I like about doing it this way is that it encourages the players to diversify their knowledge skills - if you get free information just for being trained in something, it behooves the group to have as many different knowledges represented among the party members as possible. When lore is delivered primarily through Intelligence (Skill) checks, the incentive is to have the character with the highest Intelligence take all the knowledge skills, so you have the greatest chance of success. So you have a situation where it’s better to have the Wizard make all of the Arcana, History, Nature, and Religion checks and have your other party members spend their limited Proficiencies on things that play to their highest ability mods, rather than having your Cleric trained in Religion, your Ranger trained in Nature, your Fighter trained in History, and your Wizard trained in Arcana.

I think this represents a good example of how different people approach the role of dice differently.

Some people would say that is a contest of some kind, the character trying to hold the door shut while the zombies try to push it open. What's the result? Well, I'm not sure. Depends on the strength of the PC, how good his footing is, is the floor slippery did he get to it moments before they had started opening, how strong is the door? Multiple uncertainties, who knows how this will end? Dice to the rescue!

I do rely on the dice quite a bit, but the players can increase their odds of success. For example if they had propped the door with a loose board (that may or may not have been part of my narrative) they may get advantage or lower the DC.

It sounds to me like you’re describing using the dice to resolve uncertainty, and letting the player’s approach inform the likelihood of success. Which is exactly what I do.

You happen to be on the other side. If the dice don't decide, who does? The player? Okay. I don't want my PC to be eaten by zombies, I win! Yay! DM? Where's the player agency? I'm not saying it's wrong, just not sure how it would be applied to this situation.

The dice do decide when the outcome is uncertain. This certainly seems like a situation where the outcome is uncertain.

 

[Maxperson]

DMing is as much of an ART as being a player, though. This is an empty statement that tries to put on the cloak of ineffable mystery to obfuscate that there are quite a lot of systemizable approaches that do a very good job of presenting a good game. Is everyone Shakespeare? No, but you don't have to be to entertain your friends.

I disagree. You do have to be able to entertain your friends. If they are having fun, they are being entertained, and if your friends aren't having fun in your game, you shouldn't be DMing.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I disagree. You do have to be able to entertain your friends. If they are having fun, they are being entertained, and if your friends aren't having fun in your game, you shouldn't be DMing.

And, if your players are horrible, you stop DMing. It's like a vicious circle!

 

[Maxperson]

And, if your players are horrible, you stop DMing. It's like a vicious circle!

Aha!! Wrong! If my players are horrible I continue to DM. I just DM for a different set of players.

 

[Scott Christian]

Sorry, I did not read all 27 pages of the thread. I did want to state one thing and pose a question:

• IMHO, it seems there are a lot of GM's out there that just have players roll for no reason. Half the time, as a player, I wonder would the scene change if we had succeeded or failed.
• How many GM's out there let players do things that could require a roll, but instead just let them do it? The stealth example is a good one. They are sneaking up on the drow ritual. Great. GM doesn't have them roll, but just describes the sneak up and what they see. They try to make out what the drow are saying. Great. GM says its tough, but they make out the following words. They now try to sneak and snag one of the prayer flags hanging. GM says there is a good chance they'll spot you. But go ahead and roll.

In my experience, there is very little of the above scenario happening.

 

[Guest 6801328]

More thoughts (while staining a fence this morning)...

There is a difference between rolling dice to determine whether a skill was used successfully, and rolling dice to determine if the use of the skill accomplished a goal.

Arm wrestling example: if the goal is to impress the locals, you might succeed in that just by lasting longer against the local champion than anybody else ever has, even though you still lose the actual match. ("And the crowd goes wild! 'Never seen nobody last that long 'gainst Junior,' says the barkeep.")

 

[FrogReaver]

Sorry, I did not read all 27 pages of the thread. I did want to state one thing and pose a question:

• IMHO, it seems there are a lot of GM's out there that just have players roll for no reason. Half the time, as a player, I wonder would the scene change if we had succeeded or failed.

I think uncertainty being present is always the reason they call for a roll. Whether that is uncertainty about your goal, uncertainty about the possible set back or possibly even uncertainty with only a metagame relationship to the characters actions. However, it takes a good DM to know when the uncertainty is going to be worth having the dice determine and when it is not.

How many GM's out there let players do things that could require a roll, but instead just let them do it? The stealth example is a good one. They are sneaking up on the drow ritual. Great. GM doesn't have them roll, but just describes the sneak up and what they see. They try to make out what the drow are saying. Great. GM says its tough, but they make out the following words. They now try to sneak and snag one of the prayer flags hanging. GM says there is a good chance they'll spot you. But go ahead and roll.

In my experience, there is very little of the above scenario happening.

Useful DM technique #11 - Allow players to get into situations check free. They simply succeed. The gods of luck have smiled upon them. Once they are in the middle of a situation then have the checks start coming.

 

[Celebrim]

IMHO, it seems there are a lot of GM's out there that just have players roll for no reason. Half the time, as a player, I wonder would the scene change if we had succeeded or failed.

I've only had a half-dozen GMs but I don't think this has been a common experience for me. As a GM, I only roll the dice when I don't know what is going to happen. If I know what is going to happen, there is no need to roll the dice. The dice lets me choose in a fair way between multiple possible outcomes. If there is just one outcome, there is no need to roll.

How many GM's out there let players do things that could require a roll, but instead just let them do it? The stealth example is a good one. They are sneaking up on the drow ritual. Great. GM doesn't have them roll, but just describes the sneak up and what they see. They try to make out what the drow are saying. Great. GM says its tough, but they make out the following words. They now try to sneak and snag one of the prayer flags hanging. GM says there is a good chance they'll spot you. But go ahead and roll.

This is useful GMing technique in the railroading tool bag. There are times when there are multiple possible outcomes, but you as a the GM feel you have a very good reason for just picking the one you prefer. So you just do. I don't use it often myself, and I don't think the GMs I've ever had have used it regularly, but I do know that it is a pretty common technique that some GMs will use when they want to have a specific scene happen because the structure of their adventure requires it, or they are trying to avoid a TPK, or they just think it will make a better story to choose rather than leaving it up to the dice.

In my case, I just don't feel I need it very often, as it is usually possible to construct the scene in such a way that you get the desired outcome without applying this much GM force to the resolution. For example, if I want the party to sneak up on a ritual and observe it at a distance, then I can construct that by having a useful hiding spot a useful distance away from the ritual, such that between all the relevant modifiers the party doesn't have to be particularly stealthy in order to have a 100% chance of going unobserved as long as they remain in the hiding spot. It's my preference as a GM to have my preferences be expressed in how I construct the setting and the scenario rather than how I resolve the player's actions.

 

[FrogReaver]

I've only had a half-dozen GMs but I don't think this has been a common experience for me. As a GM, I only roll the dice when I don't know what is going to happen. If I know what is going to happen, there is no need to roll the dice. The dice lets me choose in a fair way between multiple possible outcomes. If there is just one outcome, there is no need to roll.



This is useful GMing technique in the railroading tool bag. There are times when there are multiple possible outcomes, but you as a the GM feel you have a very good reason for just picking the one you prefer. So you just do. I don't use it often myself, and I don't think the GMs I've ever had have used it regularly, but I do know that it is a pretty common technique that some GMs will use when they want to have a specific scene happen because the structure of their adventure requires it, or they are trying to avoid a TPK, or they just think it will make a better story to choose rather than leaving it up to the dice.

In my case, I just don't feel I need it very often, as it is usually possible to construct the scene in such a way that you get the desired outcome without applying this much GM force to the resolution. For example, if I want the party to sneak up on a ritual and observe it at a distance, then I can construct that by having a useful hiding spot a useful distance away from the ritual, such that between all the relevant modifiers the party doesn't have to be particularly stealthy in order to have a 100% chance of going unobserved as long as they remain in the hiding spot. It's my preference as a GM to have my preferences be expressed in how I construct the setting and the scenario rather than how I resolve the player's actions.

Isn't what you are doing essentially the same thing. You are framing the scene in such a way as there will be auto success? What does it matter if your pre-framing of the scene includes a "safe hiding spot" due to distance and location or a "safe hiding spot" due to being able to get close enough by sheer luck and chance?

Is that actually a meaningful distinction when you really sit down and think about it?