D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Maxperson]

LOL. I see what you are getting at. But there is a difference between behavior we find frustrating and frustrating behavior being done in "bad faith". It's possible to unintentionally frustrate people. I'm pretty sure I do so quite often - unintentionally. It's another thing entirely to be frustrated by someone arguing in bad faith.

Yes, but his point was interpretation. The person being frustrated can't always tell bad faith from unintentional frustration.

We all are scratching our head on that one LOL.

Maybe he's using the rather nuanced formulation for the meaning of failure that's been used in this thread for goal and approach, that failure must have a risk or some consequence and that the status quo cannot be maintained. In that sense, obviously the check is failed, but the status quo is the same and so no "failure" by that definition.

He seems to be conflating the act of say arm wrestling, with the ability check and success at the contest. You really can't fail to engage to some degree with the act of arm wrestling, but you can absolutely fail the latter two parts of the engagement.

For example, if you and an orc are rushing for the magic ring. You roll an athletics check to see who gets it first. If you fail that check all it means is that you still don't have the magic ring. So in the context of "failure" on this thread, does that meet the criteria for a meaningful failure. If not, are we being told to never roll such opposed checks? But aren't nearly all opposed checks of the same structure?

I think the orc having the magic ring instead of the party is a meaningful consequence, yes.

 

[Guest 6801328]

?

If so, then you miss the opportunity for the memorable moment when the would be wedgie giver gets his wedgie attempt botched and the old man he was trying to wedgie suddenly is behind him giving him a wedgie. - my table would likely roll on the ground laughing due to something like this.

How do the dice produce such a reversal? If there were a table of random funny events I could see rolling against that table. But I think you are just talking about the DM’s interpretation of a low roll, right? If you are ok with the DM freely interpreting the die roll, against a DC that he/she chose in the first place, why not simply allow him/her to narrate the whole thing? We agreed there are zero stakes, right?

 

[FrogReaver]

How do the dice produce such a reversal? If there were a table of random funny events I could see rolling against that table. But I think you are just talking about the DM’s interpretation of a low roll, right? If you are ok with the DM freely interpreting the die roll, against a DC that he/she chose in the first place, why not simply allow him/her to narrate the whole thing? We agreed there are zero stakes, right?

If you don't see the difference and issue with that then I can't help you.

 

[Guest 6801328]

By the way, this reminds me of how @iserith handles pvp: by letting the target of a hostile action narrate the outcome. Somebody earlier claimed that dice inspire creativity, but one of the most creative, raucous combat scenes I’ve witnessed was resolved this way. Freed from the tyranny of formal rules the players (all high school students) really got into the spirit of it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If you don't see the difference and issue with that then I can't help you.

Help with what?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Isn't a mismatch of preferred play styles a problem for a DM and a player that were playing at the same table?

I’m just trying to avoid blaming one side or the other. To do so would be to give one playstyle greater validity.

 

[FrogReaver]

Help with what?

Seeing the difference

 

[Guest 6801328]

Seeing the difference

I see the difference. I just don't see why rolling dice necessarily makes it more fun. I mean, I've always...since I started RPGing...played it the way you are talking about. I'm just starting to doubt that giving control to the dice instead of trusting our own creativity has added anything. In fact, I think it's subtracted.

If you are so sure that rolling dice adds something, can you try to put some words around it for me?

EDIT: That sounded snarky. What I mean is, maybe your preference is just what you're used to. The exercise of trying to explain it in concrete terms may be revealing. And it's fine to simply prefer it one way or another; there doesn't need to be a reason why one way is objectively better.

 

[Oofta]

I see the difference. I just don't see why rolling dice necessarily makes it more fun. I mean, I've always...since I started RPGing...played it the way you are talking about. I'm just starting to doubt that giving control to the dice instead of trusting our own creativity has added anything. In fact, I think it's subtracted.

If you are so sure that rolling dice adds something, can you try to put some words around it for me?

Ooh, can I try? So Jerry is at a bar having drinks with the buddies when someone says he wouldn't dare give a random person a wedgie. Jerry, being the fun loving type decides they will.

As a DM I did not see this coming, I have no plans for it, I'm honestly not sure what to do here. So I let D20s decide. Random target? Check. Low number means someone you don't want to wedgie. Stealth check is probably appropriate to get close along with either sleight of hand for a stealth wedgie or athletics for atomic.

Rolls are made: random target 1. Uh Oh. Hope your stealth roll is good. Stealth and athletics? Both poor. Oops. Now comes the reaction - again low is bad (target flies into a rage).

Reaction check is 20. Phew. The target laughs and gets a 20 on an athletics check to get a super atomic nova wedgie on poor Jerry.

Or some variation therein. There are many, many times when I'm improvising along with letting the dice help set the direction, often in a direction I wouldn't have thought of. Besides, if this were all just narrated I see no way any of this could have happened. Jerry's player may even have been upset because I just decided the target would be the wedgie champion of the entire realms. But now? It's a story we'll talk about later when reminiscing.

While this specific scenario has never happened, similar scenarios have. I also have a lot of scenarios where no dice are rolled.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Ooh, can I try? So Jerry is at a bar having drinks with the buddies when someone says he wouldn't dare give a random person a wedgie. Jerry, being the fun loving type decides they will.

As a DM I did not see this coming, I have no plans for it, I'm honestly not sure what to do here. So I let D20s decide. Random target? Check. Low number means someone you don't want to wedgie. Stealth check is probably appropriate to get close along with either sleight of hand for a stealth wedgie or athletics for atomic.

Rolls are made: random target 1. Uh Oh. Hope your stealth roll is good. Stealth and athletics? Both poor. Oops. Now comes the reaction - again low is bad (target flies into a rage).

Reaction check is 20. Phew. The target laughs and gets a 20 on an athletics check to get a super atomic nova wedgie on poor Jerry.

Or some variation therein. There are many, many times when I'm improvising along with letting the dice help set the direction, often in a direction I wouldn't have thought of. Besides, if this were all just narrated I see no way any of this could have happened. Jerry's player may even have been upset because I just decided the target would be the wedgie champion of the entire realms. But now? It's a story we'll talk about later when reminiscing.

While this specific scenario has never happened, similar scenarios have. I also have a lot of scenarios where no dice are rolled.

Ok, so dice are a kind of scaffold for improvisation. That's valid. Doesn't mean it's better with dice, just that some DMs don't want to have to improvise, which is fine.

But you could have narrated that whole thing without the dice rolling, but with the same outcomes. Since, as we all agree, there is NOTHING at stake, it shouldn't matter.