D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[FrogReaver]

Protip: when you're inventing a class of people (and it's you all, or y'all) to be your boogeymen, you might be on the wrong track.

This example was discussed as no-stakes. Then there were stakes. I have no idea why you think this is some kind of indictment of your play when it's just an observation that the example had shifted. I literally have no dog in this particular example fight as I've neither proposed it or discussed how I would run it. Instead, I've pointed out that the context of the argument had shifted, mostly to help head off the derailment of the example that always seems to occur in these discussions.

Or the example remained the same and ya'll dug deep into it to find an elusive goal as the example was a threat to your playstyle theory. If ya'll had dug into the earlier examples ya'll provided to criticize my playstyle as deeply as you did this one, then this conversation would have already ended by now.

 

[Oofta]

Why is pvp different?

Your little narrative summary had the player narrating for both his own actions and for the NPC. So, yeah, it is going to sound lame.

I cannot imagine a purely narrative scenario playing out like this without risking the player being upset. I think an abbreviated version could go something like:

player: "I sneak up behind him"​

DM: "Then what?"​

player: "I give him a monster wedgie"​

DM: "He grabs your hand, twists you around and gives YOU a wedgie while laughing!"​

player: "Why do you hate me?"​

That’s fine. As I keep saying, we all have our own preferences. The only part I object to is being told that creativity and surprise requires dice, without any evidence or argument why that might be true.

I've never said creativity and surprise require dice. I'm saying that using dice for some scenarios helps spark my personal creativity and it can be more fun for me and my group. There are some scenarios that I cannot imagine playing out the way they do as the result of dice as they would with a narrative approach.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Aren't most consequences ad-hoc if it's an unplanned encounter when it's not combat? Whether or not it was pre-determined is a bit artificial. I know what's going to happen before anyone rolls a D20, even if I only made that decisions moments or weeks before. Just because I know doesn't mean the PC (or the player) is going to know.

Eh, yes and no. There's an element of arbitrariness to any consequence decision, but if you're systemized your play such that you have explicit stakes prior to the roll that are understood by all sides, then that's very much not ad hoc. It is ad hoc in the sense that how you choose the consequences may be less constrained. Again, this would vary (in both styles) by how much the DM sticks to obvious consequences (the old man suddenly reversing the game in the example strikes me as less on the obvious consequence side of things, but YMMV).

What I mean by ad hoc here is that very little consideration is often given to the outcome of a failure until it occurs. This is often pointed to as a way to add inspiration to the game -- the dice indicating failure pushes the DM to create a new situation in the moment. That's cool, not a dig, and it's been cited in this thread as a strength of this kind of play. I pointed out that this is means that the stakes of the roll aren't well understood and you can end up with a situation where the player thinks this is low stakes, but suddenly end up on the other side of a consequence that they find surprising. Again, I think this has been pointed out as a strength of this method because it can radically change the fiction in new directions. So, I'm just a little surprised that this collection and rewording of what's been put forward as positive traits of the method is now being taken as criticism rather that summation.

 

[Oofta]

Eh, yes and no. There's an element of arbitrariness to any consequence decision, but if you're systemized your play such that you have explicit stakes prior to the roll that are understood by all sides, then that's very much not ad hoc. It is ad hoc in the sense that how you choose the consequences may be less constrained. Again, this would vary (in both styles) by how much the DM sticks to obvious consequences (the old man suddenly reversing the game in the example strikes me as less on the obvious consequence side of things, but YMMV).

What I mean by ad hoc here is that very little consideration is often given to the outcome of a failure until it occurs. This is often pointed to as a way to add inspiration to the game -- the dice indicating failure pushes the DM to create a new situation in the moment. That's cool, not a dig, and it's been cited in this thread as a strength of this kind of play. I pointed out that this is means that the stakes of the roll aren't well understood and you can end up with a situation where the player thinks this is low stakes, but suddenly end up on the other side of a consequence that they find surprising. Again, I think this has been pointed out as a strength of this method because it can radically change the fiction in new directions. So, I'm just a little surprised that this collection and rewording of what's been put forward as positive traits of the method is now being taken as criticism rather that summation.

My style of play is hardly based on some scientific theorem or mathematical formula. Well intentioned chaos that hopefully fits the scene is more like it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Or the example remained the same and ya'll dug deep into it to find an elusive goal as the example was a threat to your playstyle theory. If ya'll had dug into the earlier examples ya'll provided to criticize my playstyle as deeply as you did this one, then this conversation would have already ended by now.

Y'all. I mean, I get that you did it again twice to get a rise, but you're letting Southerners snicker behind your back because you've misspelled a word. Optics, man, pick those fights -- this is one you lose by playing. I'm happy to let you, though.

And, no, the example didn't remain the same -- hence why I pointed it out. If Bob wants to wedgie someone in a bar and it does not matter because it's low stakes, then, cool, I like it. But, if you ask for a roll and Bob rolls low and you suddenly add in that Bob's now humiliated, then you've added stakes that didn't exist before and maybe you should understand why you did that and if it was cool with the player. If it is, great! I'm supes happy that you've got a common understanding of play that a bad roll in no-stakes situations can result in stakes on a failure and have fun playing that way. No dig, not funning, actually happy you're having fun.

I'm here to discuss how pretend-elf games can work. If you're upset because someone says something that doesn't reflect how you play and think that they're saying you're a bad person, we might have a communication issue.

 

[Ovinomancer]

My style of play is hardly based on some scientific theorem or mathematical formula. Well intentioned chaos that hopefully fits the scene is more like it.

Mine isn't, either. I didn't say scientific theorem or mathematical formula. I talked about being explicit with the stakes of a roll prior to the roll and how not doing this means that all at the table can think a roll is low stakes but that a great or bad roll might push the DM to introducing stakes after the roll. This can lead to exciting new developments that everyone loves or resentment on the player's side because their high level fighter is now getting wedgied by random bar patron #4 (Old Guy), or something in between. If it works for you, great. I'm trying to discuss what it actually looks like in a more formal way because that way we can actually discuss play rather than bat back and forth at each other's strawmen.

Again, if it works for your group, enjoyment is the only and last criterion for good play. If you don't want to take apart how you play, examine the pieces, and figure out what it is you're doing moment to moment so you can maybe make some changes (or not, because you like it how it is) then I really don't understand why you keep participating in threads where this is the topic of the thread. I've been frustrated a few times in these threads by people creating strawmen of my positions, but never once because you may or may not approve of my play. You do you.

 

[FrogReaver]

Y'all. I mean, I get that you did it again twice to get a rise, but you're letting Southerners snicker behind your back because you've misspelled a word. Optics, man, pick those fights -- this is one you lose by playing. I'm happy to let you, though.

Southerners don't snicker at misspelled words

And, no, the example didn't remain the same -- hence why I pointed it out. If Bob wants to wedgie someone in a bar and it does not matter because it's low stakes, then, cool, I like it. But, if you ask for a roll and Bob rolls low and you suddenly add in that Bob's now humiliated, then you've added stakes that didn't exist before and maybe you should understand why you did that and if it was cool with the player. If it is, great! I'm supes happy that you've got a common understanding of play that a bad roll in no-stakes situations can result in stakes on a failure and have fun playing that way. No dig, not funning, actually happy you're having fun.

So there's the issue. You are trying to make out Bob getting a wedgie back as some kind of "high stakes" scenario when it isn't. That's why we are talking past each other on this one. Bob getting humiliated in this situation has no real bearing on really anything else besides the characters and possibly players ego. It's as low stakes an event as they come. If this is counted as a high stakes event then your rolling for pretty much everything I am and our difference is purely semantic. I don't think that's really what's going on though. I think there are a few pretty major differences and I think trying to portray a wedgie reversal as a high stakes event is exactly what I was talking about in the previous post.

I'm here to discuss how pretend-elf games can work. If you're upset because someone says something that doesn't reflect how you play and think that they're saying you're a bad person, we might have a communication issue.

 

[Campbell]

I am all for consequences, but describing failure in terms of PC incompetence is never really a good idea. In general it is far better to either play up their opposition or the circumstances. You would have gotten it, but the hill is just too steep or you would have gotten, but this guy is just too strong.

Assume competence.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I cannot imagine a purely narrative scenario playing out like this without risking the player being upset. I think an abbreviated version could go something like:

player: "I sneak up behind him"​

DM: "Then what?"​

player: "I give him a monster wedgie"​

DM: "He grabs your hand, twists you around and gives YOU a wedgie while laughing!"​

player: "Why do you hate me?"​

I agree. I'd also say that if this happened because I rolled poorly, I'd also be upset. The problem in both situations is, to me, the lack of information that this is possible. I can see situations where it could happen, both ways, but that would depend on earlier failures to notice that this patron is, in fact, a badass that shouldn't be messed with.

 

[FrogReaver]

I am all for consequences, but describing failure in terms of PC incompetence is never really a good idea. In general it is far better to either play up their opposition or the circumstances. You would have gotten it, but the hill is just too steep or you would have gotten, but this guy is just too strong.

Assume competence.

Just curious, where are you seeing people assume incompetence?