D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[FrogReaver]

Yes, which is why I said above that if the reverse wedgie situation was predicated on a previous failure to note badassery in the intended victim, that either method (roll or failure narration) takes on a different context and would be okay.

I still don't see it. If the outcome was death, losing half your hp, losing your magic weapon etc I totally get it. But the outcome is your PC having a wedgie with no other strings attached.

 

[FrogReaver]

I dunno.

We (or whoever picked this stupid example) started with "let's give random wedgies in bars it will be really funny!"

But it's not funny if the DM makes the "random stranger" something more surprising than your average commoner?

And, no, this isn't off-topic. Some of you are insisting this "funny" scene MUST be resolved by rolling dice or it just can't be fun. But now you want to claim that the DM can't do unexpected stuff just because it might be funny.

Just how far do you want to go to constrain this example to prove that goal-and-approach won't work?

When the unexpected stuff done by the DM is ultimately an auto PC failure then that isn't fun. You see the difference right?

 

[Guest 6801328]

I still don't see it. If the outcome was death, losing half your hp, losing your magic weapon etc I totally get it. But the outcome is your PC having a wedgie with no other strings attached.

But apparently this is a big deal because, IIRC, people would be really pissed off if the DM made the commoner a monk who turned around and wedgied you back without rolling.

Which is it? Stakes, or no stakes?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I still don't see it. If the outcome was death, losing half your hp, losing your magic weapon etc I totally get it. But the outcome is your PC having a wedgie with no other strings attached.

Yes, we've discussed how you don't understand, despite many others commenting on it, that humiliation of your PC is a big deal.

I assure, I am not making the argument just to screw with this example. I'd actually be a bit miffed if this just happened in a game, especially on a silly one-off roll while goofing around.

 

[FrogReaver]

But apparently this is a big deal because, IIRC, people would be really pissed off if the DM made the commoner a monk who turned around and wedgied you back without rolling.

Which is it? Stakes, or no stakes?

Yes, if the DM just made the randomly chosen PC a monk who would auto succeed then people would be pissed and rightfully so. If the DM rolled to determine the nature of the PC you are giving a wedgie to that's acceptable. If he had that determination tied into your wedgie check roll then that is as well.

It's really not hard to understand.

 

[Charlaquin]

To clarify, are you saying that "I try to open the door by picking the lock" is a valid action declaration at your table, but that "I try to make sure that the passageway is safe by checking for traps" is not? If that is what you're saying, I'm not sure I see why one is valid and the other isn't. If that's not what you are saying, could you please clarify?

Yeah, that sounds about right. The former has a reasonable degree of specificity, such that I can clearly identify both goal (open the door) and approach (picking the lock). Picking a lock is a pretty specific action, and leaves little room for ambiguity as to what the character is doing. The latter is very clear in communicating a goal, but is too vague in terms of approach. “Checking for traps” is not a specific action.

Here’s a good general rule of thumb: if you mistakenly tried to phrase an action as a goal, and struggled to come up with an approach to it (e.g. “I try to pick the lock by... umm... picking it... with lockpicks?” or “I try to beat him at arm wrestling by... umm... wrestling him... with my arm?”) then the action is already reasonably specific. But if you can think of multiple ways you might be able to do perform the action - for instance, you could check the hall for traps by looking for anything out of the ordinary, or by probing the floor in front of you with a 10-foot poll, or by throwing a rock down the hall, or any number of other things... Then it’s not reasonably specific as an approach. You’re going to have to commit to one of those methods for me to be able to properly adjudicate it.

 

[Charlaquin]

In the infamous wedgie example is there anything to use to determine auto success or auto failure?

I don’t know, I haven’t really been reading it because I thought it was a pretty dumb hypothetical. What was the hypothetical goal and approach again?

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes, we've discussed how you don't understand, despite many others commenting on it, that humiliation of your PC is a big deal.

I assure, I am not making the argument just to screw with this example. I'd actually be a bit miffed if this just happened in a game, especially on a silly one-off roll while goofing around.

We've had this discussion. I asked for you to provide a scenario you would find acceptable so we could discuss that one. *Note that you still haven't...

Maybe start here, what would you consider a low stakes event?

 

[FrogReaver]

I don’t know, I haven’t really been reading it because I thought it was a pretty dumb hypothetical. What was the hypothetical goal and approach again?

Give wedgie to random guy in bar by walking up behind him and giving him a wedgie

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeah, that sounds about right. The former has a reasonable degree of specificity, such that I can clearly identify both goal (open the door) and approach (picking the lock). Picking a lock is a pretty specific action, and leaves little room for ambiguity as to what the character is doing. The latter is very clear in communicating a goal, but is too vague in terms of approach. “Checking for traps” is not a specific action.

Here’s a good general rule of thumb: if you mistakenly tried to phrase an action as a goal, and struggled to come up with an approach to it (e.g. “I try to pick the lock by... umm... picking it... with lockpicks?” or “I try to beat him at arm wrestling by... umm... wrestling him... with my arm?”) then the action is already reasonably specific. But if you can think of multiple ways you might be able to do perform the action - for instance, you could check the hall for traps by looking for anything out of the ordinary, or by probing the floor in front of you with a 10-foot poll, or by throwing a rock down the hall, or any number of other things... Then it’s not reasonably specific as an approach. You’re going to have to commit to one of those methods for me to be able to properly adjudicate it.

Thank you for at least acknowledging there was an approach and the difference in types of approaches you are looking for and providing a heuristic to help identify such approaches.

Personally I think, I check the room for traps is reasonably specific. It means you are looking around the room for any signs of traps and trying to deduce whether they actually are. Sounds reasonably specific to me.

This is probably one of the biggest issues with goal and approach. Determining what is a reasonably specific approach.