D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Ovinomancer]

Fast moving thread, didn't get to this, but your last response reminded me of it.

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

Let's cut to the chase on this. If I imagine a low stakes event, I'm likely to not roll at all and just let the player get their intent. After all, if nothing major will happen either way, I'd rather cut to actions that have heft, so to speak. So, I don't see anything useful that can come out of giving a low-stakes event -- no one particularly cares how it turns out, so let's not waste time in game or in this thread on it.

I do understand, however, how you can use die-rolls to inject the unexpected into a game by turning what appears to be a low-stakes event into something with heft. I just don't prefer that method -- I, personally, find it to be too random and arbitrary to be enjoyable. I also don't like Flux, so maybe I have a theme.

That isn't to say my games are predictable -- they aren't. I follow play rather than drive it, so outcomes are often very surprising to me. I do this by considering the player's stated goal and approach and, if a roll is called for, driving the situation towards the player's goal on a success, or away on a failure. Since I can't anticipate all goals, this means my game ends up being pretty fluid.

 

[FrogReaver]

Fast moving thread, didn't get to this, but your last response reminded me of it.


Let's cut to the chase on this. If I imagine a low stakes event, I'm likely to not roll at all and just let the player get their intent. After all, if nothing major will happen either way, I'd rather cut to actions that have heft, so to speak. So, I don't see anything useful that can come out of giving a low-stakes event -- no one particularly cares how it turns out, so let's not waste time in game or in this thread on it.

I do understand, however, how you can use die-rolls to inject the unexpected into a game by turning what appears to be a low-stakes event into something with heft. I just don't prefer that method -- I, personally, find it to be too random and arbitrary to be enjoyable. I also don't like Flux, so maybe I have a theme.

That isn't to say my games are predictable -- they aren't. I follow play rather than drive it, so outcomes are often very surprising to me. I do this by considering the player's stated goal and approach and, if a roll is called for, driving the situation towards the player's goal on a success, or away on a failure. Since I can't anticipate all goals, this means my game ends up being pretty fluid.

Seeing as how we are arguing about what counts as a low stakes event the question still stands. If you don't want to participate in such a discussion why do you continue to interact with me on the low stakes event we disagree about? Why not try to add clarity instead of obscure things further?

 

[Charlaquin]

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

Right, so I’d call that an approach, but if I recall correctly, the context was that a buddy in the bar dared this hypothetical PC to do it, so I’ll assume the goal is to prove you’ve got the stones?

Yeah, I think success without a check is appropriate here.

“The man’s undergarments resist the pull, but come up a good way past his waistband. ‘Oi, what the hell do you think you’re doing?’ he demands as he stands up and turns to face you. What do you do?”

 

[Ovinomancer]

Seeing as how we are arguing about what counts as a low stakes event the question still stands. If you don't want to participate in such a discussion why do you continue to interact with me on the low stakes event we disagree about? Why not try to add clarity instead of obscure things further?

To be clear, I pointed out that an example of a no-stakes event actually had stakes. I was told that there weren't very big stakes.

I said that they would be big stakes to me. I was told they weren't for others.

I acknowledged that perhaps there was a mismatch in thinking on the example event. I was asked to then provide what would be low stakes to me.

I explained that the specifics of what counts of low stakes for me doesn't matter, because I'd not most likely never ask for a roll for low stakes events. I'm now asked why I ever started arguing what constitutes low stakes events.

I stand confused, as I never argued about what does or does not constitute low stakes in general, nor do I consider that a useful question. Perhaps you've lost the thread on this?

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Here’s the reason that doesn’t work for me: if I assume that’s what the character is doing, and the trap is hidden in such a way that isn’t noticeable just by looking, this action would fail without a check. But if the player tells me “I check for traps,” I assume he’s doing this and tell him he doesn’t see any signs of traps, and then he triggers this trap that was there but not evident on a visual inspection, now we’re in a situation where the player is likely to protest, “but I said I was checking for traps and I didn’t even get to roll to see if I found it! What gives?” to which I could respond, “you didn’t say you were doing anything but looking, and this trap was hidden in such a way that it couldn’t be found just by looking,” but of course, the player didn’t say they weren’t doing anything other than looking either, and would be completely justified in pointing this out. So now the game is being derailed by this stupid “you didn’t say you did” “I didn’t say I didn’t” argument, which to be clear, hypothetical me is 100% in the wrong on, and all of that could have been avoided if I had just asked the player what they were doing instead of making assumptions.

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

I don’t think it’s that hard. I just gave what I think is a pretty good rule of thumb for that. I think there’s a lengthy post by Iserith on reasonable specificity rattling around these boards somewhere as well.

 

[iserith]

You'd think a bunch of D&D nerds would be able to come together on the subject of wedgies.

Instead it's only managed to further separate the two sides.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

Why do you keep saying that? How's the PC supposed to know the difference between a commoner and a monk that looks like a commoner? Why would the DM turn one thing into another? Let's keep this discussion about what a reasonable DM would do, not a bad one, because let's face it, if your DM is turning commoners into monks to give your PC a wedgie, you have many other much bigger issues going on.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You'd think a bunch of D&D nerds would be able to come together on the subject of wedgies.

Instead it's only managed to further separate the two sides.

PTSD from middle school.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Why do you keep saying that? How's the PC supposed to know the difference between a commoner and a monk that looks like a commoner? Why would the DM turn one thing into another? Let's keep this discussion about what a reasonable DM would do, not a bad one, because let's face it, if your DM is turning commoners into monks to give your PC a wedgie, you have many other much bigger issues going on.

Really? I thought this whole (moronic) wedgie-fest was just a gag. Low or no stakes, just screwing around. Etc.

So why does it matter if the guy in the bar turns out to be a wedgie master?

 

[Campbell]

What counts as reasonably specific is of course going to vary from table to table as well as from situation to situation. Being a GM requires judgement, strong relationships with your players, and honing techniques over time. Sometimes you will get it wrong, hopefully less than you get it right. For my part I try to approach the game with curiosity rather than an agenda. I am deeply interested in the details of the fiction and often will ask questions about what is going on even if it is not directly relevant to the action because I am curious.

After a tense conversation with an NPC I might ask "Ragnar, Can you believe she just blew you off like that?"
After meeting an NPC for the first time I might ask "Ragnar, what do you think of this guy?"
After you score a critical hit I might ask "What does that look like?"

I want to know about everything because it interests me. I also want to establish that I am advocating for the integrity of the fiction and have no agenda about where things go.