D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[FrogReaver]

How so?

I seem to recall that in the original example the DM (or the player?) even rolled to see how badass the target hapened to be, and in the example got pretty much the badassiest possible result; followed by the best when the target took it all in good humour and just repaid the wedgie with a little interest.

I think you've missed a lot from that part of the discussion. I don't blame you, a lot was said and quite similar but different things said by quite a few as well.

@Elfcrusher was talking about auto ruled failure with no roll by the DM or by the player to determine the NPC badassness. That's the context for the above comment. Essentially it's what you said in the last part of your paragraph.

A bad DM would just arbitrarily decide the target was a mega-level Monk. A good DM rolls some dice to see what the target's made of, and runs with the result.

 

[Lanefan]

In my game, a player is likely to be searching a door for traps because I've described the environment to include something of note about the door. Maybe the detail indicates the presence of a trap or maybe it's something else entirely. Perhaps the player describes the character as investigating it further. Or maybe he or she doesn't. But a player is almost never going to search a door for traps as some sort of standard door procedure in my game.

Even the least noteworthy door can be trapped, so I'd be checking them all regardless.

 

[FrogReaver]

Even the least noteworthy door can be trapped, so I'd be checking them all regardless.

When you are an adventurer, paranoid is wise!

 

[Maxperson]

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?

Nah. The DM still wouldn't be altering things just to get at a PC. That's bad juju even when messing around.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I would. But ultimately I'm sure we could find some low/no stakes example that I could care less about missing out on and you would find extremely fun.

The point isn't about wedgies specifically, it's the broader context of - does there exist fun fail states that cannot be achieved by an extreme level of the goal and approach with auto success or failure for low/no stakes events. I think the answer there is assuredly yes.

To me that points to a method that uses liberal doses of goal and approach with auto success and failure for low/no stakes events while still maintaining a healthy amount of dice rolling for low/no stakes events as well.

Ah, thank you! Finally, you provide a goal to go with your approach to this thread, and now I know what it is you seek. You're looking for an example of a trivial event that you can craft a fail state for that a goal and approacher might find fun and entertaining, but that they'd miss by following their playstyle. Sure, might exist, but that's a very low risk for me, as I have tons and tons of fun without hoping that some trivial event might result in a bad die roll where a gag result could make the table laugh. We laugh all the time at the horrible things that do happen to the PCs through failures moving away from goals.

I will concede that there's something missed, here. It's just not something I care about missing. YMMV.

 

[FrogReaver]

Ah, thank you! Finally, you provide a goal to go with your approach to this thread, and now I know what it is you seek. You're looking for an example of a trivial event that you can craft a fail state for that a goal and approacher might find fun and entertaining, but that they'd miss by following their playstyle. Sure, might exist, but that's a very low risk for me, as I have tons and tons of fun without hoping that some trivial event might result in a bad die roll where a gag result could make the table laugh. We laugh all the time at the horrible things that do happen to the PCs through failures moving away from goals.

I will concede that there's something missed, here. It's just not something I care about missing. YMMV.

I just want to say thank you.

That's actually the point I've been arguing for since introducing that example, that it's a valid thing that is missed out on by all out goal and approach. I apologize for getting a bit frustrated, but establishing that minor of a point shouldn't have taken 7+ pages of posts to do

It's a very good question of whether you gain something significant in that tradeoff. In all honesty I'm sure you would when compared with a solely roll for nearly everything approach. But in a more mixed playstyle, sometimes roll and sometimes do goal and approach I think you can have the best of both worlds. (Though also the worst of both if your not careful).

 

[Campbell]

I think it's a mistake to analyze a way to play the game only in terms of the resultant fiction. Even if you had two groups who played through the same scenario and got the same results using entirely different methods their experience of playing the game would be so fundamentally different that you really could not compare the types of fun they were having. For me the way I tend to run games is fun because I have no way of knowing how it is going to come out, there is real shared tension at the table, and because I get to find out through play who these characters really are when push comes to shove. Even if I could experience the same or better fiction through other methods it would not be worth it for me. The actual experience of playing is what matters.

I also feel like making decisions on the basis of Fear of Missing Out never really results in good decisions.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think it's a mistake to analyze a way to play the game only in terms of the resultant fiction. Even if you had two groups who played through the same scenario and got the same results using entirely different methods their experience of playing the game would be so fundamentally different that you really could not compare the types of fun they were having. For me the way I tend to run games is fun because I have no way of knowing how it is going to come out, there is real shared tension at the table, and because I get to find out through play who these characters really are when push comes to shove. Even if I could experience the same or better fiction through other methods it would not be worth it for me. The actual experience of playing is what matters.

I also feel like making decisions on the basis of Fear of Missing Out never really results in good decisions.

Of course. It's not just the fiction but also the experience. I do think it's much harder to have the same experience when 2 systems can't even produce the same fiction though

 

[Guest 6801328]

Nah. The DM still wouldn't be altering things just to get at a PC. That's bad juju even when messing around.

I would agree if it were "just to get at a PC" but this isn't causing any harm, right? It's just...funny.

Of course, the problem here may be that I can't imagine finding the whole wedgie-a-stranger-in-a-bar thing to be anything but an annoying waste of time in the first place, so maybe my sense of humor just doesn't extend here.

Anyway, getting back on topic, in tonight's session the DM (who in generally called for lots of exactly the sort of "skill checks" we've been discussing) called for a Survival check to determine how well we tied knots on defeated opponents.

This is an interesting one (for me). How do you determine if the knots prevent the captives from successfully escaping after you're gone? Let's say the consequence of failure is that the captives are going to attack the players in the middle of a later combat. I suppose you could, in the middle of that combat, suddenly ask the relevant player to make an ability check to see how well the knots were tied. Everybody says, "Uh-oh", and if the check fails the former captives burst in.

But if the check succeeds they now know the knots are fine, and the captives are still secure. I don't love that because I'd rather have the players continue to wonder/worry about it. I mean, it's not the end of the world if they find out, but not my preference.

So it's kind of like the examples where the characters perform a task with competence...forgery or stealth or whatever...and you only roll at the point where they would find out if they were competent enough, except that in this case if the succeed they still wouldn't actually know the outcome.

Thoughts?

 

[Campbell]

I would agree if it were "just to get at a PC" but this isn't causing any harm, right? It's just...funny.

Of course, the problem here may be that I can't imagine finding the whole wedgie-a-stranger-in-a-bar thing to be anything but an annoying waste of time in the first place, so maybe my sense of humor just doesn't extend here.

Anyway, getting back on topic, in tonight's session the DM (who in generally called for lots of exactly the sort of "skill checks" we've been discussing) called for a Survival check to determine how well we tied knots on defeated opponents.

This is an interesting one (for me). How do you determine if the knots prevent the captives from successfully escaping after you're gone? Let's say the consequence of failure is that the captives are going to attack the players in the middle of a later combat. I suppose you could, in the middle of that combat, suddenly ask the relevant player to make an ability check to see how well the knots were tied. Everybody says, "Uh-oh", and if the check fails the former captives burst in.

But if the check succeeds they now know the knots are fine, and the captives are still secure. I don't love that because I'd rather have the players continue to wonder/worry about it. I mean, it's not the end of the world if they find out, but not my preference.

So it's kind of like the examples where the characters perform a task with competence...forgery or stealth or whatever...and you only roll at the point where they would find out if they were competent enough, except that in this case if the succeed they still wouldn't actually know the outcome.

Thoughts?

You could set the DC equal to 10+Player's Survival Skill and not have them roll for it on the basis they had enough time to do a serviceable job.

Then the captives would roll in the middle of the night.