D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Maxperson]

Well where's the failure then? All is totally narrative.
If success is automatic you can let the PC roll anyway to keep the tension up or to increase it.
Also in the second example, you could theoretically let them roll this one also, but tell them it is with disadvantage and set the DC to 35.

The first example there was a bad one. Even monsters that are not suspicious might notice a foot sticking out or the red of the hiding PCs cloak through a crack between the crates. While going into hiding might be an auto success if it's easy enough, the outcome is in doubt since the monster might notice the hiding PC, so a roll is called for to set the DC for the creatures' chance to notice.

For the second example, there's just no point in rolling. Why waste everyone's time by slowing the game down for a useless roll? The second was also a bad example at showing an automatic failure, as an inability to hide isn't a failure to hide.

A better example of an auto failure would be if a PC tells the DM that he is going to push the boulder that is from where it's sitting in the ground to a different spot. The DM knows that the boulder is only showing about 10% of its size above the ground, so there's no way that the PC can push it. He narrates the attempt to push the boulder failing and the PC not even being able to budge it. The narration is about the failure.

 

[Coroc]

The first example there was a bad one. Even monsters that are not suspicious might notice a foot sticking out or the red of the hiding PCs cloak through a crack between the crates. While going into hiding might be an auto success if it's easy enough, the outcome is in doubt since the monster might notice the hiding PC, so a roll is called for to set the DC for the creatures' chance to notice.

For the second example, there's just no point in rolling. Why waste everyone's time by slowing the game down for a useless roll?

Yea that's right, still I might have a situation as a DM where I secretly decide it is auto success for what ever reason but still tell them to roll. And for the second example, it is no point that's why I said theoretically and that's why I initially said both cases are purely narrative imho, and there are neither failures nor consequences if all occurs like OP did write.
That's not my method of having fun at the table, I also tend to roll out in the open. If the dice fall bad for the group then they fall bad. My group wants it that way. I DM screen-cheated in former times and considered it good DMing but today that is not feasible for me anymore.

 

[Guest 6801328]

My group wants it that way.

You're certainly free to DM the way you like, but the only thing I would say is that it's easy to assume a group "wants it the way it is" when they haven't tried a well-implemented alternative.

 

[Oofta]

You're certainly free to DM the way you like, but the only thing I would say is that it's easy to assume a group "wants it the way it is" when they haven't tried a well-implemented alternative.

Or maybe, just maybe, your style works for you but may not be best for others.

Do you not see how this comes across as condescending one true way-ism?

 

[Coroc]

You're certainly free to DM the way you like, but the only thing I would say is that it's easy to assume a group "wants it the way it is" when they haven't tried a well-implemented alternative.

No, because I did actually ask them. They would feel cheated, if I would fudge the dice in their favor.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Or maybe, just maybe, your style works for you but may not be best for others.

Do you not see how this comes across as condescending one true way-ism?

Oh, I agree with this statement very much. However, given the repeated statements like this:

No, because I did actually ask them. They would feel cheated, if I would fudge the dice in their favor.

I don't see how you could make that determination as it's obvious that whatever you're talking about isn't what we're talking about.

@Coroc, I assure you no dice are ever fudged in my game. They're brutal little random pain generators.

 

[Guest 6801328]

No, because I did actually ask them. They would feel cheated, if I would fudge the dice in their favor.

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate.

 

[Oofta]

Oh, I agree with this statement very much. However, given the repeated statements like this:

I don't see how you could make that determination as it's obvious that whatever you're talking about isn't what we're talking about.

@Coroc, I assure you no dice are ever fudged in my game. They're brutal little random pain generators.

Maybe I took it the wrong way but the problem is that it's such a common theme on this particular topic in general. I'm not pointing fingers at any specific individual, but I've gotten "I'm just telling you a better way" to "The rules say" or "That's not the way it's supposed to be done in 5E" or "If you just try it this way you'll see how much better it is." or "you just need to try this well-implemented alternative" or "I can't help you if you don't want to improve your game".

I try to be helpful. I give examples to explain what I do and what works for me. I'm curious about what other people do, especially when it's a style I've never actually seen anyone use in person or on a podcast.

What I won't do? Tell people how to run their games. Say that my personal style is the right fit for anyone else.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Or maybe, just maybe, your style works for you but may not be best for others.

Sure. I've said that many, many times.

I don't expect you to re-read 766 posts, but throughout this thread you and others have repeatedly said, in effect, "Here is a situation where your approach doesn't work." And I and others have tried to demonstrate how that's not true.

Do you not see how this comes across as condescending one true way-ism?

No, not at all. I think perhaps you are reading a condescending, eye-rolling sneer into "you are certainly free to...".

But "You don't really know if you haven't tried it" does not even remotely equal "my way is the only way that works."

 

[Oofta]

Sure. I've said that many, many times.

I don't expect you to re-read 766 posts, but throughout this thread you and others have repeatedly said, in effect, "Here is a situation where your approach doesn't work." And I and others have tried to demonstrate how that's not true.



No, not at all. I think perhaps you are reading a condescending, eye-rolling sneer into "you are certainly free to...".

But "You don't really know if you haven't tried it" does not even remotely equal "my way is the only way that works."

So in other words, no you don't see how it comes across. Have a good one, just trying to give you feedback.