D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[iserith]

For me, it beats throwing a die and waiting on the DM to tell me what my character did, leaving my contribution to exaggerated reactions and mugging.

Absolutely. I'm going to perform my role as a player to the best of my ability as I pursue the goals of play. And I don't want the DM performing my role for me! He or she has enough to do.

 

[Bawylie]

Absolutely. I'm going to perform my role as a player to the best of my ability as I pursue the goals of play. And I don't want the DM performing my role for me! He or she has enough to do.

Bonus, if I determine how my player acts and what they say, think, and feel, then I never have to have the “But my character wouldn’t do that” argument with my DM. Because my DM isn’t controlling my character at all. I am. And therefore assume responsibility for the consequences of my decisions. Like in any other game.

 

[Guest 6801328]

How about this. I don't see an issue.

Ah, ok. That's much more respectful. And if you don't see an issue there's no reason to change how you play.

But if you are curious about why I do see an issue, here are some things that have long bugged me about some of the more traditional ways of rolling dice:

Rolling for things like stealth or forgery before an adversary tries to detect it:

This gives the player too much information about their probable success. E.g., in the case of a really low roll, the player now knows they are likely going to fail with that attempt. So you either let them keep trying until they get a roll they like, or you force them to "roleplay pretending to not know they failed", which is not a form of roleplaying I like. Or if they roll high, they proceed with too much confidence, which I think is less fun than a little bit of uncertainty/paranoia.

Making zero-consequence, "no progress" ability checks, such as "looking for traps" or knowledge checks:

Again, if the player rolls low the only reason to not keep rolling until you roll well, or for everybody in the party to chime in with, "Can I roll, too?" is to arbitrarily disallow it. That feels artificial to me, and it also creates a split between the character's state of mind and the player's state of mind, in the sense that the character thinks they gave it a good shot and is reasonably sure of the result, but the player knows it was just a bad roll. That's something I care about.

On the flip side, if the player rolls a natural 20 they have no doubt about the outcome, but the character might still have doubts. "Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's no traps...but, you know, I might have missed something." Again, that sort of "being in your character's headspace" is important to me.

Now, in all these cases the DM could be making secret rolls, but that's also something I find distasteful.

A totally fair reaction to both of my constraints (shared headspace, no secret rolls) is "Well, if you're going to be so picky no wonder you have problems." But that was exactly my reaction to the requirement about random outcomes in the wedgie scenario: well, if you're going to insist you get a random result, no wonder you can only see one way of resolving it.

 

[iserith]

Bonus, if I determine how my player acts and what they say, think, and feel, then I never have to have the “But my character wouldn’t do that” argument with my DM. Because my DM isn’t controlling my character at all. I am. And therefore assume responsibility for the consequences of my decisions. Like in any other game.

Preach!

 

[Charlaquin]

I would just add that according to the DMG, relying on passive perception to notice traps is also acceptable. Personally, sometimes I broadcast sometimes I don't.

A trap’s description specifies the checks and DCs needed to detect it, disable it, or both. A character actively looking for a trap can attempt a Wisdom (Perception) check against the trap’s DC. You can also compare the DC to detect the trap with each character’s passive Wisdom (Perception) score to determine whether anyone in the party notices the trap in passing.​

Has anyone said you can’t do that?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Has anyone said you can’t do that?

Just out of curiosity, how would phrase a passive Perception discovery of, say, a secret door, that avoids leading with "You..."

I have some ideas, but wondering how others would do this.

 

[5ekyu]

For me, it beats throwing a die and waiting on the DM to tell me what my character did, leaving my contribution to exaggerated reactions and mugging.

We I think both agree.. I am pretty sure Oofta snd others would yoo... that the way we play games, the way players play in our games etc is not at all what you describe here.

I dont think anyone here has described a playstyle like you describe or a player role like ehst you describe as how they run their game or advocated that it's a way they recommend.

Everyone, I believe from what I have seen, has described the games they actually play in and run as games where the player's contribution to the game in play is so far beyond "leaving my contribution to exaggerated reactions and mugging" as to make it hard for me to take such a depiction little more than an attempt at (humorous) parody.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Just out of curiosity, how would phrase a passive Perception discovery of, say, a secret door, that avoids leading with "You..."

I have some ideas, but wondering how others would do this.

Part of the stonework in the wall to your left appears disjointed
A faint line of light emanates from a long straight crack in the wall
The sound of arguing emerges from a crack between the floor and the wall.
Footsteps in the dust end abruptly at the wall straight ahead

(this is an interesting exercise. My brain is desperately trying to get me to type "You see" or "you hear")

 

[Umbran]

I've said several times in this thread alone and countless times in other threads why it's valuable in my view to have players be reasonably specific about what they want to achieve and how they set about achieving it

Yep. I don't argue with that. Do remember, that you're talking to someone who has zero problem with goal and approach.

But, this assertion does not somehow dispel other pracgtical concerns - that's where the telegraphing and other techniques creep in. They are often necessary adjuncts to goal-and-approach.

 

[5ekyu]

Ah, ok. That's much more respectful. And if you don't see an issue there's no reason to change how you play.

But if you are curious about why I do see an issue, here are some things that have long bugged me about some of the more traditional ways of rolling dice:

Rolling for things like stealth or forgery before an adversary tries to detect it:

This gives the player too much information about their probable success. E.g., in the case of a really low roll, the player now knows they are likely going to fail with that attempt. So you either let them keep trying until they get a roll they like, or you force them to "roleplay pretending to not know they failed", which is not a form of roleplaying I like. Or if they roll high, they proceed with too much confidence, which I think is less fun than a little bit of uncertainty/paranoia.

Making zero-consequence, "no progress" ability checks, such as "looking for traps" or knowledge checks:

Again, if the player rolls low the only reason to not keep rolling until you roll well, or for everybody in the party to chime in with, "Can I roll, too?" is to arbitrarily disallow it. That feels artificial to me, and it also creates a split between the character's state of mind and the player's state of mind, in the sense that the character thinks they gave it a good shot and is reasonably sure of the result, but the player knows it was just a bad roll. That's something I care about.

On the flip side, if the player rolls a natural 20 they have no doubt about the outcome, but the character might still have doubts. "Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's no traps...but, you know, I might have missed something." Again, that sort of "being in your character's headspace" is important to me.

Now, in all these cases the DM could be making secret rolls, but that's also something I find distasteful.

A totally fair reaction to both of my constraints (shared headspace, no secret rolls) is "Well, if you're going to be so picky no wonder you have problems." But that was exactly my reaction to the requirement about random outcomes in the wedgie scenario: well, if you're going to insist you get a random result, no wonder you can only see one way of resolving it.

I am very curious about this part so I will highlight it at the first even though it appears below...

Regarding this complaint... which appears multiple times through your response but perhaps best summed as...

"That feels artificial to me, and it also creates a split between the character's state of mind and the player's state of mind, in the sense that the character thinks they gave it a good shot and is reasonably sure of the result, but the player knows it was just a bad roll. "

Do you have the same issue with attack rolls and saves?

If an attack roll is made and they both "fail to meet the AC" but a player knows whether its z roll if 3 or a roll of 19 do you see that as a case where there should be a split like you describe?

If the saving throw vs the fireball or Thunderwave fails and they still take full dmage or get knocked down and the player sees a roll of 3 or 19 on his save do you see that as another case of such a split that causes you problems?

In these cases, if the player acts on that knowledge and changes tactics or not based on "the roll" is that an issue or is that fine?

Or is it just in ability checks where you see the player knowing the roll and acting like their character does too as a issue?

My perspective is... I take my toll as GM as narrating the outcome the same in all three - I provide the character info to match what the player has by narration. Then both character and player can act on that info.

So, see, the thing is to me establishing that there were ways of play thst you did not prefer is great, everyone has those but it doesnt support making a particular change especially if that change brings extra baggage. .

"Rolling for things like stealth or forgery before an adversary tries to detect it:"

Your reference this and go on about the knowledge the player and character haved being different. The player acting on knowledge of the die roll is not satisfying to you.

Really?

So if in a fight in your game the fighter rolls a 19 and misses and the player goes "crap" and changes tactics in ways they would not do if they had rolled a 3 and missed - how do you deal with that? Or if a player rolls a 19 on a save vs fireball and still fails vs rolling a 3 and failing?

What steps have you taken to eliminate those cases of see the roll and draw conclusions to get info the character would not have - that his effort was not a hood one and his next swing is likely to ducceedcor that his swing would have worked in most cases but this is an exceptional case?

To my way of playing, I use my narrative in cases of save, skills and attacks to illustrate the effects in a way that both the player and the character both have info to work on.

So, a good forgery result or z bad forgery result shows the character the same info as the die roll in terms of how good it appears to look. Spending extra time and resources gives "advantage" because of it being choices that are more likely to produce better results. A good or bad stealth gives you a description that covers how quiet an approach seems to be going. Now you can react and adjust if needed.

Poor results tend to produce some progress with setback descriptions - the narrative showing that this may be worse going forward unless they change things.

Etc etc etc - no info in players head that isnt in characters head by the big standard way of "gm narrates or describes outcome."

To me, the "problem" of player gets too much knowledge on early die roll is created when a GM who decides to describe the result of a role in a way that cuts the character out of the information loop. It's the GM cutting the character out from info thats where the division occurs.

Of course, in forgery, stealth etc knowing the roll tells you nothing certain about whether or not you will get spotted cuz you font know the DC.


"Making zero-consequence, "no progress" ability checks, such as "looking for traps" or knowledge checks:"

So, again to me its the GM choice here that's the problems.

If this roll and reroll bother you, then in my case I simply establish that for these kinds of checks "some progress with setback" will be common instead of "no progress with rerolls."

In the most basic application, the narrative I provide again gives an indication of "confidence" and a low roll might well get you a lot of info, some good and some bad but also gives you a sort of tapped out where it obvious future repetition is made with disad and/or just failure. A key being that part of that info gained points to ways to still make progress - another source, another angle, etc.

Again, all coming from the std rules, all coming from putting roll and narrative together and more to the point, it doesnt put into effect a resolution or gameplay method that requires cutting down on scenes presented.