D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Guest 6801328]

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

Those are all great. (This is another chapter for the book about Goal and Approach that I hope appears on Kickstarter soon....)

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

Me, too!

 

[Bawylie]

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.

You may have missed it, but I started with “for me.” By which I meant to indicate I was speaking of my own experiences.

I’m not commenting on games you or anyone else play in or have played in, which I am sure are delightful.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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 foesnt support making a particular change.

Could you explain the bolded part?

I'm afraid I'm inclined to interpret that to mean something along the lines of, "You are trying to tell the rest of us how to play..." But I hope I'm wrong.

 

[iserith]

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.

Since I see no value in secretly determining whether the character succeed at something without rolling dice, passive checks can only represent the average result for a task done repeatedly in my games. (Those are the two things that passive checks are for, according to the rules.)

As such, a player may establish repeatedly searching for secret doors while traveling in an environment that may contain secret doors. This will be an uncommon situation, chiefly associated with a more abstracted travel scenario where, for example, finding secret routes through the area cuts down on travel time. The player is likely trading that off against staying alert to danger which means that he or she has no chance of avoiding surprise or noticing traps in the front rank of the marching order, unless the character is a ranger in favored terrain.

Generally speaking, a character is going to find a secret door in my game by way of the player engaging with the environment in which I have telegraphed the presence of a secret door. Depending on the player's goal and approach, he or she may make an ability check to find it, probably Wisdom (Perception). Once found, the secret door then requires some effort to figure out how it operates which - again, depending on the player's stated goal and approach - may call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Since I see no value in secretly determining whether the character succeed at something without rolling dice, passive checks can only represent the average result for a task done repeatedly in my games. (Those are the two things that passive checks are for, according to the rules.)

As such, a player may establish repeatedly searching for secret doors while traveling in an environment that may contain secret doors. This will be an uncommon situation, chiefly associated with a more abstracted travel scenario where, for example, finding secret routes through the area cuts down on travel time. The player is likely trading that off against staying alert to danger which means that he or she has no chance of avoiding surprise or noticing traps in the front rank of the marching order, unless the character is a ranger in favored terrain.

Generally speaking, a character is going to find a secret door in my game by way of the player engaging with the environment in which I have telegraphed the presence of a secret door. Depending on the player's goal and approach, he or she may make an ability check to find it, probably Wisdom (Perception). Once found, the secret door then requires some effort to figure out how it operates which - again, depending on the player's stated goal and approach - may call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check.

Does this mean you would never have a secret door revealed just because somebody with high passive Perception walked past it, without them stating they were looking for it?

If so, I think this is one place I would do things differently than you.

 

[iserith]

Does this mean you would never have a secret door revealed just because somebody with high passive Perception walked past it, without them stating they were looking for it?

A passive check does not imply passive activity because a check is not an action. So no, never. To do otherwise is in my view running this game like it's some previous edition of the game where such a ruling is more appropriate. I try to avoid that. Other DMs don't.

In my D&D 4e games, I absolutely run it where passive Perception detects secret doors in the manner you describe because that's how it works in that game.

 

[Bawylie]

Does this mean you would never have a secret door revealed just because somebody with high passive Perception walked past it, without them stating they were looking for it?

If so, I think this is one place I would do things differently than you.

Many editions ago, iirc, elves had a chance to find a secret door simply by virtue of wandering near it. And they were so common (in games I played, though not necessarily anyone else’s games, which I am sure are delightful) that we were suspicious if we concluded a dungeon and DIDNT find one.

These days, I am more likely to write in a specially locked door (big and obvious with a specialty key) than a secret door. But from time to time I do use secret doors and telegraph them. And unless someone is declaring that’s what they’re searching for, and they’re either reasonably close or expend sufficient time looking, they won’t find it. The players know this, though. Often they decide to mark the room and come back later for a thorough search rather than burn an hour scouring.

 

[Xetheral]

A passive check does not imply passive activity because a check is not an action. So no, never. To do otherwise is in my view running this game like it's some previous edition of the game where such a ruling is more appropriate. I try to avoid that. Other DMs don't.

In my D&D 4e games, I absolutely run it where passive Perception detects secret doors in the manner you describe because that's how it works in that game.

Oofta quoted above the rule from the 5e DMG that says: "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." I think that's pretty strong evidence that using passive perception in this manner is appropriate in 5e. (Unless you view doors and traps as different?)

 

[iserith]

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.

As I discuss here, here, here, here, and here, I don't think that players being reasonably specific about what they want to achieve and how requires telegraphing and other techniques. Those things make for better games in general in my opinion, but simply saying what you want to do is a fundamental aspect of the game itself and is laid out in the rules. It works in any game that does not have a prohibition on players doing that (and I can't imagine a game that would, but hey, who knows).

 

[Oofta]

Has anyone said you can’t do that?

It's an impression I get from some people. That everything must be broadcast. If it's always been assumed, then it's just a redundant clarification.