D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Guest 6801328]

That's why I don't tell the players the DC before they roll the die, and in the case of something like forgery where they won't know for a while, they won't learn the DC until it will no longer affect things.

I've seen players proceed with too much confidence on a roll that failed, and proceed with little confidence about a roll that succeeded.

Yeah, that works for middling rolls. On very high or very low rolls, though, they pretty much know.

And it can be argued that that's ok. You roll a nat 1 on the forgery and the DM says, "Yeah, that's just not in your ability" or whatever.

But I don't find a dead-end plan as interesting as something with high stakes and tension.

I know (I know I know I know) that RPGs aren't movies or novels. But can you imagine a WWII spy movie scene where the good guys try to forge a passport, but they can't do it, so they just move on to plan B? I mean maybe if they squandered all their time doing it, and now there's no time for plan B. But wasted time counts as a meaningful consequence. In the absence of that, why waste precious screen minutes on such a thing? I feel the same way about table time.

 

[Maxperson]

The section on traps in the DMG is in my view poorly written and edited as it sits in contradiction to the rules for passive checks. The specific line you quote really works only in the context of Activities While Traveling (Basic Ruls, p. 67-68), which is how I presented how I handle such a thing to @Elfcrusher. This section conflates actions and checks as D&D 4e does. It refers to "active" and "passive" tasks which aren't a thing in D&D 5e but are a thing in D&D 4e. In order for it to work, one has to be running a game like D&D 4e where a passive check represents a character not making "active" use of a skill. Which is fine, if that's what one wants to do. I do not (being a proponent of running each game distinctly, according to their rules) and I don't think it's possible to square up the DMG with what the rules for ability checks and passive checks say outside of something like Activities While Traveling.

So first, I don't like passive anythings. That said, this is what I think that section means.

If the PC searches for a door three times in dungeon A, twice in castle B, and so on, he has established a repeated action. The passive score doesn't mean that he has to be repeating it over and over in the spot that the PC is in, but rather than he has a passive chance of noticing things based on the average of all of his repeated active searches. If he wants a better chance to find secret doors, he needs to tell you that he's searching actively. On this one I agree with @Oofta.

 

[Ristamar]

You can read my version of a sample scenario here.

EDIT: This was just one quick scenario that happened recently. It would be interesting to come up with a few others; I don't see explaining how every scenario in a game played out. It would be ... a lot.

I'm not referring to written logs or hypothetical scenarios typed out on message boards. I mean an audio or video recording of an actual session.

Granted, a good game with a good DM doesn't necessarily produce an entertaining show for third party observers without consideration for an audience. But it should at least spur reflection and analysis within listeners looking to examine and improve their own games.

 

[iserith]

So first, I don't like passive anythings. That said, this is what I think that section means.

If the PC searches for a door three times in dungeon A, twice in castle B, and so on, he has established a repeated action. The passive score doesn't mean that he has to be repeating it over and over in the spot that the PC is in, but rather than he has a passive chance of noticing things based on the average of all of his repeated active searches. If he wants a better chance to find secret doors, he needs to tell you that he's searching actively. On this one I agree with @Oofta.

See the rules for passive checks though. What you suggest works in the context of Activities While Traveling as I stated upthread, but doesn't work for just "passively" noticing something. You're actively doing stuff with an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure, such as searching for secret doors over and over again while traveling the dungeon, when a passive check comes into play. At the DM's discretion, that activity might mean the PC is not focused on watching for danger and cannot apply passive Perception to noticing hidden threats. Surprise is determined, for example, based on passive Perception while you're actively on alert for danger.

"Passive checks" aren't like they were in D&D 4e, but that section in the DMG reads as if the writer is confused about that or if it was written while the rules were still in transition. That is why I submit it's written in error. This is particularly apparent in my view when reading the rules for passive checks in D&D 4e Rules Compendium. If someone wants to hang their methods on that line in the trap section, fair enough, but that is some seriously shaky ground in my view and in any case has nothing to do with how I run games.

 

[Oofta]

I'm not referring to written logs or hypothetical scenarios typed out on message boards. I mean an audio or video recording of an actual session.

Granted, a good game with a good DM doesn't necessarily produce an entertaining show for third party observers without consideration for an audience. But it should at least spur reflection and analysis within listeners looking to examine and improve their own games.

I see said the blind man. My nephew did that for a little while, but no I never have. There are various podcasts of course (Critical Role for example is extremely popular), but I'd almost want an annotated version. Something with "this is what I was thinking here and why I did that" kind of thing.

 

[iserith]

So first, I don't like passive anythings. That said, this is what I think that section means.

Out of curiosity, how do you determine surprise when it's uncertain? That seems like it could get messy without passive checks.

 

[iserith]

But it should at least spur reflection and analysis within listeners looking to examine and improve their own games.

I applaud you on your optimism.

 

[Bawylie]

If I recall correctly, Iserith (or maybe it was Bawylie) has done at least Actual Play with the specific goal of teaching their DMing technique, possibly more.

Iserith DM-ed it. I was a player in it.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, that works for middling rolls. On very high or very low rolls, though, they pretty much know.

And it can be argued that that's ok. You roll a nat 1 on the forgery and the DM says, "Yeah, that's just not in your ability" or whatever.

But I don't find a dead-end plan as interesting as something with high stakes and tension.

I know (I know I know I know) that RPGs aren't movies or novels. But can you imagine a WWII spy movie scene where the good guys try to forge a passport, but they can't do it, so they just move on to plan B? I mean maybe if they squandered all their time doing it, and now there's no time for plan B. But wasted time counts as a meaningful consequence. In the absence of that, why waste precious screen minutes on such a thing? I feel the same way about table time.

I'm struggling to figure out how you got from what I said to a dead-end plan.

As for your spy movie statement, I've seen movies where plan A doesn't work, so they have to go to plan B.

 

[5ekyu]

My favorite part of DMing is telling them, after the session is over, all the magic items that were hidden behind the secret doors they didn't find.

Ok.