ClaytonCross
Kinder reader Inflection wanted
So I think a key feature is that the player has to actively / knowingly undertake a task with risk. If the party hears something coming and they say, "Let's all hide!" my instinct would be to say "Ok, let's have stealth checks." But in this case the failure state IS the same as not doing anything.
Maybe take an (approximate) average of "passive Stealth" in the party, and then compare to the monster's passive perception? (Or you could have the monster roll Perception...which raises the whole question of whether the "consequence of failure" principle applies to NPCs.)
Alternatively, does this need to be resolved by comparing die rolls or passives at all? What about simply choosing an outcome based on the story. E.g.:
What would YOU do in this case?
- The monster comes close enough to give a scare, but sees nothing, however the party gains some clue/information relevant to the adventure.
- Make it clear the monster is ABOUT to discover them because there isn't really anything to hide behind, and give them a chance to think of a plan. E.g. trying to distract/mislead it. That plan might involve risk.
For clarification, does "meaningful consequence of failure" include or not include "gaining advantage on success"? I ask because it seems like risk and reward swings both ways. Its possible I don't completely understand the intent here.
My understanding of "meaningful consequence of failure" would also include lose of possible reward. A failure in disarming a trip for example results in a consequence of damage where a success is often an avoidance of damage. I a scenario where a trap is not lethal, the trap represents a raise in tension, a lose of resources and the possibility of alerting the enemy lose hope of surprise. Success results in maintaining the possibility of surprise, keeping resources, and maintaining a lower though possibly still raised tension because know there are traps adds trepidation relays that an enemy is prepared to deal with intruders. Having by passed that may reduce the momentary tension, but does the party feel less alert because they assume they have bypassed opposition and can now scout with impunity or do they feel their opponents are taking precautions against intruders and they need to be careful of further efforts to keep them out such as more traps, patrols, and guards on watch at specific locations.
Focusing on your stealth example. Failing to hide might have no consequence to not hiding at all but success offers a benefit they might not otherwise have in applying the surprised condition to enemies and having advantage on their first attack for being unseen. This means failing also has meaningful consequences of denying the value of success, doesn't it? … to me this adds consequence in failure as a denial of success. But I am not sure "consequence of failure" trade of thought includes "benefit for success" by your definition. If it does than the question needs to be "Does failure have meaningful consequences and/or success have meaningful benefit over not attempting the action?" If the answer is yes, it seems reasonable to call for a roll since, failure to gain a benefit is also a consequence. Though, I can defiantly see scenarios of "and" being more interesting than ether/or. For example, if players make no attempt to hide, they are spotted, surrounded, and questioned to there intent. If players choose to hide however success gains them surprise and hidden from sight while failure causes the opposition to assume hostel intent, attacking first and asking questions later. Like, seeing a police officer and immediately starting into a run in the opposite direction. The police might chase under the assumption of guilt, hold the suspect, then question them and those around as to why they ran. Assuming the run was a reaction of guilt. (I had this happen to me in real life, though In my case I just like to run and I was too young and naive to realize how this action would be viewed by police.)
… So do you include the lose of value of success as consequence of failure?
Last edited: