D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[5ekyu]

This I like (if I'm following what you're saying, anyway).

I could see the forgery attempt failing for a reason, and that leads to a side adventure. "Looks like we need to steal one of these things in order to make a good forgery..."

I like it even better if the players are aware beforehand that the first attempt is going to take precious time, so that once they fail they have fewer options, unless they steal the McGuffin...etc.

Yup, the gm can have the failure generates story or drama or not. I prefer ways and choices that do.

As for whether the time is known precious before our after, that can vary a lot with the scene. It might be they thought they had plenty of time but now that they have to do the extra raid, now that clock is ticking louder than before.

As an example, if part of the story element is the Cassandra effect where the risk is being dismissed or the plan thought sure thing by "powers that b" in spite of hero warnings... this kind of last minute "I told them but they didnt listen" hits that note well, more than perhaps the "we knew all along" because if they knew before the "roll" and didn't plan for failure knowing the risk, that makes everyone, even hero, seem dumber.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Let me clarify why I didnt find this post funny.
Its in poor taste to taunt your players in this fashion.
After the session if the players ask about what they missed, THEN you can taunt them about all the cool magic items they missed.

So did you mean that actually doing it would be in poor taste? Yes, with that I would agree.

 

[Maxperson]

I'll try again, then: I think what you said is true for middling rolls that might be success, might be failure. But nobody gets a 4 and thinks, "Hmm, maybe this will be good enough.” Instead it’s an abandoned plan. But...that sucks. You’ve essentially just ruled out a potentially cool plan, with no tension, no drama, no plot development, because the dice told you to. I say screw the dice.

I get that. My point is, though, that you shouldn't interpret the die rolls. Someone who rolls a 4 with +3 from stat and +3 from proficiency has hit a easy DC of 10. Also, while the chart goes in nice and easy multiples of 5, there is no requirement to set all DCs in those multiples. I often think to myself, "This is harder than a 5, but easier than a 10. I'm going to go with an 8 DC.

Sure, but in a way that heightened the drama and raised the stakes, right? Not just a scene that could be deleted with no change to the story, I hope. (Then again, there are some terrible movies out there so this probably exists.)

LOL Yes, there are some reaaaaally bad movies out there.

 

[Lanefan]

For me the implication here is that there is interesting stuff and not interesting stuff. Why would you design part of the dungeon to be boring on purpose? Why not design it so there are threats and opportunities everywhere with compelling ecosystems so what you do in one place affects what happens elsewhere? I genuinely do not get what the point of spending time on stuff that is meant to frustrate and bore players is.

Simple answer: realism. Not everything is going to be 'interesting' every time.

I'm not a subscriber to the design theory that says there should never be an empty room in a dungeon. I'll always put empty rooms in if it makes sense to have them*; and having some truly empty rooms further helps disguise the rooms that only look empty but have more to them than meets the eye.

As for what's the point of spending time on frustrating stuff? Because it makes the breakthrough that much sweeter when it finally happens.

* - I started a campaign once by having the party's mentors send them into the field with their goal being to map a known-to-be-empty dungeon, so they could get used to working together, get to know each other's tendencies, and build some confidence and competence. Of course, when they got there it wasn't quite as empty as they'd been led to believe...

 

[Lanefan]

Let me clarify why I didnt find this post funny.
Its in poor taste to taunt your players in this fashion.
After the session if the players ask about what they missed, THEN you can taunt them about all the cool magic items they missed.

How is it in poor taste for me to taunt my players when they mess up, when they've got free rein to taunt me when I mess up?

Best (or worst?) bad time I ever got to lay on my players was the time in an old campaign when they got back to town and learned they'd not only missed some magic items, they'd in fact missed the entire dungeon! I'm not one for laying breadcrumb trails, nor for moving things such that they're in the party's way no matter what they do; they knew that what they sought was in that forest somewhere, and they searched pretty much everywhere except in the right place (on an island in a small lake). Various in-fiction reasons prevented their going out for another look, which is why I could tell them this.

On that island was a gate that would have led them to "City Beyond the Gate", the adventure module included in Dragon #100. So much for that idea.

 

[Charlaquin]

Simple answer: realism. Not everything is going to be 'interesting' every time.

You do you, but I don’t think realism is a worthwhile goal in an RPG.

I'm not a subscriber to the design theory that says there should never be an empty room in a dungeon. I'll always put empty rooms in if it makes sense to have them*; and having some truly empty rooms further helps disguise the rooms that only look empty but have more to them than meets the eye.

I don’t think dungeons should be devoid of empty rooms either, but I also don’t think “disguising rooms that only look empty” is a good reason to have them. Using uninteresting things to hide interesting things sounds like lose-lose to me.

* - I started a campaign once by having the party's mentors send them into the field with their goal being to map a known-to-be-empty dungeon, so they could get used to working together, get to know each other's tendencies, and build some confidence and competence. Of course, when they got there it wasn't quite as empty as they'd been led to believe...

That’s a very cool premise for a starting adventure!

 

[Lanefan]

You do you, but I don’t think realism is a worthwhile goal in an RPG.

Where for me everything else builds off of the underlying realism, not necessarily based directly off our own real world but instead based off of the premise "if I was really there in this fiction, would what's happening make sense in hindsight given how things tend to work, or has credulity been strained beyond the breaking point?".

Never hitting any boring stuff wouldn't make sense after a while.

That’s a very cool premise for a starting adventure!

Thanks - but let's see if you still like it after I give some backstory:

The whole set-up was a fraud. The so-called mentors (presented as agents of a famous adventuring company looking for new recruits) were in fact sending every neophyte adventurer they could find out on disguised suicide missions. These 'mentors' knew damn well the 'empty' dungeon they sent the PCs to was anything but, and were in fact rather shocked not only that any of the PCs returned alive but that they had a decent map of the place as well!

The mentors had plans for down the road when all those neophyte adventures had not grown up to be experienced adventurers. I got about 4 years of play out of that plotline and assorted spinoffs.

 

[Charlaquin]

Where for me everything else builds off of the underlying realism, not necessarily based directly off our own real world but instead based off of the premise "if I was really there in this fiction, would what's happening make sense in hindsight given how things tend to work, or has credulity been strained beyond the breaking point?".

Never hitting any boring stuff wouldn't make sense after a while.

Like I said, you do you. Certainly wouldn’t be the way I would want to play, but if you and your group like it, I’m happy for you.

Thanks - but let's see if you still like it after I give some backstory:

The whole set-up was a fraud. The so-called mentors (presented as agents of a famous adventuring company looking for new recruits) were in fact sending every neophyte adventurer they could find out on disguised suicide missions. These 'mentors' knew damn well the 'empty' dungeon they sent the PCs to was anything but, and were in fact rather shocked not only that any of the PCs returned alive but that they had a decent map of the place as well!

The mentors had plans for down the road when all those neophyte adventures had not grown up to be experienced adventurers. I got about 4 years of play out of that plotline and assorted spinoffs.

Haha neat!

 

[pemerton]

How do you determine if the knots prevent the captives from successfully escaping after you're gone? Let's say the consequence of failure is that the captives are going to attack the players in the middle of a later combat. I suppose you could, in the middle of that combat, suddenly ask the relevant player to make an ability check to see how well the knots were tied. Everybody says, "Uh-oh", and if the check fails the former captives burst in.

But if the check succeeds they now know the knots are fine, and the captives are still secure. I don't love that because I'd rather have the players continue to wonder/worry about it. I mean, it's not the end of the world if they find out, but not my preference.

The last time this came up in a game I GMed (Burning Wheel, not D&D) it was not knots but sleeping potion. The successful check to make the potion meant that - once it was administered - the players were able to declare we sneak through the catacombs to get there before she wakes up.

When the Catacombs-wise check failed (in D&D this might be a Dungeoneering or similar check) the consequence of failure I narrated was getting lost for long enough that she wakes up and catches up with you.

I think the same broad structure of play can work for the knots - successfully tied knots mean there's no immediate retaliation; a consequence of a subsequent failure can be they escaped and caught up with you. (I'm taking it as given that the consequence I'm suggesting is a salient one in the overall context of the actions being declared and resolved. That was very much the case in my actual play example.)

 

[Krachek]

Consequence!
I never saw a player being hurt by a miss check. No blood, no wounds, no loss of money.

My character falling into a pit, put in jail, making a new enemy is a part of the story.
Rather amusing and challenging, than an shameful consequence.