D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Guest 6801328]

They are outside of the dungeon.

At the bottom of the porta-potty.

That's how you know a dungeon is still under construction.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

They are outside of the dungeon.
At the bottom of the porta-potty.

That's how you know a dungeon is still under construction.

With a paladin outside performing lay on hand-sanitizer? Or is it a gnome paladin mounted inside the porta-potty. Wearing a blindfold, of course. For the sake of decorum.

 

[Oofta]

So if the paladin blesses you as you use the outhouse is it holy naughty word?

 

[Aldarc]

But there is a kind of "realism" that brings a story to life. That I agree with. What kind of realism is necessary just varies from player to player.

Of course, but that is where I find Ovinomancer succinctly summarized a key point I have made before (albeit elsewhere):

"Realism" is a stand-in justification for preference.

I think this is why @Elfcrusher is exactly correct, and I don't agree with @Aldarc and the hyperbole he used; it is obvious that we are engaged in a game, and that game is supposed to be fun (otherwise, why bother?).

But different people get their fun from different aspects; some people really truly enjoy resource management, other people enjoy some degree of historical fidelity, others enjoy fantastical roleplaying and wordplay, and so on.

Of course it is a game that is supposed to be fun - I have no disagreement with your overall point - but I think that realism is an odd appeal thing to appeal to a conversation fundamentally about game pacing. Even if some people find it fun, the "realism" added to the game by empty rooms does not have some sort of inherent fun factor that it adds to the game. For some tables it will detract from the game, viewing it as detrimental to the pacing of the game.

If someone wants to argue that empty rooms helps to slow down the pacing and accentuate unique rooms that are encountered, then that makes far more sense to me in terms of the discussion than "realism" because it roots the discussion more in terms of the fact that "we are engaged in a game, and that game is supposed to be fun (otherwise, why bother?)".

Best, in general, to not yuck on someone else's yum.

...says the guy who routinely bashes paladins, gnomes, and rapiers.

 

[Charlaquin]

We all have our pet peeves about realism. Some people really do care, deeply and passionately, about historically accurate armor. But I roll my eyes at "logic puzzle" traps in dungeons. Why would a mighty wizard protect his sanctum with a lock that can be figured out? Can you imagine keeping a safe in your office, and putting a riddle on the door that, if you solve it, reveals the combination?

I don’t know, guessing someone’s login info is pretty much like figuring out a riddle. The Wizard who protects his lock with a riddle (if it actually has a logical answer) is just the fantasy equivalent of the guy who sets his safe combination to his birthday.

 

[Campbell]

As to why the wizard locks things with a riddle: That's easy. Magic works the way magic works. The wizard may be able to harness that power, but he cannot change how it works.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Henry]

...Rather, I've been noticing two things:

1. When "goal and approach" unfolds well, it's really fun. Players like weighing the risk*, and everybody at the table is interested in the outcome of the roll.
2. When I don't do it well, it just feels...like a board-game. I've really become aware at how uninteresting most dice rolls are. "I'll check the door for traps." "Ok, give me an Investigation check." Blech.

I'm trying to get better at turning the #2's into the #1's.

*EDIT: And coming up with plans/solutions.

I'd suggest to note if the players find the roll as uninteresting as you do -- if they do, then all good. If not, I'm fine with (in the specific instance mentioned) leaving it as is in the PH, namely either stealth vs. NPC passive perception, or group check and go with majority result. I always try to put the onus of the die roll on the players, because in my experience, the players are more invested in the moment when their die roll directly affects the outcome.

As for consequences of failure, I've also liked experimenting with so-called "failing forward" if they fail, the consequence is that a level of complexity just got added. Failed stealth? perhaps they still do go uncaught, but now alert status is heightened, meaning their target has, or was, moved for better safety, or a timetable they were hoping to beat has been ramped up, rather than "all stealth is blown, roll for init." Depending on circumstance, I try to think of inventive consequences for failure that don't involve, well, outright failure.

 

[Charlaquin]

As to why the wizard locks things with a riddle: That's easy. Magic works the way magic works. The wizard may be able to harness that power, but he cannot change how it works.

“I am a bearer! I am a dwelling!”
“You are an idiot!”
- Shmendrik and Molly

 

[Henry]

I don’t know, guessing someone’s login info is pretty much like figuring out a riddle. The Wizard who protects his lock with a riddle (if it actually has a logical answer) is just the fantasy equivalent of the guy who sets his safe combination to his birthday.

DM: "...a bedraggled gynosphinx sits in the corridor, before the wall of invisible force. She says if you solve Keraptis' riddle, you may pass."
PC1: "...I use a passive sniffing tool to sample the challenge-response dialogues between Keraptis and the sphinx, and brute-force the encrypted transmission to obtain the hash and pass it."

DM: "... the wall of force drops and the sphinx lets you pass."

PC1: "Child's play!"