D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Maxperson]

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

Based on realism.

 

[Maxperson]

They are outside of the dungeon.

At the bottom of the porta-potty.

I thought porta-potties transport things elsewhere.

 

[Oofta]

This is the kind of logic that leads to DMs asking for the players to pre-roll a certain number of d20s and record the results to be used during the session. I mostly see this done with Initiative, but I have read online of people doing it for all checks. I’m not a fan. Rolling dice has its own dramatic tension curve, and I want that happening when there’s actual dramatic tension in the narrative, not before.

I don't think A necessarily follows B. Anything taken to an extreme can be problematic.

This is a good point, and one of the reasons I prefer to call for checks when there will be immediate consequences rather than before. Rolling Stealth when you first decide to sneak down the hall or whatever opens the possibility of the player knowing they got a bad result and either asking to try again or changing tactics. And if they’re not allowed to do either of those things, it can lead to resentment.


They only know their action didn’t need a roll to be resolved. That could mean there was no attempt at deception, but it could also mean that their action didn’t have a reasonable chance of detecting it.

That is technically a possibility, but the odds of someone having such a high deception check that it couldn't be detected even with a 20 are slim and none. I think Slim just left town. About the only time I can imagine that coming up in a game is if the DM rolls ahead of time and rolled a 20 themselves ... and maybe magic.

I agree with the core of what you’re saying here, that a DM’s adjudication style has an impact on the player experience, and the player experience should be taken into consideration when deciding how to adjudicate actions. But I disagree with your conclusions about what player experience G&A with the Middle Path produces.

I made no mention of GAA.

 

[Campbell]

One method of dealing with the they know how they roll issue is to do a jump cut to the consequence.

If they roll for forgery immediately cut to them handing over the document.

If they roll for sneaking past the guards jump to them making their way past or getting caught.

This makes the consequence immediate and maintains the tension of the dice roll.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think A necessarily follows B. Anything taken to an extreme can be problematic.

Sure, but even just calling that Stealth check when the player first declares sousing their light and moving quietly down the hallway robs the moment when they’re about to be spotted of some of its dramatic tension, in my opinion. Better in my view to wait until the character is about to get spotted, then ask for them to roll.

Anyone here play Elder Scrolls games? You know how, when you crouch with no NPCs around, the reticle always turns into a closed eye to indicate that you’re at no risk of being detected. When get close to an NPC, it stays closed until you make a noise loud enough for them to hear or enter their cone of vision, at which point the NPC gives some kind of bark like “what was that?” and goes into sort of an active searching mode. That gives you an opportunity to move out of their field of vision, or go find some cover, or just hold still and hope they don’t come near you. Meanwhile, the reticle changes to a partially opened eye to indicate that NPCs are in search mode. If they don’t find you in a certain time frame, they go back to passively performing their routines and the reticle goes back to closed. If they do find you, the reticle opens completely, and they probably attack you.

In my mind, the partially open reticle is the space Stealth and Perception checks should exist in. More or less.

That is technically a possibility, but the odds of someone having such a high deception check that it couldn't be detected even with a 20 are slim and none. I think Slim just left town. About the only time I can imagine that coming up in a game is if the DM rolls ahead of time and rolled a 20 themselves ... and maybe magic.

But see, you’re determining the possibility of success based on the results of checks. I’m determining the possibility of success based on the fiction, and calling for checks to settle cases where the fiction doesn’t give a clear answer. That I didn’t call for an Insight check doesn’t necessarily mean the NPC wasn’t lying. It just means whatever you did to try to figure out if he’s lying had no chance of working. Maybe because he wasn’t lying, but maybe for some other reason.

I made no mention of GAA.

Fair enough, I guess. In that case, I disagree with your conclusions about the impact that calling for rolls only at the moment that they will have immediate consequences has on the player experience. I suspect that our different action adjudication styles have a lot to do with why we are drawing different conclusions from similar data here.

 

[5ekyu]

This is an issue that kinda sorts cuts into the whole Schrodinger's Cat nature of the problem (the roll is both good and bad until it is looked at) as well as issues of both player agency, love of dice rolling (the "Vegas" issue) and the problem of mechanics in RPGs.

Woah, what?

Okay, you have a transparent mechanic- the easy example for this is the classic "to hit" roll in D&D.

Player get to roll a d20. Wee! That's fun. People like rolling dice.

The player see the result. They get an immediate feedback. They usually have an instinctive knowledge of whether they did well (say, a 15) or poorly (say a 5) or perhaps YES (a 20!). The Vegas effect.

In addition, there usually isn't any need to jump through hoops, or worry much about meta-gaming, or any of that, as you either hit or don't. Sure, maybe there's a few edge cases here and there (a monster with a deceptively good AC that isn't apparent, an illusion) but the player experience and the die roll match up perfectly. Everything works synergistically.

Contrast that with other situations, like, say, social situations or attempts to detect lying or persuade NPCs. If the player rolls poorly, then the player knows it (same with rolling well). It causes a disconnect between the player and the PC in terms of knowledge, and (IMO) often leads to less fun in terms of RPing. Sure, you can overcome it, but it creates an unnecessary schism.

I don't think that many people address this particular issue in terms of the player experience.

The latter only causes a schism between plsayer snd character. if the GM decides that unlike the other cases the "instinctive knowledge" is absent.

In my gsme, I work the die roll into the narrative description in broad strokes so there is matching expectation to be used by player and character.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If a check is going to be needed at some point, it doesn't matter when it is done as long as it's done before it is needed.

There is a difference between "can be made to work regardless of" and "doesn't matter."

We've gone around on this already, with the conclusion that the ways that it does matter don't bother you.

Taking stealth as an example, it's pretty clear that if a player rolls when he declares that he's stealthing, and rolls low, he then has the option of changing his plan, or being constrained to certain conventions of roleplaying. Whereas if the player rolls at the moment a guard is about to discover him he can't change his plan. So clearly it matters. Even if a particular player/DM/group doesn't care about the difference.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Oofta]

Sure, but even just calling that Stealth check when the player first declares sousing their light and moving quietly down the hallway robs the moment when they’re about to be spotted of some of its dramatic tension, in my opinion. Better in my view to wait until the character is about to get spotted, then ask for them to roll.

Anyone here play Elder Scrolls games? You know how, when you crouch with no NPCs around, the reticle always turns into a closed eye to indicate that you’re at no risk of being detected. When get close to an NPC, it stays closed until you make a noise loud enough for them to hear or enter their cone of vision, at which point the NPC gives some kind of bark like “what was that?” and goes into sort of an active searching mode. That gives you an opportunity to move out of their field of vision, or go find some cover, or just hold still and hope they don’t come near you. Meanwhile, the reticle changes to a partially opened eye to indicate that NPCs are in search mode. If they don’t find you in a certain time frame, they go back to passively performing their routines and the reticle goes back to closed. If they do find you, the reticle opens completely, and they probably attack you.

In my mind, the partially open reticle is the space Stealth and Perception checks should exist in. More or less.

I wasn't taking a stand on when rolls should be done. Just that from a mechanical game perspective it doesn't matter until it's needed.

But see, you’re determining the possibility of success based on the results of checks. I’m determining the possibility of success based on the fiction, and calling for checks to settle cases where the fiction doesn’t give a clear answer. That I didn’t call for an Insight check doesn’t necessarily mean the NPC wasn’t lying. It just means whatever you did to try to figure out if he’s lying had no chance of working. Maybe because he wasn’t lying, but maybe for some other reason.

I guess then I should have added "DM fiat" then as a reason to not call (or allow) a check. I simply don't run my games that way. If there is reasonable uncertainty, or if the player has reason to believe there's uncertainty, I allow a roll*. In my game if someone suspects someone of being deceptive they can get a roll, I'm not going to tell them they can't try to determine if the target is being deceptive.

Even if the PCs have every reason to believe the NPC is lying the NPC could be telling the truth as they see it, especially if magic is involved.

This doesn't really have much to do with GAA in my mind it's more of a "Role of the Dice" question.

*There are exceptions of course, if I ever had someone that wanted to check for traps every 5 ft for example. That's never happened in a game so it's not an issue.

 

[Tony Vargas]

One method of dealing with the they know how they roll issue is to do a jump cut to the consequence.
If they roll for forgery immediately cut to them handing over the document.
If they roll for sneaking past the guards jump to them making their way past or getting caught.
This makes the consequence immediate and maintains the tension of the dice roll.

Or, similarly, call for the check only when the consequence is on the line. You create a forgery, later you hand it over, it's examined, then you roll vs the 'passive insight' or whatever of the NPC perusing your handiwork.

Heck, the action can be retro-active (flashback), as well as the roll.

DM: The Fiendish Dire Fascist says "Your paperz, pleeze…"
Player: Oh! flashback! I spent hours last night meticulously forging these, hope he likes them...
DM: Roll manipulation + calligraphy, er, I mean, roll, uh, DEX, Deception applies.
Player: What about Tool Use: Quill Pen?
DM: You /have/ that? Sure, why not...

...now there's some tension to that check... well, as much as my ludicrous set-up allows. ;P