D&D 5E (2014) Consequences of Failure

[5ekyu]

Fiction first, but even fiction follows rules. And in most cases, a predictable ruleset follows predictable patterns. Hence, you can pre-write the character's DC's or challenges prior to them starting. As stated earlier, if they come up with something you didn't think of - great. That's part of the fun of DM'ing. But, for most obstacles, they are confined within the ruleset, and therefore, at the most, modifications (bonuses or negatives) are all that are needed.

Well, I think you are butting into a case of perspective differences.

If I assign a locked door a DC of 25 to pick, I do do because I know as GM the facts in the situation have established the skill and effort put in to security here, plus extra resources, due to the folks involved and their traits and capabilities. Most likely, it comes as expected by the PCs by the time they get there, based on what they have experienced there as well.

Now, if they get there, and go with "screw it, tear the wall down" because the setting has changed so far from they arent worried to just hammer away for hours, then that DC does not see use - except maybe if they try and somehow sell that lock later maybe. Here I would be looking up the breaking objects and walls rules, or ruling in the fly as again by the fiction.

Additionally, if they charmed or coerced someone to open it for them, again, that DC is not used.

Thats all normal for task redolution even with pre-figured DC vs dkill checks listed.

So, yeah, exactly, there are rules and your own campaign guidelines but most GMs I have encountered know to apply them based on the choices made, not be shackled by them.

 

[Scott Christian]

Well, I think you are butting into a case of perspective differences.

If I assign a locked door a DC of 25 to pick, I do do because I know as GM the facts in the situation have established the skill and effort put in to security here, plus extra resources, due to the folks involved and their traits and capabilities. Most likely, it comes as expected by the PCs by the time they get there, based on what they have experienced there as well.

Now, if they get there, and go with "screw it, tear the wall down" because the setting has changed so far from they arent worried to just hammer away for hours, then that DC does not see use - except maybe if they try and somehow sell that lock later maybe. Here I would be looking up the breaking objects and walls rules, or ruling in the fly as again by the fiction.

Additionally, if they charmed or coerced someone to open it for them, again, that DC is not used.

Thats all normal for task redolution even with pre-figured DC vs dkill checks listed.

So, yeah, exactly, there are rules and your own campaign guidelines but most GMs I have encountered know to apply them based on the choices made, not be shackled by them.

I get what you're saying. I don't think anyone's shackled. But, that's why D&D and PF make adventures with skill checks - because they can predict them.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I get what you're saying. I don't think anyone's shackled. But, that's why D&D and PF make adventures with skill checks - because they can predict them.

Except that the DCs in published adventures are just suggestions. If the PCs take a different approach to a situation, the suggested ability check DC may not even matter. If you, as DM, force the PCs to take the action suggested by the adventure, then you are shackling them to a single solution, which is antithetical to much of the flow of play which dictates the the players decide what their characters do.

A DM can not possibly predict every possible action proposed by the players. Trying to do so would be an enormous waste of prep time. A DM must be able to adjudicate actions on the fly during the course of play.

I’m not sure you are suggesting otherwise, but it seems like you are when you talk of these “limitations”.

 

[5ekyu]

Except that the DCs in published adventures are just suggestions. If the PCs take a different approach to a situation, the suggested ability check DC may not even matter. If you, as DM, force the PCs to take the action suggested by the adventure, then you are shackling them to a single solution, which is antithetical to much of the flow of play which dictates the the players decide what their characters do.

A DM can not possibly predict every possible action proposed by the players. Trying to do so would be an enormous waste of prep time. A DM must be able to adjudicate actions on the fly during the course of play.

I’m not sure you are suggesting otherwise, but it seems like you are when you talk of these “limitations”.

I dont believe anyone talking about DCs or such here has mentioned or described anything remotely like "force the PCs to take the action suggested by the adventure"...

 

[Lanefan]

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.

What then happens to whatever happens during the intervening in-fiction time between roll and consequence?

Example: tonight, while our intrepid PC has some downtime, she forges an invitation to a masked ball. The ball is three days hence. She rolls when she makes the forgery, but if you skip the three intervening days and jump straight to her arriving at the ball in order to resolve the roll she's in effect just been put on ice for those three days, during which time who knows what might have happened, be it related to the ball/forgery or not.

That ain't gonna fly.

 

[Campbell]

What then happens to whatever happens during the intervening in-fiction time between roll and consequence?

Example: tonight, while our intrepid PC has some downtime, she forges an invitation to a masked ball. The ball is three days hence. She rolls when she makes the forgery, but if you skip the three intervening days and jump straight to her arriving at the ball in order to resolve the roll she's in effect just been put on ice for those three days, during which time who knows what might have happened, be it related to the ball/forgery or not.

That ain't gonna fly.

Jump cuts and flash backs are not good tools for exploratory play. They are excellent for maintaining tension and providing a sense of immediacy and drama. Largely you cannot get both meaningful exploratory play and heightened drama with the same set of techniques. For something more exploratory the best technique I have found for maintaining a sense of drama is that only the active party makes the roll so given the time the PC has to make the Forgery you set the DC to notice it is a Forgery at 10+Dex (Deception) with adjustments for fictional positioning and then have the NPC roll Insight to notice the Forgery.

 

[Maxperson]

If I think the result of the forgery is uncertain and there's someone that can assist I just give advantage. If you still get a low number, it's just beyond your capability to forge at the moment.

Perfect solution? Nope. Fast, easy and done by the rules? I think so. Sometimes that's the best you can do.

Heh. Forgery might be the one skill where extra help gives disadvantage. Instead of one hand trying to perfectly mimic another hand, it's two different hands now trying to perfectly mimic a third hand at the same time. The more different hands you add in, the harder it's going to get.

 

[Charlaquin]

Largely you cannot get both meaningful exploratory play and heightened drama with the same set of techniques.

I don’t agree.

 

[Campbell]

I don’t agree.

I believe there are trade offs involved in fostering a sense of drama and immediacy and an approach that enables serial exploration where the GM acts as an impartial referee. It is definitely possible to utilize different techniques at different times so that there are elements of both, but you will never have the drama and immediacy of Blades in the Dark as run according to the principles laid out in that text or the exploratory play of Moldvay B/X run according to the principles laid out in that text.

Why do you disagree? Do you not believe there trade offs?

 

[Charlaquin]

I believe there are trade offs involved in fostering a sense of drama and immediacy and an approach that enables serial exploration where the GM acts as an impartial referee. It is definitely possible to utilize different techniques at different times so that there are elements of both, but you will never have the drama and immediacy of Blades in the Dark as run according to the principles laid out in that text or the exploratory play of Moldvay B/X run according to the principles laid out in that text.

Why do you disagree? Do you not believe there trade offs?

Sure, any technique has its advantages and disadvantages, but I think it’s pretty hyperbolic to say you can’t have both meaningful exploratory play and heightened drama using the same techniques. Sure, there are techniques that are more suited to one or the other, but I think it’s entirely possible to do both, and even do them both well.