D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Campbell]

I will try to use as natural of language as I can although I prefer precise language.

The point is that within the context of combat encounter in Fifth Edition as well as most mainstream games the decision making process of both players and DMs is colored by all sorts of mechanical considerations that have no direct correspondence to what is happening in the narrative. Things like action economy, where you are in the initiative order, discrete mechanical bits, hit points, long and short rest rationing with no connection to the fiction, and who goes next in the initiative order all affect the decisions players make because they have impact on the mechanical results of player actions. On the GM side things like monster stats and all those discrete mechanics.

Now imagine a world where we had none of that. Imagine if we treated violent confrontations just like we treat sneaking past an orc encampment. Imagine if instead of attacks of opportunity and movement rates and the like if when I declared that my character rushed past two orcs and charged the shaman in order to cut him off from the other orcs you determined if it has a chance of success and then had me roll a Strength (Melee) ability check and told me what happens just based on what was going on in the narrative and what I am trying to do (goal and approach) instead of a plethora of purely mechanical concerns .

That is the distinction I am making.

Not that there is anything wrong with those mechanical considerations. Sometimes I love them mechanics.

 

[Scott Christian]

My favorite part of this entire debate is:

If I were to watch all of you play a game of D&D online, all of your games would look the same.

 

[Oofta]

My favorite part of this entire debate is:

If I were to watch all of you play a game of D&D online, all of your games would look the same.

Probably true. You'd think that on one side you have bored individuals sitting around a table occasionally calling out for a D20 roll in a monotone drone while on the other side you have would-be Shakespearean actors spouting goal and approach soliloquys with the DM tazing anyone who dared utter the forbidden words of skill.

DMs are going to run different types of games. Heavy social vs dungeon crawls vs exploration vs whodunit vs something else. But the actual gameplay? Not much different at the end of the day.

 

[FrogReaver]

My favorite part of this entire debate is:

If I were to watch all of you play a game of D&D online, all of your games would look the same.

They wouldn't. Far more similar than what you would think solely from this debate, but still notably different.

 

[Scott Christian]

They wouldn't. Far more similar than what you would think solely from this debate, but still notably different.

You are correct in that I am being anecdotal. And I realize all of us here have a tremendous amount of experience. I for one could claim having played in hundreds of con games in many different states, many different long term campaigns from Alaska to Cali to Illinois to Florida to Texas all with different groups. And I could claim I have heard each of these DM's talk "DM Theory." Of course, my last claim is every single one of those DM's games played almost identically.

But, there may be an outlier. That's why I still enjoy new people and campaigns. (Along with the simple fact that all of it is fun!)

 

[FrogReaver]

You are correct in that I am being anecdotal. And I realize all of us here have a tremendous amount of experience. I for one could claim having played in hundreds of con games in many different states, many different long term campaigns from Alaska to Cali to Illinois to Florida to Texas all with different groups. And I could claim I have heard each of these DM's talk "DM Theory." Of course, my last claim is every single one of those DM's games played almost identically.

But, there may be an outlier. That's why I still enjoy new people and campaigns. (Along with the simple fact that all of it is fun!)

Many DMing techniques aren't readily apparent to players. The most you might notice is rolling dice in secret vs in open (unless your online and then u'd never see the secret rolls) or if you are required to state actions in goal and approach or if you are allowed to ask for skill checks directly etc.

But behind the scenes there's vastly different techniques that are used to produce that fictional world you are playing in and to create interesting situations in it. Interacting with an interesting situation in 1 game vs another probably feels about the same and that's whether the DM made it more story first, sandboxy, prepared significantly, just winged it or even altered trap locations / monster locations / stats etc.

 

[Scott Christian]

Many DMing techniques aren't readily apparent to players. The most you might notice is rolling dice in secret vs in open (unless your online and then u'd never see the secret rolls) or if you are required to state actions in goal and approach or if you are allowed to ask for skill checks directly etc.

But behind the scenes there's vastly different techniques that are used to produce that fictional world you are playing in and to create interesting situations in it. Interacting with an interesting situation in 1 game vs another probably feels about the same and that's whether the DM made it more story first, sandboxy, prepared significantly, just winged it or even altered trap locations / monster locations / stats etc.

Sorry Frogreaver,
I'm confused. My initial comment was the games would look the same. You stated they would not. Here, you state they would be similar, but only to a player. To a DM they are different. You're correct in that DM's vary in prep. But, all that does is generally denote how smoothly (or fairly) the game runs. That doesn't explain how they would be different based on all the theories given on this 72 page dialogue.
I almost always read your comments and think - yup, good comment. But, here either I'm just not getting it (wouldn't be the first time) or we'll just have to agree to disagree. In any sense, thanks for the input.

 

[Campbell]

You are correct in that I am being anecdotal. And I realize all of us here have a tremendous amount of experience. I for one could claim having played in hundreds of con games in many different states, many different long term campaigns from Alaska to Cali to Illinois to Florida to Texas all with different groups. And I could claim I have heard each of these DM's talk "DM Theory." Of course, my last claim is every single one of those DM's games played almost identically.

But, there may be an outlier. That's why I still enjoy new people and campaigns. (Along with the simple fact that all of it is fun!)

I think it is both the case that vast majority of games are run pretty similarly and that technique really matters. I think a lot of GMs are trying to do pretty much the same sorts of things. There are some differences in technique, but most adventure gaming hits a lot of the same notes. Mostly some mix of sand boxing and GM story led play with spotlight balancing.

I have found a lot more variation at the margins where there is a lot more experimentation - in the OSR and indie scenes. Anecdotally I have seen the same players play very differently in different games.

 

[FrogReaver]

Sorry Frogreaver,
I'm confused. My initial comment was the games would look the same. You stated they would not. Here, you state they would be similar, but only to a player. To a DM they are different. You're correct in that DM's vary in prep. But, all that does is generally denote how smoothly (or fairly) the game runs. That doesn't explain how they would be different based on all the theories given on this 72 page dialogue.
I almost always read your comments and think - yup, good comment. But, here either I'm just not getting it (wouldn't be the first time) or we'll just have to agree to disagree. In any sense, thanks for the input.

All I'm saying is that a typical player won't notice the differences. There are still differences there but players are not likely to perceive them unless they go out looking for them.

 

[pemerton]

Try to set aside all the Forge jargon

What Forge jargon?[/quote]

The player describes what he or she wants to do: "I draw upon my hate for these creatures to fly into a uncontrollable anger. I'm activating barbarian rage." DM, looks for anything complicating that effort finds none, and narrates the result of the adventurer's action: "The orc recognizes this rage and prepares for an onslaught. What else do you do?"

I have read the 5e Basic PDF fairly closely. Nothing in that PDF suggests that this is how combat is to be resolved:

(1) Nothing suggests the player has to explain, in fictional terms, why s/he enters a rage (nor that, say, a non-barbarian PC might do the same thing by drawing on his/her hate for orcs);

(2) Nothing suggests that the GM might call for a check as a necessary condition of successfully entering a rage (or using action surge, or second wind, or any other class ability).

Here's the text I have in mind:

Pages 69, 71-73: On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first. Your speed—sometimes called your walking speed—is noted on your character sheet.

The most common actions you can take are described in the “Actions in Combat” section later in this chapter. Many class features and other abilities provide additional options for your action. . . .

When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise. . . .

Whether you’re striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a
spell, an attack has a simple structure. . . .

You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise.​

The second-person here is pretty unambiguous. Nothing here suggests that the player needs the GM to call for a check, direct the roll of an attack or damage die, etc. It does not set out the same procedure as is described in "the basic pattern" on p 3. And it does not follow the same procedure as is described on p 58: "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that
has a chance of failure."

There is obviously nothing that stops a table from treating combat actions differently from how the rules set them out, from substituting GM judgement for the action economy, etc. But that is not the game that the Basic PDF presents.