D&D 5E (2014) Consequences of Failure

[Guest 6801328]

Very true. I was thinking particularly of situations where the potential observer is itself hidden (or otherwise unobserved), but I didn't emphasize that in my post.

As an example, if a PC is trying to move through a crowded riot without being identified by anyone who is looking for her, she will likely need to make a stealth check. If you wait until there is someone looking for her nearby to call for the stealth check, you reveal such a person is nearby. Whether that's better or worse than the player knowing in advance whether the character is doing a good or a bad job is definitely a matter of opinion.

Maybe use "passive" Stealth? (Or, really, Deception or Disguise Kit in this case, perhaps?)

On a related note, the other day I wanted to forge some documents for a ruse, and the DM had me roll Forgery Kit. I rolled a 22 and we went with that, but I was thinking to myself, "And why wouldn't I just keep trying until I got it right?"

 

[iserith]

Maybe use "passive" Stealth? (Or, really, Deception or Disguise Kit in this case, perhaps?)

On a related note, the other day I wanted to forge some documents for a ruse, and the DM had me roll Forgery Kit. I rolled a 22 and we went with that, but I was thinking to myself, "And why wouldn't I just keep trying until I got it right?"

Exactly. Some DMs rush to the ability check. If it sounds like Forgery, make a Forgery Check! If it sounds like Stealth, make a Stealth Check! If it sounds like a lie, make a Deception check! Right now!

Hold up. Think about it for a second before you call for the roll. Consider the situation and whether a roll makes sense at the moment. Because if you don't, you may be creating an issue that you then have to come up with another "technique" to solve.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Exactly. Some DMs rush to the ability check. If it sounds like Forgery, make a Forgery Check! If it sounds like Stealth, make a Stealth Check! If it sounds like a lie, make a Deception check! Right now!

Hold up. Think about it for a second before you call for the roll. Consider the situation and whether a roll makes sense at the moment. Because if you don't, you may be creating an issue that you then have to come up with another "technique" to solve.

A more interesting way to handle this might be to assume that it's a good forgery and move forward with that, and simply have it work as intended.

And then...if so desired...add a complication, like now the supervisor wants to take a look, and it's explained that if he does I'll have to roll, with X consequences if it fails, or we have to come up with some other plan to avoid having to make that roll. (E.g., cast Friends, wave a hand, and say "These aren't the docs you're looking for." Then get out of Dodge before Friends ends.)

 

[Xetheral]

In that case, the DM describes the observer as acting in a manner that he or she has spotted the PC, which changes the situation, and leads to the next decision point: "What do you do about that, PC?"

You're assuming that the observer both notices the PC and reacts in a way the PC notices. The PC may instead have succeed on their stealth check or, if not, the PC may not know who is looking for them, or the observer is behind a darkened window, or the observer is a rat familar.... There are countless cases where the potential oberserver is itself unobserved.

 

[iserith]

You're assuming that the observer both notices the PC and reacts in a way the PC notices. The PC may instead have succeed on their stealth check or, if not, the PC may not know who is looking for them, or the observer is behind a darkened window, or the observer is a rat familar.... There are countless cases where the potential oberserver is itself unobserved.

Yes, but again, the DM can choose otherwise and, if the DM is choosing things that lead to potentially problematic outcomes as it relates to adjudication which then have to be corrected downstream by some means, that's the DM's fault.

 

[FrogReaver]

There is a major difference between playing such that auto success and auto failure can occur

AND

Playing such that checks are not called for unless there is going to be a change in the status quo on a failure

You can play the first way without playing the second way.

 

[iserith]

A more interesting way to handle this might be to assume that it's a good forgery and move forward with that, and simply have it work as intended.

And then...if so desired...add a complication, like now the supervisor wants to take a look, and it's explained that if he does I'll have to roll, with X consequences if it fails, or we have to come up with some other plan to avoid having to make that roll. (E.g., cast Friends, wave a hand, and say "These aren't the docs you're looking for." Then get out of Dodge before Friends ends.)

Right. Rolling when there's actually an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure immediately clears up a lot of these concerns. And it has the added benefit of being supported by the rules of the game.

 

[Oofta]

You're assuming that the observer both notices the PC and reacts in a way the PC notices. The PC may instead have succeed on their stealth check or, if not, the PC may not know who is looking for them, or the observer is behind a darkened window, or the observer is a rat familar.... There are countless cases where the potential oberserver is itself unobserved.

Some people don't care about players having meta-game knowledge. I do, I think the players should almost never know anything the PCs don't know. I make exceptions for scenes involving other PCs because that's part of the fun.

I enjoy DMing and playing games where there's a time where there's a sense of paranoia and mystery. As a player if I suspect someone is watching, I don't want to know whether or not someone is really watching. I'm not going to call for checks all the time because that would be annoying.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You're assuming that the observer both notices the PC and reacts in a way the PC notices. The PC may instead have succeed on their stealth check or, if not, the PC may not know who is looking for them, or the observer is behind a darkened window, or the observer is a rat familar.... There are countless cases where the potential oberserver is itself unobserved.

This just comes down to a matter of to what extent (if at all) you want to give "hidden information" a role in your adventures. Certainly if what you want is "stuff that is determined by dice rolls, but without the PCs knowing" then it's really tricky to only implement what we're talking about.

What I'm beginning to realize, thanks to the persistence of @iserith and @Charlaquin and @Ovinomancer (and others) is that I'm not sure that kind of hidden information is as necessary or even as beneficial to the game as I might have once thought.

I think it's way more exciting to say, "You notice a rat looking at you in a surprisingly intent way, for a rat. What do you do?" Than to glance at some numbers behind the DM screen and say, "Ok, so you're sneaking through the market. What next?"

TRIGGER WARNING: DATA-LESS OPINION INCOMING

And odds are actually pretty decent that players are going to pick up on the fact that something is going on, anyway.

 

[Celebrim]

In this variant the game state is about to change unless the PCs take action.

The distinction is clear to me. It's interesting that it's not to you. I'm guessing there's some other fundamental difference in our POVs, and this difference is a symptom of that.

So for you, the real distinction between the two scenario is how much time the PC's have to think about what they want to do? At some point in both scenarios, the players have to undertake some sort of action that involves risk. Heck, it would be easy to imagine that if the player in the first scenario does nothing, the player is accepting the risk that the orc let's out a loud snore and wakes from his nap, so again, I see no fundamental difference between the two game states, and it will always be possible that for any feature you add to the game state that I can show an equivalent feature can exist in the other one.

But even if I accepted that the player in the first scenario has time to dither or even if I credited as a large distinction, how does this distinction pertain to your original post? How does the amount of time the player has to think over his approach - assuming in the two cases that the time really does differ, which it might not in reality - really alter how we are going to handle it once they decide on what it is?