D&D 5E (2014) Consequences of Failure

[iserith]

Out of curiosity, is your underlying point that "goal and approach" does not dictate any single process of play? If so, then again, I agree.

The only thing it requires is that the players are explicit about what they're trying to achieve and how.

 

[Umbran]

Which only matters in the context of games where rolls don't result in a consequence that changes the situation. My solution: Ask for rolls when there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure.

Hm.

So, here's an honest question that could resolve a ton of stuff. And my apologies if this got addressed elsewhere.

What is the difference between "failure" and "not succeeding"? Is there always a difference?

I ask because in some games - like those in which the GM never rolls dice, and how situations resolve depends on how well the players do on their actions, the framing could be stated like this (including some levels of success):

"Here is the situation - X will happen if you do not act. X-minus will happen if you act, and sorta succeed. And If you really do awesomely, X is completely avoided."

In this framing, we often see failure to be equivalent to not acting - you still fail to avert X, so it happens. If the Bear is going to bite you, standing there like a ninny and not moving may be equivalent to trying to dodge, but zigging when you should have zagged - a failure has no practical difference from inaction. But, overall, the question is "How well did do you succeed?" rather than "Did you fail?"

 

[iserith]

So you're saying that your players never play beyond their characters' knowledge, when the player knows more? If yes, you are blessed with excellent players!

But if no, then how can they claim to be playing true to their characters? As in, seeing the fiction through their characters' eyes and (as far as possible) using only the knowledge those characters would have; in full awareness that sometimes that knowledge might be based on information that is either outright faulty at source or has been misinterpreted by the PCs/players.

And if they're intentionally not bothering to play true to their characters, what's the point of having characters?

A player is roleplaying if he or she is determining what the character thinks, does, and says. There is no game-mandated requirement for how a player determines those actions.

There is an admonishment to avoid "metagame thinking" when doing so would lead the players to bad assumptions which could mean an unfortunate end to their characters or wasting time during the sessions, but that's it.

 

[Lanefan]

Or just reveal the potential observer before calling for the roll?

Even if the PCs are in no position to be aware that an observer is present?

That would lead to an exchange similar to this, every flippin' time:

DM: "There's a hidden observer on the rooftop, roll for your stealth"
Player A: "15, I think we're good."
Player B: "I fly up invisible and sneak-attack the observer."
DM: "Except you don't know there's an observer up there."
Player B: "But you just TOLD us there's someone up there!"
<<<cue a roaring argument>>>

No thanks.

This is another one of those things that hinges on what you find to be interesting/exciting adventure design, including hidden knowledge. Like "random" traps. Or NPCs who may or may not be lying.

Without lying or deceitful NPCs how does one ever run a decent and engaging intrigue-based or mystery adventure where the whole point is figuring out who you can trust and who you can't? How does one legitimately run doppelgangers, whose whole function is to deceive and infiltrate? Etc.

 

[Lanefan]

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?"

Simple - because the roll assumes you did keep trying, and reflects your best result.

 

[Celebrim]

So you're saying that your players never play beyond their characters' knowledge, when the player knows more?

I think we should fork if we really want to have this discussion, but.

When does a player have perfect knowledge of their character's knowledge anyway?

But if no, then how can they claim to be playing true to their characters?

How can anyone ever claim to be playing true to their characters? The character is in the fictional space at least as complex, nuanced, and knowledgeable as the player - usually much more so. It's mathematically provable that a system cannot contain within it a full simulation of itself. Thus, there is no such thing as playing perfectly true to ones character anyway.

Further, how does an outside observer know when a player is playing perfectly true to their character anyway?

As in, seeing the fiction through their characters' eyes and (as far as possible) using only the knowledge those characters would have; in full awareness that sometimes that knowledge might be based on information that is either outright faulty at source or has been misinterpreted by the PCs/players.

As a GM, I cannot improve the game by trying to referee how the players act on information that they have. In the classic example of a troll's vulnerability to fire, a player that recognizes that the thing is probably a troll, and who knows that trolls are vulnerable to fire does not have perfect knowledge of how his character would behave absent his knowledge as a player. He not only does not know whether his character knows that trolls are vulnerable to fire, but he can never know whether even if his character didn't know that trolls were vulnerable to fire that he might choose anyway to try attacking the creature with fire. Once a player's decision making process is polluted by the metagame knowledge, it can never be unpolluted. The player will, whether he chooses to attack with fire or not, still be metagaming because if he chooses to attack with fire he is acting on that metagame information, and if he doesn't choose to attack with fire he is still acting on that metagame information. I don't try to force players to simulate how long their characters remain clueless before trying fire.

And if they're intentionally not bothering to play true to their characters, what's the point of having characters?

And if players aren't making the decisions, what's the point of having players?

The real solution to this is as a DM to try to limit how much metagame knowledge leaks to the players. Once it has leaked, it's not the players fault for acting on it. The blame lay with the DM for leaking the information in the first place. Blaming the player for acting on the information is something like giving the players the answer to a riddle, asking them a riddle, and then asking them to decide whether they would have been able to answer the riddle without first knowing the answer. It's a total jerk move by the DM, that does not improve the game.

 

[Xetheral]

@Xetheral: Your bridge example post is a very good post, is correct in all regards as far as I can tell, but still doesn't clarify for me what the original intention of Greenleaf was. The original post was not about metagame information, cool of a topic as that may be.

Out of curiosity, is your underlying point that "goal and approach" does not dictate any single process of play? If so, then again, I agree.

(Interestingly my approach would fall under option '3' and still would be consistent with "goal and approach".)

This particular line of dicussion stems from my response to @Elfcrusher's claim that rolling stealth prior to being in the presence of potential observers lets the player know the outcome of the check result, and that avoiding resulting problems (such as the player wanting to reroll) introduces metagame issues. Rolling only when a potential observer is present was offered as a solution to this problem. I was trying to draw attention to the fact that rolling stealth only when there are potential obervers lets the player know observers are present, and that this also introduces (different) metagame issues.

 

[iserith]

Hm.

So, here's an honest question that could resolve a ton of stuff. And my apologies if this got addressed elsewhere.

What is the difference between "failure" and "not succeeding"? Is there always a difference?

I ask because in some games - like those in which the GM never rolls dice, and how situations resolve depends on how well the players do on their actions, the framing could be stated like this (including some levels of success):

"Here is the situation - X will happen if you do not act. X-minus will happen if you act, and sorta succeed. And If you really do awesomely, X is completely avoided."

In this framing, we often see failure to be equivalent to not acting - you still fail to avert X, so it happens. If the Bear is going to bite you, standing there like a ninny and not moving may be equivalent to trying to dodge, but zigging when you should have zagged - a failure has no practical difference from inaction. But, overall, the question is "How well did do you succeed?" rather than "Did you fail?"

I don't think there's a meaningful difference between "failure" and "not succeeding," but the game does mandate that your failure or lack of success must have a meaningful consequence in order for there to be an ability check. And what that means exactly is going to depend on the context. The DM will decide when he or she examines the situation.

 

[Lanefan]

The real solution to this is as a DM to try to limit how much metagame knowledge leaks to the players.

Exactly!

And this means not revealing the presence of observers before calling for a stealth roll; it means not telling the players that NPC Joe is a spy so don't trust him; and in days of old it meant keeping the MM and DMG off-limits to players. It also often means the DM doing some hidden rolling for the PCs to avoid the players realizing there's a reason for the rolls in the first place.

Once it has leaked, it's not the players fault for acting on it. The blame lay with the DM for leaking the information in the first place.

Agreed, but only to a point: if the DM errs and lets something slip the players still have a chance to preserve the integrity of the situation by choosing not to act on that information.

 

[Celebrim]

This particular line of dicussion stems from my response to @Elfcrusher's claim that rolling stealth prior to being in the presence of potential observers lets the player know the outcome of the check result, and that avoiding resulting problems (such as the player wanting to reroll) introduces metagame issues. Rolling only when a potential observer is present was offered as a solution to this problem. I was trying to draw attention to the fact that rolling stealth only when there are potential obervers lets the player know observers are present, and that this also introduces (different) metagame issues.

Rolling a stealth check prior to being in the presence of potential observers lets the player know the outcome of the check result if and only if such check is rolled in the clear and thus leaks metagame knowledge to the player. Since the player does not have perfect knowledge of whether he is being observed, the player shouldn't see the roll or necessarily even know that such a roll has been made at all.

Hence, the use of DM screens since the very early days of RPGs.

This approach of making rolls on a players behalf when the player's character couldn't know how well he was performing solves all problems and is the friendliest way to play for all parties. The player is not put in the position of needing to avoid metagaming, and as such their agency is not diminished. The GM is not put in the position of refereeing whether the player is metagaming, which means he doesn't need to act like a jerk nor accuse anyone else of metagaming . The player's emersion in the fiction is not harmed and their functional aesthetics of play such as challenge, narrative, fantasy, and discovery are unharmed by the process of play in a way that they would be overtly harmed if they rolled in the clear. The only goals of play that are supported by doing all rolls in the clear tend to be highly dysfunctional ones involving distrust, jealousy, and a desire to avoid challenge and discovery by receiving affirmation through unearned success (ei, cheating). Of course, there are plenty of times that a player's character would receive immediate impact as to whether or not they failed, and then it's a lot of fun to do those rolls in the clear and to let the player's do those rolls. But an enormous number of table problems can be avoided by doing certain classes of checks in secret.