D&D 5E (2014) Consequences of Failure

[Xetheral]

An alternative to the potential observers example is don't do that in the first place. Make something happen in the scene the player can have the character respond to rather than do it "off-screen." The PC is spotted by a nefarious-looking sort who then darts off in the other direction. What do you do? Maybe they run after them. Maybe they don't. Maybe they do and catch him. Maybe they don't. But that solves your "metagaming" concern right there. DMs are almost always the cause of their own problems with "metagaming" and frequently their chosen solutions just make it worse (or shift the "metagaming" somewhere else).

This I'm personally not willing to do, because it conflicts with other aspects of my DMing style. The immediate results of being observed are going to depend mostly on the type of surveillance the bridge was under, and that in turn depends on the available resources and priorities of the king's spies.

So whether the bridge is under surveillance by agents mixed in the crowd, a guy with a spyglass, rat familiars, scrying, a 6th level Eagle-Totem Barbarian, or nothing at all will depend on my high-level world-building decisions (possibly made in advance, possibly made on the fly if I'm improvising). And I don't emphasize the DM-as-referee style, so I absolutely will take into account what I think will be fun for the players when figuring out the resources and priorities of the king's spies.

But I won't make high-level world building decisions to accommodate the mechanical resolution of a particular check. If I determine that the king's spies are a bunch of Druids, you can bet that a failed stealth check on the part of the PC is likely to lead to a wildshaped mosquito trying to tag along on the PC's clothing (yes, the PC will have an opportunity to notice). As a consequence, I'm definitely going to ask for the PC's stealth check up front, to avoid letting the PC know whether or not they were observed.

I fully recognize that my preference here is a result of my emphasis on the strategic level of gameplay. My games slant heavily towards Combat-as-War, so it is important to me that how and whether the bridge is under surveillance be consistent with my high-level world-building decisions regarding the king's spies' methods and resources. Your suggested approach may work quite well for games that don't share my idiosyncratic style preferences.

 

[iserith]

Well, see here's the point - we started this framing saying (either explicitly or implicitly) that something bad happens if you don't act ("The bear looms over you menacingly, drooling as it opens its mouth...."), and asking what, if anything, you want to do about it. The consequence is the first thing you are told about.

The case of no consequences for not succeeding would be like the GM saying, "Okay, folks, there's nothing going on. How do you respond to that?" It isn't a meaningful question.

I don't recall the example and try not to engage with examples for reasons already stated. The concepts are simple to understand without examples muddying the waters.

So unfortunately I don't understand what you're saying here.

 

[iserith]

This I'm personally not willing to do, because it conflicts with other aspects of my DMing style. The immediate results of being observed are going to depend mostly on the type of surveillance the bridge was under, and that in turn depends on the available resources and priorities of the king's spies.

So whether the bridge is under surveillance by agents mixed in the crowd, a guy with a spyglass, rat familiars, scrying, a 6th level Eagle-Totem Barbarian, or nothing at all will depend on my high-level world-building decisions (possibly made in advance, possibly made on the fly if I'm improvising). And I don't emphasize the DM-as-referee style, so I absolutely will take into account what I think will be fun for the players when figuring out the resources and priorities of the king's spies.

But I won't make high-level world building decisions to accommodate the mechanical resolution of a particular check. If I determine that the king's spies are a bunch of Druids, you can bet that a failed stealth check on the part of the PC is likely to lead to a wildshaped mosquito trying to tag along on the PC's clothing (yes, the PC will have an opportunity to notice). As a consequence, I'm definitely going to ask for the PC's stealth check up front, to avoid letting the PC know whether or not they were observed.

I fully recognize that my preference here is a result of my emphasis on the strategic level of gameplay. My games slant heavily towards Combat-as-War, so it is important to me that how and whether the bridge is under surveillance be consistent with my high-level world-building decisions regarding the king's spies' methods and resources. Your suggested approach may work quite well for games that don't share my idiosyncratic style preferences.

Sure, everyone's got their own preferences and techniques. I still think it's a good policy to look hard at them from time to time (and perhaps invite others to) to examine if they're not creating problems downstream.

 

[Charlaquin]

This I'm personally not willing to do, because it conflicts with other aspects of my DMing style. The immediate results of being observed are going to depend mostly on the type of surveillance the bridge was under, and that in turn depends on the available resources and priorities of the king's spies.

So whether the bridge is under surveillance by agents mixed in the crowd, a guy with a spyglass, rat familiars, scrying, a 6th level Eagle-Totem Barbarian, or nothing at all will depend on my high-level world-building decisions (possibly made in advance, possibly made on the fly if I'm improvising). And I don't emphasize the DM-as-referee style, so I absolutely will take into account what I think will be fun for the players when figuring out the resources and priorities of the king's spies.

But I won't make high-level world building decisions to accommodate the mechanical resolution of a particular check. If I determine that the king's spies are a bunch of Druids, you can bet that a failed stealth check on the part of the PC is likely to lead to a wildshaped mosquito trying to tag along on the PC's clothing (yes, the PC will have an opportunity to notice).

Why not describe a mosquito buzzing in the PC’s ear or crawling on their arm or whatever?

 

[Xetheral]

Sure, everyone's got their own preferences and techniques. I still think it's a good policy to look hard at them from time to time (and perhaps invite others to) to examine if they're not creating problems downstream.

I entirely agree in the abstract. Here, I don't the see the fact that my approach entails rolling a stealth check prior to the presence of any potential observers as a downstream problem.

Why not describe a mosquito buzzing in the PC’s ear or crawling on their arm or whatever?

That's exactly what I'd describe if the PC notices the Druid.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's exactly what I'd describe if the PC notices the Druid.

But how can they do that if they don’t know to look for him?

 

[Xetheral]

But how can they do that if they don’t know to look for him?

The same way it worked when the PC was trying to remain unnoticed. I would determine the Druid's goal and approach and then decide if the result is uncertain (there is definitely a meaningful consequence for failure). If (e.g.) I were to decide that the mosquito is was going to land softly in the PC's hair (so as not to be jostled off by the rioting crowd) I would probably decide that there is uncertainty and have the Druid make a Sleight of Hand check (with advantage for being so small) versus the PC's passive perception.

 

[FrogReaver]

But how can they do that if they don’t know to look for him?

That’s where most of us would use a different resolution method than goal and approach. For most of us it’s not that we dislike goal and approach, we just dislike the notion that it’s always the best method to use in every situation that comes up.

 

[Umbran]

I don't recall the example and try not to engage with examples for reasons already stated. The concepts are simple to understand without examples muddying the waters.

So unfortunately I don't understand what you're saying here.

Really? Dude, I stated it in general form, with a colorful phrase added for emphasis. Apparently, even the presence of color is too much for you? Fine. No specific examples here:

In the approach I am noting, a normal situation of play is the GM saying, "Here is the situation coming at you. What do you want to do about that situation?" The situation is framed so the player knows what is about to happen if they do not change that situation.

The case of no meaningful consequences would be the GM saying, "There is no situation coming at you. What do you want to do about that non-existent situation?" It is nonsensical. One would not bother to ask for the player's response to a non-situation.

Overall, the issue for most of this discussion is that we are talking about actions as the primary element. That comes from D&D's wargame and semi-simulationist past. If you instead focus first on the situations, then you are never concerned about not having a consequence.

Change the frame of reference, from action to situation, and the issue disappears.

 

[iserith]

Really? Dude, I stated it in general form, with a colorful phrase added for emphasis. Apparently, even the presence of color is too much for you?

Not too much for me, no. Just problematic, so I try not to offer or engage with them. As evidence, see practically all threads that contain an example in recent days if not ever.

Overall, the issue for most of this discussion is that we are talking about actions as the primary element. That comes from D&D's wargame and semi-simulationist past. If you instead focus first on the situations, then you are never concerned about not having a consequence.

Well, of course, I'm pretty sure that I've been saying to examine the situation this whole time and that will show you if there are meaningful consequences, even including for tasks related to recalling lore. To be clear, are you supporting what I'm saying then or trying to refute a position I do not hold?