D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Campbell]

So I'm a big believer that you can do one thing well. If you are focused on sneaking about you can not also be focused on searching out for hidden enemies. The most likely outcome when you have two groups focused on not being noticed is they pass each other like ships in the night. They might notice each other passively, but generally only if someone rolls poorly.

 

[Hussar]

I do find it rather amusing, having just finished reading this thread.

The OP was asking a pretty specific question about the "how" of how to apply goal:approach methodology to a fairly common in game occurance.

18 pages later, AFAIK, not a single person has been able to give a concrete method for how to actually do it. Tons and tons of "it's great and it works great and it's wonderful" type posts. But, not a single set of actual instructions.

Funny that.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I do find it rather amusing, having just finished reading this thread.

The OP was asking a pretty specific question about the "how" of how to apply goal:approach methodology to a fairly common in game occurance.

18 pages later, AFAIK, not a single person has been able to give a concrete method for how to actually do it. Tons and tons of "it's great and it works great and it's wonderful" type posts. But, not a single set of actual instructions.

Funny that.

We must be reading different threads (or perhaps with a different lens, or purpose?)

If you can read around all the attempts to derail the thread by attacking the premise, or attacking the baggage assumed to go with the premise, or going off on weird tangents about the "integrity of roleplaying" (???) and the evils of metagaming, there was a good discussion.

I was hoping for a general discussion, but specifically proposed two aspects: stealth and "knowledge checks".

There were some great responses...and discussions...around stealth. I think that one was addressed pretty well. I, at least, had an "ah-ha" moment. And that approach is a general one, too. (Roughly: Don't ask for rolls ahead of any critical decision points.)

The knowledge check answer was an acknowledgement that can be hard to give them consequences in generalized way. (Note that in some circumstances it's the same answer as stealth: e.g., trying to close the portal.) But the other part of that discussion was about how maybe the traditional knowledge check doesn't really add anything to the game.

On both sub-topics, I learned something valuable.

Again, maybe it's just because I was open to it. YMMV.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Hang on. “It was spoken about” might not have included a good faith explanation. Might’ve been a colorful criticism instead. (Honesty I don’t remember).

But a telegraph isn’t a guy waving a sign that says “traps here!” on the street corner. It’s a hint or a clue that may or may not be picked up by the players but IS included in some way in the DM’s setup of the scenario.

If the players don’t pick up on it, it MAY be because it was insufficiently described (every DM should check to make sure the hint is not so subtle that it’s unfairly impossible to pick up on), or it MAY be that the players just don’t quite get what it is or otherwise get distracted by something shiny.

And as long as the "trap" (broadly used) isn't going to cause a TPK-scale event, it's fine to miss the telegraph. But I would say that's more true if the telegraph becomes obvious in retrospect. In my "fun" bucket I would include those forehead-slapping moments when something avoidable happens and we all think, "Doh! We totally missed that clue!"

If, even after the event, nobody makes the connection to the telegraph...yeah that was probably not the best telegraph.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Where my point is that in order to be able to give that input in a consistent and believable way the player's knowledge should (as far as possible) match that of the character.

I agree with these words, but I think with a different meaning/intent than you have.

My goal is for characters and players to share the same "mind space" as it were to the extent possible. When the monster jumps out and scares the characters, I want the players to be surprised/scared, too. When the characters are creeped out and worried, I want the players to be creeped out and worried, too.

I think the difference is that you (maybe?) want the players to pretend to be in the same mindspace. I want them to actually be there. Which means that if the players know something and the characters do not, I see basically zero value in pretending otherwise. Sure, I get that some people enjoy that flavor of roleplaying, but it's just one type, and certainly not with any kind of exclusive claim to correctness or integrity. (Because if you believe there's a hierarchy, then the cosplayers want to have a discussion with you.)

Otherwise the input is either filtered through some sort of self-policing or is liable to be incongruent with what the character would do otherwise.

So I agree that I'd rather not ask for rolls that "give away" the presence of something, because that spoils the shared mindspace. But for different reasons than you, I think.

And right here is where I would want to get off the bus. The hallway should be treated exactly the same in the mechanics, regardless of what's actually there, until and unless something happens to change that. So, if it's one check per door it's one check per door, end of story; until and unless either a check result causes the PCs to be noticed (if there's anything to do so) or something else intervenes (e.g. an unexpected guard walks around a corner).

And why is this? Because neither the PCs nor the players know what if any threats lurk behind those doors, and nor should they until and unless a) a threat makes itself obvious (a dog barks; or a door opens) or b) the PCs notice something that indicates a threat might be present (they hear a dog; or see light coming out from under the door).

It sometimes generates a big sigh of relief from the players when they absolutely butcher a sneak check and my response goes something like "Well, fortunately for you you picked a good time to mess that up; as nothing seems to have come of it."

Yes, given the way you apparently like to set up your challenges, this seems like a good solution for you.

 

[iserith]

I do find it rather amusing, having just finished reading this thread.

The OP was asking a pretty specific question about the "how" of how to apply goal:approach methodology to a fairly common in game occurance.

18 pages later, AFAIK, not a single person has been able to give a concrete method for how to actually do it. Tons and tons of "it's great and it works great and it's wonderful" type posts. But, not a single set of actual instructions.

Funny that.

Concrete answers have been given several times over. Perhaps you missed it, so I'll summarize for you.

The player describes what he or she wants to do, being reasonably specific as to what the character hopes to achieve and how he or she goes about it. The DM then calls for an ability check only if there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure then narrates the result of the adventurer's action.

Easy.

 

[Guest 6801328]

So I'm a big believer that you can do one thing well. If you are focused on sneaking about you can not also be focused on searching out for hidden enemies. The most likely outcome when you have two groups focused on not being noticed is they pass each other like ships in the night. They might notice each other passively, but generally only if someone rolls poorly.

One option would be to have more codified rules. Like, if you are trying to be sneaky and alert at the same time, disadvantage is applied to both rolls.

I'd rather not have a rule, though. Are there situations where one action makes another easier? Does this apply to any two tasks, or just sneaking and being alert? Is it specified as Stealth and Perception? Because players are supposed to declare actions, not skill use, how would that be phrased? "When the DM requires you to make simultaneous Stealth and Perception checks..."

Blah.

But this works great if we declare goal and approach, and DM adjudicates.

"I'm going to try to slip through the crowd unnoticed, while keeping an eye out to see if anybody suspicious is watching the bridge."
"How are you trying to be unnoticed?"
"I'll keep my eyes down and try not to make eye contact with people?"
"You can't really do that and look around for suspicious people at the same time. I'll let you pick one or the other, otherwise you're not going to do either one very well."
"Fine, I'll look around."
"As you scan from one person to the next, your eyes meet those of somebody standing on the bridge. He stares straight at you."
"Oh crap. I'll casually let me eyes drift away and keep going, but try to watch him with my peripheral vision."
"That you can do. He leaves the bridge and is walking in a direction that will intercept yours. You seem him wave a hand, as if signalling to somebody."
"Crap crap crap. I'm going to try to move near a denser knot of people, then duck and see if I can slip away unseen."
"Toward the bridge, or away from it?"
"Away from it. I'll come back later with a different plan."
"Gimme a Dexterity check."
"Cool. Can I use my Stealth proficiency?"
"Yes, that seems appropriate."

EDIT:
Wait. I want to change that. (See, I need to practice...)
"Away from it. I'll come back later with a different plan."
"Ok, you find a knot of people and pull a slick move. A couple of passersby look at you funny, but if you stay low you can move between carts and groups of people and stuff toward an alley."
"Do they see me?"
"What do you do to find out?"
"I look back and....oh, wait, no. Crap. I head for an alley and duck in."
"It's a dead-end alley, with nothing in it."
"Oh no. I go to the end, put my back to the wall, and draw my sword."
"Oh, let's have a Dexterity roll to see if you escaped unseen."
"Can I use Stealth proficiency?"
"Definitely."

 

[iserith]

@Elfcrusher if you want to further refine that, you can try to stop yourself from doing "you-oriented" description (step 1) or narration (step 3). Describe the environment as it is. Narrate the effects of the player's approach to the goal without saying what the character does - that's for the player to do. One trick for doing that is to try not to start a sentence off with "you." It's harder than one would think, but it's got a good payoff.

Offloading to players what players should be describing ultimately makes it easier on the DM. A lot of DMs say that DMing is hard and there's a lot to juggle. Well, maybe, but it's definitely true if the players aren't holding up their end of the conversation!

 

[Guest 6801328]

Good advice. I'm trying to edit my narrative, but I think we're all experiencing issues with the website.

 

[Celebrim]

The player describes what he or she wants to do, being reasonably specific as to what the character hopes to achieve and how he or she goes about it. The DM then calls for an ability check only if there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure then narrates the result of the adventurer's action.

Which leaves us in a spot where almost everyone agrees over the majority of the process, which explains to a large extent why we found it necessary to argue over minor issues like whether the check was made in the open or in secret, or whether wait until the critical moment just before failure, or go ahead and get the check out of the way and let it ride. It also leaves us in a spot where nothing much that is being said would deviate from Gygax's example of play in the 1e AD&D DMG.