D&D 5E (2014) Consequences of Failure

[Harzel]

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?"

Because you prefer playing in good faith? Your PC has no idea what you rolled.

 

[iserith]

Because you prefer playing in good faith? Your PC has no idea what you rolled.

So the solution to the DM making what I would consider a bad call means the player is now obligated to play a certain way? I think I'll pass on that one.

If the DM just calls for the ability check when it actually matters - such as when the PC hands the forged documents to the relevant NPC to achieve the goal he or she set out to achieve - then this all works just fine.

 

[Bawylie]

@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!

It’s extremely hard to expunge 2nd person narrative. Especially if you’re just starting.

I don’t find it worth the payoff at all, apart from writing boxed-text.

That said, if you want to start, try 3rd person instead of second first. That will get your narrative off “you.” And then when you’re used to that, try shifting further away from PC actions and onto the reactions instead. The best case, IMO is to get to something like “Axl’s attack is devastating and the orc reels from the thunderous blow” instead of “your attack devastates the orc and sends it reeling.” And “Terry’s search is thorough but there don’t appear to be any secret doors here” instead of “you search thoroughly but fail to find any secret doors.”

For me, if I try to employ this, a hard 3rd person frame with light action recapping does the trick and helps me avoid narrating an action a player didn’t intend to take. And THAT, IMO, is the biggest benefit to dropping 2nd person - not stepping on the players’ narrative toes. But my god, it’s not an easy habit to just drop.

 

[iserith]

For me, if I try to employ this, a hard 3rd person frame with light action recapping does the trick and helps me avoid narrating an action a player didn’t intend to take. And THAT, IMO, is the biggest benefit to dropping 2nd person - not stepping on the players’ narrative toes. But my god, it’s not an easy habit to just drop.

Yes, it's a technique to prevent the DM from establishing what the character is doing. It forces you to narrate what happens as a result and keeps what the character does in the player's hands during their step in the conversation of the game. That's a good payoff in my view. Get the players to do what they're supposed to do and keep the DM from doing it for them.

 

[Charlaquin]

So, just for clarity, I'm assuming that by "The other" you mean the practice of having the player make a Stealth check as soon as they declare their intention to try to hide or to move stealthily. And you somehow think that that can lead to the player "retrying". Also, IIRC it has been asserted (either by you or by someone else arguing along the same lines) that if the player doesn't get to "retry", then the DM must be constraining the PC's actions.

That would be a correct assumption.

1) I'm not sure if it was you, but previously we have been treated to a high degree of scorn for bringing into the discussion the assumption that a player might do something that could be viewed as playing in bad faith. A player making declarations to try to game the DM to give them 'retries' seems like pretty bad faith.

Wasn't me, although I do think it's better to assume good faith from one's fellow gamers whenever possible.

2) But more importantly, this would seem to require that either a) the player is calling for checks, or b) somehow the DM has been relieved of the authority to determine how and when to invoke the game mechanics. At my table at least, the players do not call for checks, and, if I have asked for a Stealth check 'in advance', as you might see it, the player can have the PC do anything they want and I will decide when and if another Stealth check is to be made. I suppose that phrasing might sound a little authoritarian, but that process seems to me to be solidly within normal DM purview and not at all remarkable. Is there something about that that is unusual or that you consider undesirable or controversial? If not, then why bring up this nonproblem?

I see what you mean. So, my comment about a player asking to try again was more referring to games in which players can ask for checks whenever they like. In such a game, if the player got a low result on a stealth check and asked to make another and the DM said no... I would find that pretty dissatisfying as a player. But "goal and approach" sidesteps this particular problem, which is one of the reasons I like that style. It sounds like at your table, like at mine, the players are not asking for checks, but rather are describing actions, and you as DM are calling for checks when you deem them necessary to resolve the actions the players describe. So, yeah, this would prevent the player from seeing the low result of a stealth check and saying "I roll again."

All that said, BTW, even though I am in the habit of calling for Stealth checks 'prospectively', I actually am finding the at-the-moment-it-matters approach appealing. I kind of hope there is additional discussion of how to finesse the metagaming issue that doesn't bother you, because it does bother me, mainly because it would bother me as a player.

Assuming we are using goal and approach framework, and the question is just one of when to call for a Stealth check, there's the potential for the player to gain access to out of character information either way. If you call for the check "in advance," the player might see that they've rolled low, realize that they are unlikely to go unnoticed if there is something that might detect them, and decide to change tactics. If instead you call for the check only when it is relevant, this is no longer a problem. It does, theoretically, introduce a new problem where, if you later call for a stealth check, the player will know that there's something nearby that might spot them.

So, if you are concerned with "metagame thinking," either approach presents a problem, and it's a question of which you find more problematic. I would argue that the latter is less of a problem because the result of metagame thinking in that scenario is that the character either starts looking for creatures that might be looking for them, or shores up their efforts at hiding. Both things I don't think it is unreasonable for the character to do, whether they are aware of the presence of other creatures or not. The result of metagame thinking in the former scenario is that the character starts trying to hide, and then changes their mind for no clear in-fiction reason.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Because you prefer playing in good faith? Your PC has no idea what you rolled.

Oh, I see.

Earlier in this thread somebody else said that "I should know if I'm being stealthy", or something to that effect, implying that if a character rolls low they would know it.

So I can see both sides of that coin.

A. Yes, the character should know if they are in general being stealthy, and presumably make sure they are.
B. No, the do not know if they are being stealthy enough to evade whoever might be looking for them.

Or, in the case of my forgery, what looks good to me (or my character) might not be good enough for the person who is going to inspect it. But presumably I would keep trying until it meets the first criterion, so what's the purpose of rolling at the point?

Which is another persuasive argument (or a reconfiguration of the same argument) about why it's just better to wait until the critical moment and then roll.

"Sure, it takes a few tries but you eventually produce a document that looks good to your experienced eye." No roll needed.

 

[Maxperson]

Sorry? How about this. Everyone who thinks telegraphs should be overt enough that players never fail to pick up on them, say aye.

They should be subtle enough that they can be missed, but present enough for everyone to say, "Why didn't I see that?" when the trap or whatever happens.

 

[Charlaquin]

They should be subtle enough that they can be missed, but present enough for everyone to say, "Why didn't I see that?" when the trap or whatever happens.

I think I agree. I look at the soulsborne games as my exemplar of “challenging but fair” telegraphing.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I think you're off just a little bit. This, "But if the player attempts something with consequence, and fails, they are worse off than if they hadn't attempted it." isn't necessarily true. Sometimes being where you started is itself a meaningful consequence.

Sorry, Max, took me a while to get back to this.

We've gone through this a bunch already in this thread, but I'll summarize my position:

First, a consequence can be good or bad, but it has to be something that is the result of something else. So if the game state is the same after a failed attempt, there is nothing that resulted from the failed attempt, so pretty much by definition there is no consequence.

But terminology and definitions aside, let's talk about impact on gameplay.

Upthread FrogReaver proposed that if you can't try again, the game state has changed because now you don't have that option. And I agree, that is a consequence.* But not really a useful one, because the purpose (or my purpose) of having a consequence is to give the player a risk:reward calculation to make. And (assuming the odds aren't going to change in the future, which was also discussed) it's not really a "risk" to use your one shot, because not trying has the same value as not being able to try.

(I'm sorta wishing I remembered more from symbolic logic, because I'm betting this could all be expressed really elegantly.)

*It's also, to me, an unsatisfying consequence, because it relies on metagame mechanics divorced from the fiction. I'd much rather have an in-game consequence.

 

[Oofta]

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?"

As a DM there are a lot of things I just don't allow rerolls on. Forgery would be one of those, it represented your best attempt unless something changes.