D&D 5E (2014) Consequences of Failure

[Charlaquin]

Yea, things like that happen far to often. It's because DMing is an ART. It's about applying the right technique at the right time. Better DM's are better because they have mastered that ART.

If it's something the PC's must find then don't have them check to find it, or if you do make failure be a success with a setback.

I’m with you there.

As a heads-up, you might want to read the last paragraph of my post again, I hit send too early and it looks like you quoted the original version rather than the edited version.

 

[FrogReaver]

I prefer “character building decisions” and “moment to moment decisions” over “character skill” and “player skill”, respectively. But I agree that a mix of both having an impact on your chances of success is desirable. In my experience, most people prefer one have a greater influence on chances of success than the other, though it’s of course a spectrum. Personally I prefer moment to moment decisions be the primary factor, and character building decisions to be the “insurance against failure,” as Iserith puts it. The real question is, how much of role should the random element of the dice play? And here I think we get a lot more disagreement. Personally, I prefer their role be as minimal as possible, only coming into play when an outcome cannot easily be fairly determined without them. But many people really like the thrill that random element can introduce, and many like the creative exercise of interpreting the details of an action based on its randomly generated outcome.

I think the dice make the game. I want auto successes and auto failure, but for most of the meaningful things the characters try to do in the world (and even a number of non-meaningful things) there's always opposition. To me it's only fair to have the dice decide when them and the opposition are relatively evenly matched.

Though, I do think I will probably be looking for more opportunities to use success and success with a setback. I think I underutilize that tool and I think it's something that would really enhance my games.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think the dice make the game. I want auto successes and auto failure, but for most of the meaningful things the characters try to do in the world (and even a number of non-meaningful things) there's always opposition. To me it's only fair to have the dice decide when them and the opposition are relatively evenly matched.

Though, I do think I will probably be looking for more opportunities to use success and success with a setback. I think I underutilize that tool and I think it's something that would really enhance my games.

Hey, look at that! One of these debates actually helped someone think of a way they might be able to their game!

 

[FrogReaver]

I think one of the best time to use auto success is when you don't want to gate PC's ability to get into a situation, but test their ability to get out of it. At some point there will be plenty of dice with the opposition testing them, but in order to frame the scene and get the real challenge I want set up, I can use the auto success technique to get them there. That's something else I need to try.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yea, things like that happen far to often. It's because DMing is an ART. It's about applying the right technique at the right time. Better DM's are better because they have mastered that ART.

If it's something the PC's must find then don't have them check to find it, or if you do make failure be a success with a setback.

DMing is as much of an ART as being a player, though. This is an empty statement that tries to put on the cloak of ineffable mystery to obfuscate that there are quite a lot of systemizable approaches that do a very good job of presenting a good game. Is everyone Shakespeare? No, but you don't have to be to entertain your friends.

 

[FrogReaver]

DMing is as much of an ART as being a player, though. This is an empty statement that tries to put on the cloak of ineffable mystery to obfuscate that there are quite a lot of systemizable approaches that do a very good job of presenting a good game. Is everyone Shakespeare? No, but you don't have to be to entertain your friends.

You apparently don't like me and seem to think the worst of anything I say.

I'm not trying to say there aren't tecniques and approaches you can take to become a better artist or a better DM. Why the heck would you think anyone thinks that?

 

[Charlaquin]

DMing is as much of an ART as being a player, though. This is an empty statement that tries to put on the cloak of ineffable mystery to obfuscate that there are quite a lot of systemizable approaches that do a very good job of presenting a good game. Is everyone Shakespeare? No, but you don't have to be to entertain your friends.

I dunno, I do think DMing is an art. And like any art, doing it well requires a combination of talent, technique, and practice. And really, talent is largely just technique that isn’t obvious to an outside observer.

 

[Oofta]

While likening a kid forging his signature to a proficient forger doing a fake doc is sketchy, even as a kid I did the signature several times, especially if I had something to go by. If we had other folks in on it they would look at it too.

At a professional level most folks review their work and while it's not always perfect or their best work, often the really bad mistakes are caught by either their own review or other review before release.

And yes, PCs font "know the roll" but they should be able to 9bserve the products and make assessment.

Let me ask this another way...

A battle master is in combat with a foe. The battlemaster rolls a natural 19 and missed (narrated however you do that thing.)
If that player then decided "oh crap, this is not gonna work. I need ax20" and changes tactics - is that forbidden or considered inappropriate at your table? Do you tell that player "The PC is not aware of the roll."
If that same player rolled a natural 2, treats it like " just a bad effort" and keeps swinging, do you tell them "The PC is not aware of the roll."

Obviously, whether or not the forgery us good enough to get past a given guard or inspector is uncertain, but to me it seems that whether or not its even close to a decent forgery would be known to a proficient forger, even if not a kid skipping school.

I try to be consistent in what things can be rerolled for skills and what can't. Forgery is generally one of those things you only get one shot (same as most knowledge checks, medicine, and a few others) On the other hand if you have a copy of the document or signature right in front of you and no time constraint, I handle it as the DC for the average viewer being lower. But if you or your allies have only seen that signature in passing, there's only so much you can do and the DC will be higher. The person looking at the document also matters, even someone trained in forgery is going to have a difficult time passing off a work of art if it's inspected by a specialist. A fake badge or writ of authority to a commoner who has never seen one in real life? That's going to be easy, probably automatic. My principal on the other hand? Zone of truth.

I guess you could run it the other way as well and if you have unlimited time and resources just assume you try until you get a 20 if you have a copy to go from. Forgery is kind of an edge case that doesn't come up very often in my games.

As for combat rolls, I'm pretty open about those numbers. after the first round our so I'll go so far as to give everybody target ACs.

 

[Charlaquin]

Forgery is generally one of those things you only get one shot (same as most knowledge checks, medicine, and a few others)

Mom’s spaghetti.

 

[Celebrim]

Myself, I prefer the order be moment to moment decisions > character building decisions > random chance.

I don't know that I can weight them so easily, but I'm pretty close to the order player decisions > random chance > character building decisions. And the reason for that is I find all RPG systems break down as the influence of random chance diminishes, typically as a result of the modifier that a character has becoming large relative to the range of random chance. Add to that the related problem of the size of character modifiers diverging as characters increase in power, and it turns out what people define of us as "the sweet spot" is a range where the game is placed such that moment by moment decisions are greater than random chance but character building decisions are smaller than it.

But even if you don't quite buy that, I think all three have to be present to have an RPG.