D&D 5E (2014) Consequences of Failure

[5ekyu]

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 agree with this absolutely and I myself font adhere to the stated positions on the meaningful consequence "style".

To me, the poles me in the eye most likely "lack of ARTistry" in the GMs art shown there is the "must find" part.

A general goal or expression of "'term of art" I use is what I call "The Three R's" (which, unlike the more traditional use of this term, mine all actually start with R)

A scenario and encounter of any non-trivial nature worth of its screen-time has to be Robust, Reactive and Resilient.
Robust means its offers up a variety of options and objectives - not just one way to get one thing. If it's not robust, waste little or no time there,
Reactive means it will see its nature and circumstances change depending on what is happening and what the PCs are doing.
Resilient means every outcome leads somewhere and you are fine if that happens.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

It's no more an art than, say, engineering an assembly line or designing code. It's just a nice sounding platitude for technique, practice, and a dash of judgement. Under this pretense, race car driving is an art.

And, yes, I'm very aware you can make the art argument for everything all of thise examples, hence why I said it was an empty statement.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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?

Do I need to remind you hiw the last time you assumed my emotional state worked out?

I gave disagreed with a thing you have posted in a thread where you have said many things. I wouldn't get upset.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Mom’s spaghetti.

Some opportunities only come once in a lifetime, you know.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's no more an art than, say, engineering an assembly line or designing code. It's just a nice sounding platitude for technique, practice, and a dash of judgement. Under this pretense, race car driving is an art.

And, yes, I'm very aware you can make the art argument for everything all of thise examples, hence why I said it was an empty statement.

Oh, engineering and coding are absolutely arts! There’s a reason there’s been a big push to change from STEM to STEAM. Race car driving I’m less sold on. Car maintenance, absolutely, but driving? Eh, I’d call that a sport more than an art.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's no more an art than, say, engineering an assembly line or designing code. It's just a nice sounding platitude for technique, practice, and a dash of judgement. Under this pretense, race car driving is an art.

And, yes, I'm very aware you can make the art argument for everything all of thise examples, hence why I said it was an empty statement.

When you are given a big list of techniques and building blocks and given the option to use them however you like, but no one can say for sure when to use each technique and when not to then there's not any objectiveness to that pursuit, the correct techniques and when to use them for that design are subjective. They are based on the desires of the designer and the group he is designing for. That's Art.

If you are determining which bridge design will be the cheapest to build then that's an engineering problem. If you are determining if the given bridge design is sound and won't fail then that's engineering. If you are trying to pick between a nicer looking bridge that costs more and a cheaper bridge that costs less and both of them are sound, then that's a subjective valuation of art.

In our case, DMing is much more about choosing the technique we and our group will be happy with than it is about optimizing or determining soundness and stability.

The distinction is pretty clear to me.

 

[FrogReaver]

Oh, engineering and coding are absolutely arts! There’s a reason there’s been a big push to change from STEM to STEAM. Race car driving I’m less sold on. Car maintenance, absolutely, but driving? Eh, I’d call that a sport more than an art.

There's definitely artistic parts of nearly any job or discipline, but on a whole anything that's using applied mathematics or an algorithm to reach an objective answer then that's not something I'd call art.

That said, actually deciding how to solve the math problem or how to design the algorithm was something I'd classify more as art.

 

[FrogReaver]

Do I need to remind you hiw the last time you assumed my emotional state worked out?

I gave disagreed with a thing you have posted in a thread where you have said many things. I wouldn't get upset.

It's just an observation, but those we tend to disagree with, we tend to see the absolute worst in all their opinions. I think we all have done that before.

By the way, when you take something someone said and twist it around to such an extent that they fully disagree with the position you are representing as theirs then that's not simply disagreeing with them.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
A scenario and encounter of any non-trivial nature worth of its screen-time has to be Robust, Reactive and Resilient.
Robust means its offers up a variety of options and objectives - not just one way to get one thing. If it's not robust, waste little or no time there,
Reactive means it will see its nature and circumstances change depending on what is happening and what the PCs are doing.
Resilient means every outcome leads somewhere and you are fine if that happens.

In the interests of not being a total douche, I just want to say that I totally agree with the above and it's very well said.

Another quote from the boards from many years ago always stuck in my head. I cannot for the life of me remember the poster's name, but, her quote always stuck with me: "I provide the script, the dice provide the direction". To me, it's that random element that the dice provide which results in more compelling games. Simply deciding one way or the other, either as a player or a DM, feels too intrusive to me. Too much like writing a novel and not enough like playing a game.

 

[iserith]

Even a game wherein player decisions influence whether or not dice are employed to resolve the outcome will not lack for dice rolls. If the players are portraying adventurers boldly confronting deadly perils, some rolls will be unavoidable, particularly attack rolls and saving throws. Some ability checks might be able to be obviated by smart play, but not all, since removing the uncertainty as to the outcome and/or the meaningful consequence for failure (the prerequisites of a check) may not be within the character's control. Plus, there are also cases when a player will choose to take the risk for a dramatic payoff rather than work to remove the risk and a resulting "cool" moment.

So if the argument against employing the rules related to only calling for a check when there's a meaningful consequence for failure is "That means I won't have dice rolls in my game..." or that they will somehow will drastically reduced, that's a bad argument because it's simply not true in any meaningful way. For anyone making that argument: You may want to come up with something else.

See also "The Middle Path" in the DMG, p. 236-237.