D&D 5E (2014) Consequences of Failure

[FrogReaver]

I agree. I'd also say that if this happened because I rolled poorly, I'd also be upset. The problem in both situations is, to me, the lack of information that this is possible. I can see situations where it could happen, both ways, but that would depend on earlier failures to notice that this patron is, in fact, a badass that shouldn't be messed with.

I don't get being upset at the situation if you failed and gotten a wedgie in return. I mean are you really wanting to play out the whole wedgie minigame? Or were you just wanting to do something silly and spontaneous to see what happened?

 

[Oofta]

Mine isn't, either. I didn't say scientific theorem or mathematical formula. I talked about being explicit with the stakes of a roll prior to the roll and how not doing this means that all at the table can think a roll is low stakes but that a great or bad roll might push the DM to introducing stakes after the roll. This can lead to exciting new developments that everyone loves or resentment on the player's side because their high level fighter is now getting wedgied by random bar patron #4 (Old Guy), or something in between. If it works for you, great. I'm trying to discuss what it actually looks like in a more formal way because that way we can actually discuss play rather than bat back and forth at each other's strawmen.

Again, if it works for your group, enjoyment is the only and last criterion for good play. If you don't want to take apart how you play, examine the pieces, and figure out what it is you're doing moment to moment so you can maybe make some changes (or not, because you like it how it is) then I really don't understand why you keep participating in threads where this is the topic of the thread. I've been frustrated a few times in these threads by people creating strawmen of my positions, but never once because you may or may not approve of my play. You do you.

So let me rephrase. I make the outcome of a failure dependent on logic and the scene. Sometimes the players know the risks, sometimes they don't depending on what makes sense. PCs can't just do whatever they want in my world, NPCs are going to react appropriate to their demeanor and their own personal goals.

In the case of the wedgie (kind of sounds like a bad mystery novel, doesn't it?) it's a random NPC therefore they are going to have a random demeanor and undefined response.

It is rare that players know the exact cost of failure, they usually have a general idea, sometimes they have no clue. There's a trap with a timer on it and they fail to disarm it? All they know before hand is that they failed. They may be transported to another dimension, there may be an explosion, an alarm or nothing at all because it's a really old trap that hasn't been maintained.

I keep participating because I get a strong sense of one true way-ism from some people. Because I want lurkers to know that there are multiple different ways of playing.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Southerners don't snicker at misspelled words

Oh, bless your heart!

So there's the issue. You are trying to make out Bob getting a wedgie back as some kind of "high stakes" scenario when it isn't. That's why we are talking past each other on this one. Bob getting humiliated in this situation has no real bearing on really anything else besides the characters and possibly players ego. It's as low stakes an event as they come. If this is counted as a high stakes event then your rolling for pretty much everything just like I am and our difference is purely semantic. I don't think that's really what's going on though. I think there are a few pretty major differences and I think trying to portray a wedgie reversal is exactly what I was talking about in the previous post.

Okay, maybe we are talking past each other because I'd consider a random bar patron being able to effortlessly reverse my sneaky wedgie and hoist me up in front of everyone as pretty humiliating and therefore high stakes. To me, this implies that my character is inept (random bar dudes can easily outfight me) and exposes my character to being a laughingstock. I'd be upset that this wasn't telegraphed or explicit as a possible outcome.

Clearly, you think this isn't at all a big deal. I think this speaks to the tones of our games and what we prefer. I tend to dislike farce in play, so, honestly, this whole thing isn't my bag.

 

[FrogReaver]

Oh, bless your heart!


Okay, maybe we are talking past each other because I'd consider a random bar patron being able to effortlessly reverse my sneaky wedgie and hoist me up in front of everyone as pretty humiliating and therefore high stakes. To me, this implies that my character is inept (random bar dudes can easily outfight me) and exposes my character to being a laughingstock. I'd be upset that this wasn't telegraphed or explicit as a possible outcome.

Clearly, you think this isn't at all a big deal. I think this speaks to the tones of our games and what we prefer. I tend to dislike farce in play, so, honestly, this whole thing isn't my bag.

Maybe start here, what would you consider a low stakes event?

 

[iserith]

I am all for consequences, but describing failure in terms of PC incompetence is never really a good idea. In general it is far better to either play up their opposition or the circumstances. You would have gotten it, but the hill is just too steep or you would have gotten, but this guy is just too strong.

Assume competence.

It's also easy to assume competence as DM when the players are competently describing what they want to do such that it doesn't make sense for the DM to then narrate incompetence after an action fails.

I keep going on about this, but if there are actually any players reading this far into the thread: Help your DM to avoid this by being reasonably specific about what you want to do.

 

[Charlaquin]

But it's still safe to say that a fairly chosen DC would lead to a fair dice based outcome? right?

I certainly think so.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I keep participating because I get a strong sense of one true way-ism from some people.

OMG that's so strange...I DO TOO!

People keep trying to prove my way wouldn't work by proposing these weird scenarios. It's like...they believe in one true way, or something.

 

[Guest 6801328]

But it's still safe to say that a fairly chosen DC would lead to a fair dice based outcome? right?

But if we can't rely on DMs to be fair, we'd better roll for the DC.

First, roll 1d20 for the DC. Then make an ability check to see if you beat it!

 

[FrogReaver]

I certainly think so.

So then we have

1. DM picks a fair DC, calls for roll, player fails but is okay with it because the roll and the DC seemed to be fair

2. DM determines auto failure. The player is upset because it appears the DM arbitrarily chose for his PC to fail.

That's the juxtaposition of failure while rolling and failure while not rolling in such a low stakes situation. It gets even worse in a high stakes situation (but thankfully everyone seems to be advocating for rolling in that situation).

 

[Charlaquin]

OMG that's so strange...I DO TOO!

People keep trying to prove my way wouldn't work by proposing these weird scenarios. It's like...they believe in one true way, or something.

Has anyone actually said they don’t think hits way would work, or is that something you’re just assuming they’re trying to prove?