D&D 5E (2014) Consequences of Failure

[FrogReaver]

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!

I know you were trying to make a tongue in cheek response, but seriously, what the heck are you even going on about with this one?

 

[Charlaquin]

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).

I would argue that determining if success or failure occur without need for a roll is part of the process of determining a fair DC.

 

[Xetheral]

Most of the time, if all a player tells me is an approach, I can surmise their goal. As you probably know, I don’t like making those assumptions, so I set the expectation ahead of time that actions be framed in terms of goal and approach. But yeah, if all you say is “I try to pick the lock,” I can resolve that. If a player tells me a goal without an approach, such as “I check for traps” (that’s a goal - find out if there are traps), I can’t supply an approach for them without overstepping what I consider to be my role as DM. If a player tells me they make a History check or asks if they can make a History check, that doesn’t tell me their goal or their approach, only what Proficiency they think will help them achieve their goal.

To clarify, are you saying that "I try to open the door by picking the lock" is a valid action declaration at your table, but that "I try to make sure that the passageway is safe by checking for traps" is not? If that is what you're saying, I'm not sure I see why one is valid and the other isn't. If that's not what you are saying, could you please clarify?

 

[FrogReaver]

I would argue that determining if success or failure occur without need for a roll is part of the process of determining a fair DC.

In the infamous wedgie example is there anything to use to determine auto success or auto failure?

 

[Campbell]

Regardless of the game GM judgement and developing strong creative relationships with the other players is crucial to a positive experience. The sorts of judgement calls may be different from game to game, depending on what the GM's agenda is supposed to be. This includes Dungeons and Dragons, but all other games like Blades in the Dark, Apocalypse World, and others.

For my part I like to delve into the details of the fiction so I can get as clear a picture as possible so I can fairly set a DC and adjudicate consequences. I likely call for far more rolls than some advocates of Goal and Approach, but that has nothing to do with avoiding needing to exercise judgement. I like the shared dramatic tension that goes along with rolling them bones. I like giving up some control and seeing what happens. However, I am making at least as many judgement calls as any other GM.

Please do not make this about trust issues. For me it is not about that at all.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I know you were trying to make a tongue in cheek response, but seriously, what the heck are you even going on about with this one?

Just that I think it's silly that we need dice to be "fair" but we trust the DM to pick a "fair" DC.

I don't think it's about fairness at all.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

I have no problem with this. My problem is that it can't be detected prior to so that the player had a chance to know that this outcome was likely. Again, no-stakes turn into stakes because of a bad die roll is not my preference.

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.

Yup, I get this, and understand your reasoning. My preference, though, is for the world to be discoverable rather than hidden. And part of that is making it so that consequences can be discovered in play rather than created as needed after the roll. Again, understand your position, get that you have fun with it, ran that way for decades myself, don't like it anymore.

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.

That's weird. That's exactly what I get from you. That you have a strong sense that anyone advocating goal and approach is secretly (or not so secretly) advocating one-true-wayism and is trying to banish how you play to... I don't know where because I lack access to where the secret game police send wrong-players. Of course, I think the secret game police are just a conspiracy theory and there are no wrong players, except those that don't have fun or actively reduce others' fun. And, for the record, I do not count you among their number.

 

[Maxperson]

I cannot imagine a purely narrative scenario playing out like this without risking the player being upset. I think an abbreviated version could go something like:

player: "I sneak up behind him"​

DM: "Then what?"​

player: "I give him a monster wedgie"​

DM: "He grabs your hand, twists you around and gives YOU a wedgie while laughing!"​

player: "Why do you hate me?"​

​

​

player: "I sneak up behind him"
DM: "Then what?"
player: "I give him a monster wedgie"
DM: "He grabs your hand, twists you around and gives YOU a wedgie while laughing!"
player: "Why do you hate me?"
DM: "He was a Solar with 20 Monk levels. You should be careful about who you try to give a wedgie to. You're lucky he had a sense of humor."

Sometimes things are so far out of your weight class that no roll is needed for something like that.

 

[FrogReaver]

Just that I think it's silly that we need dice to be "fair" but we trust the DM to pick a "fair" DC.

I don't think it's about fairness at all.

A big part of fairness is avoiding unnecessary arbitrariness.

In the wedgie example. A DM just choosing auto failure would have been totally arbitrary.

In the wedgie example, allowing a random process to determine the outcome takes away the arbitrariness. It's relatively easy for the DM to pick a "fair" DC. Since this is supposed to represent a random person then taking an average persons perception or dexterity would be a great place to start. While we all won't necessarily come up with the same DC, we didn't arbitrarily assign it.

 

[FrogReaver]

​

​

player: "I sneak up behind him"
DM: "Then what?"
player: "I give him a monster wedgie"
DM: "He grabs your hand, twists you around and gives YOU a wedgie while laughing!"
player: "Why do you hate me?"
DM: "He was a Solar with 20 Monk levels. You should be careful about who you try to give a wedgie to. You're lucky he had a sense of humor."

Sometimes things are so far out of your weight class that no roll is needed for something like that.

Sure, but the act of arbitrarily having the random person he went to give a wedgie to being a level 20 Solar Monk is the problem being talked about. That's the basis for the Player to DM: "Why do you hate me" response