D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[FrogReaver]

I explained that the specifics of what counts of low stakes for me doesn't matter, because I'd not most likely never ask for a roll for low stakes events. I'm now asked why I ever started arguing what constitutes low stakes events.

I stand confused, as I never argued about what does or does not constitute low stakes in general, nor do I consider that a useful question. Perhaps you've lost the thread on this?

This is a discussion between 2 people and for one of us (that'd be me) it's a very helpful question to know the answer to. So since you obviously don't want to continue this discussion, let me help you out. It's over.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Depends on the PC.

With some I just assume incompetence, and then am still surprised at how bad it really gets.

More seriously, what's wrong with narrating a bad failure as simply "You blew it"? Just as in real life, sometimes there's no other way to put it...at least, not without sailing awfully close to the wind when it comes to telling the truth...

 

[FrogReaver]

Right, so I’d call that an approach, but if I recall correctly, the context was that a buddy in the bar dared this hypothetical PC to do it, so I’ll assume the goal is to prove you’ve got the stones?

Yeah, I think success without a check is appropriate here.

“The man’s undergarments resist the pull, but come up a good way past his waistband. ‘Oi, what the hell do you think you’re doing?’ he demands as he stands up and turns to face you. What do you do?”

I think you've missed the point of the example somewhere along the way. The discussion was about whether the goal and approach method could yield the same fiction as the die roll method in this approach.

Under the die roll method we were considering the state of failure because for a few of us unexpected failures, especially at no stakes/low stakes interactions are fun. That's where the reverse wedgie came up.

So the question isn't whether you can play it out as a success. It works fine that way. The question we were exploring is what the goal and approach method was missing out on. The answer is a fun failure state for no stakes/low stakes interactions.

 

[FrogReaver]

Really? I thought this whole (moronic) wedgie-fest was just a gag. Low or no stakes, just screwing around. Etc.

So why does it matter if the guy in the bar turns out to be a wedgie master?

Because it would point toward unacceptable DM'ing behavior. AKA signs of a bad DM.

 

[Oofta]

So we went from a silly example with no real consequence to a discussion of how I might handle something with uncertain outcome by using dice to the encounter happening on the 9 planes and the commoner being a 20th level monk.

Yep, par for the course. People have different styles. Big deal.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think you've missed the point of the example somewhere along the way. The discussion was about whether the goal and approach method could yield the same fiction as the die roll method in this approach.

Under the die roll method we were considering the state of failure because for a few of us unexpected failures, especially at no stakes/low stakes interactions are fun. That's where the reverse wedgie came up.

So the question isn't whether you can play it out as a success. It works fine that way. The question we were exploring is what the goal and approach method was missing out on. The answer is a fun failure state for no stakes/low stakes interactions.

To be honest, I wouldn’t describe not having my character wedgied by random NPCs because I rolled a natural 1 as “missing out.”

 

[Lanefan]

Another thing to keep in mind is that things become less specific as the campaign goes along simply due to the players and DM eventually coming to realize what the SOP is when a character does something she's likely going to be doing a lot - such as a Thief searching for traps on a door.

So yes, the first however-many times the Thief searches for traps on a door the DM can ask for specifics, but after those however-many times both the player and DM are going to be familiar enough with this character's trap-checking routine that simply saying "I check the door for traps" will build in most if not all of the specific details and things can go on from there.

 

[FrogReaver]

To be honest, I wouldn’t describe not having my character wedgied by random NPCs because I rolled a natural 1 as “missing out.”

I would. But ultimately I'm sure we could find some low/no stakes example that I could care less about missing out on and you would find extremely fun.

The point isn't about wedgies specifically, it's the broader context of - does there exist fun fail states that cannot be achieved by an extreme level of the goal and approach with auto success or failure for low/no stakes events. I think the answer there is assuredly yes.

To me that points to a method that uses liberal doses of goal and approach with auto success and failure for low/no stakes events while still maintaining a healthy amount of dice rolling for low/no stakes events as well.

 

[Lanefan]

Because it would point toward unacceptable DM'ing behavior. AKA signs of a bad DM.

How so?

I seem to recall that in the original example the DM (or the player?) even rolled to see how badass the target happened to be, and in the example got pretty much the badassiest possible result; followed by the best when the target took it all in good humour and just repaid the wedgie with a little interest.

A bad DM would just arbitrarily decide the target was a mega-level Monk. A good DM rolls some dice to see what the target's made of, and runs with the result.

 

[iserith]

Another thing to keep in mind is that things become less specific as the campaign goes along simply due to the players and DM eventually coming to realize what the SOP is when a character does something she's likely going to be doing a lot - such as a Thief searching for traps on a door.

So yes, the first however-many times the Thief searches for traps on a door the DM can ask for specifics, but after those however-many times both the player and DM are going to be familiar enough with this character's trap-checking routine that simply saying "I check the door for traps" will build in most if not all of the specific details and things can go on from there.

In my game, a player is likely to be searching a door for traps because I've described the environment to include something of note about the door. Maybe the detail indicates the presence of a trap or maybe it's something else entirely. Perhaps the player describes the character as investigating it further. Or maybe he or she doesn't. But a player is almost never going to search a door for traps as some sort of standard door procedure in my game.