D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Maxperson]

I would agree if it were "just to get at a PC" but this isn't causing any harm, right? It's just...funny.

Of course, the problem here may be that I can't imagine finding the whole wedgie-a-stranger-in-a-bar thing to be anything but an annoying waste of time in the first place, so maybe my sense of humor just doesn't extend here.

This is really group dependent. My players have always loved to just do things that people do, even if those things have nothing to do with the game. Sometimes they go to the bar to pick someone up. Sometimes to see if there is anyone gambling or just to play a game of darts. While I've never seen a wedgie happen, I suppose a practical jokester type might try it sometime. These things are not a waste of time and space if the players enjoy them. The game's primary goal is enjoyment.

Anyway, getting back on topic, in tonight's session the DM (who in generally called for lots of exactly the sort of "skill checks" we've been discussing) called for a Survival check to determine how well we tied knots on defeated opponents.

This is an interesting one (for me). How do you determine if the knots prevent the captives from successfully escaping after you're gone? Let's say the consequence of failure is that the captives are going to attack the players in the middle of a later combat. I suppose you could, in the middle of that combat, suddenly ask the relevant player to make an ability check to see how well the knots were tied. Everybody says, "Uh-oh", and if the check fails the former captives burst in.

But if the check succeeds they now know the knots are fine, and the captives are still secure. I don't love that because I'd rather have the players continue to wonder/worry about it. I mean, it's not the end of the world if they find out, but not my preference.

So it's kind of like the examples where the characters perform a task with competence...forgery or stealth or whatever...and you only roll at the point where they would find out if they were competent enough, except that in this case if the succeed they still wouldn't actually know the outcome.

Thoughts?

I have a few thoughts.

First, a knot. successful or not, doesn't prevent a captive from escaping. It's just one obstacle to escape. Even if the knots work, the captives might be able to scoot back to back and undo each others knots. Someone else might walk in and free them. One might be strong enough to break the rope. And so on.

Second, I would have them roll when the knots are tied, not later on. There's no point in trying to keep the players in the dark about whether the attempt is successful or not. They're going to find out unless you roll for them or have them roll behind the screen.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This is really group dependent. My players have always loved to just do things that people do, even if those things have nothing to do with the game. Sometimes they go to the bar to pick someone up. Sometimes to see if there is anyone gambling or just to play a game of darts. While I've never seen a wedgie happen, I suppose a practical jokester type might try it sometime. These things are not a waste of time and space if the players enjoy them. The game's primary goal is enjoyment.

Huh. There's an adage about writing fiction, "Use coincidence to get the hero into trouble, but not out of it." I personally love the idea that you get drunk in a bar and go up to harass a stranger (please can we just leave "wedgie" out of it?) and it turns out that you've messed with a total badass. But he's such a zen master that he's not even annoyed...amused if anything...and there's your plot hook right there.

But, anyway, I think I'm just not looking for the same thing in an RPG as whoever first proposed this scene.

I have a few thoughts.

First, a knot. successful or not, doesn't prevent a captive from escaping. It's just one obstacle to escape. Even if the knots work, the captives might be able to scoot back to back and undo each others knots. Someone else might walk in and free them. One might be strong enough to break the rope. And so on.

Second, I would have them roll when the knots are tied, not later on. There's no point in trying to keep the players in the dark about whether the attempt is successful or not. They're going to find out unless you roll for them or have them roll behind the screen.

What happens if they roll really low?

 

[Xetheral]

Yeah, that sounds about right. The former has a reasonable degree of specificity, such that I can clearly identify both goal (open the door) and approach (picking the lock). Picking a lock is a pretty specific action, and leaves little room for ambiguity as to what the character is doing. The latter is very clear in communicating a goal, but is too vague in terms of approach. “Checking for traps” is not a specific action.

Here’s a good general rule of thumb: if you mistakenly tried to phrase an action as a goal, and struggled to come up with an approach to it (e.g. “I try to pick the lock by... umm... picking it... with lockpicks?” or “I try to beat him at arm wrestling by... umm... wrestling him... with my arm?”) then the action is already reasonably specific. But if you can think of multiple ways you might be able to do perform the action - for instance, you could check the hall for traps by looking for anything out of the ordinary, or by probing the floor in front of you with a 10-foot poll, or by throwing a rock down the hall, or any number of other things... Then it’s not reasonably specific as an approach. You’re going to have to commit to one of those methods for me to be able to properly adjudicate it.

Thanks for clarifying! As a follow-up question, what about the following action declaration: "I try to make sure the lock is safe to pick by checking it for traps." Does reducing the scope from an entire passageway to a specific lock make the "checking for traps" approach specific enough to be valid at your table? Do you see more possible approaches for examining a lock for traps than you do for picking that lock?

For context, at my table I consider checking for traps to be a sufficiently-specific approach to be a valid action declaration, but I also interpret that approach as being purely sensory. So, by default, it falls into the "looking for anything out of the ordinary" approach you mentioned. With such an approach I'd call for a WIS (Perception) check against the trap's DC, which gives the character a chance to spot a trap with a DC above their passive perception. (I set trap DC by making a check a check for the trap with a predetermined bonus based on design and circumstances.) Failing to spot a trap I consider to always be a significant consequence, so I consider a roll to be justfied. If the character takes their time and the DC is reachable, then it's an auto-success. (And checking for traps will never be an auto-failure at my table, as described below.)

Non-sensory action declarations such as rolling heavy weights down a hall to trigger pressure plates will be resolved at my table based on the mechanics of the trap in question (if any) and will rarely require any kind of check.

Here’s the reason that doesn’t work for me: if I assume that’s what the character is doing, and the trap is hidden in such a way that isn’t noticeable just by looking, this action would fail without a check. But if the player tells me “I check for traps,” I assume he’s doing this and tell him he doesn’t see any signs of traps, and then he triggers this trap that was there but not evident on a visual inspection, now we’re in a situation where the player is likely to protest, “but I said I was checking for traps and I didn’t even get to roll to see if I found it! What gives?” to which I could respond, “you didn’t say you were doing anything but looking, and this trap was hidden in such a way that it couldn’t be found just by looking,” but of course, the player didn’t say they weren’t doing anything other than looking either, and would be completely justified in pointing this out. So now the game is being derailed by this stupid “you didn’t say you did” “I didn’t say I didn’t” argument, which to be clear, hypothetical me is 100% in the wrong on, and all of that could have been avoided if I had just asked the player what they were doing instead of making assumptions.


I don’t think it’s that hard. I just gave what I think is a pretty good rule of thumb for that. I think there’s a lengthy post by Iserith on reasonable specificity rattling around these boards somewhere as well.

Interesting. While I certainly don't go as far as some have suggested as to telegraph the presence of all traps, I'm still on the side of always giving the characters a chance to spot a trap, so I'll never include one that can't be noticed visually (or via some other sense). The Passive Perception DC at my table to notice a trap before taking an action that may trigger may be high enough that the character doesn't spot the trap, but it will never be so high as to guarantee that character could never notice that trap, no matter how badly the trap rolls. (See above for how I determine trap DC. I will never give a trap a bonus bigger than +8.)

When you elect to include a trap that cannot be spotted visually (or with some other sense) I assume you do not telegraph it, since (by definition) there is nothing for the characters to notice? Also, am I correct in understanding that, unlike @Ovinomancer in this post, if a character at your table fails to declare an action that could result in discovering a trap that cannot be spotted visually (or through some other sense) the character does not get a Wis check (or passive perception) to notice it? If I'm incorrect, and you would give a character such a check to avoid triggering the trap, how do you set an attainable DC if you've already ruled that the trap can't be spotted visually (or through some other sense)?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I just want to say thank you.

That's actually the point I've been arguing for since introducing that example, that it's a valid thing that is missed out on by all out goal and approach. I apologize for getting a bit frustrated, but establishing that minor of a point shouldn't have taken 7+ pages of posts to do

It's a very good question of whether you gain something significant in that tradeoff. In all honesty I'm sure you would when compared with a solely roll for nearly everything approach. But in a more mixed playstyle, sometimes roll and sometimes do goal and approach I think you can have the best of both worlds. (Though also the worst of both if your not careful).

You know, I think that maybe the full ramifications of going to goal and approach are being missed. You have to think about challenges differently and set them up differently. This comes up over and over again with the example problem -- examples presented that I'm asked to weigh in on with how it would work in my style of play don't make sense because it's not a play situation that would come up to begin with. It's a jump in understanding that you either make or don't. And, there's nothing wrong with not making it -- it's not a better way to run, objectively, although, for some, it can be subjectively better. Or, maybe, worse. Tastes differ. But, I can say that presenting an example of play to try and suss out a distinction is likely to fail because the actual play between styles is pretty different. For example (heh), the bar scene with the wedgies? Just wouldn't happen because I'm not going to bother to set a scene where there's not a conflict. There's no real low stakes action going on because I don't do low stakes scenes. I narrate that stuff, with some back and forth with m players, but it's just success or failure so we get to the more lively bits.

 

[Maxperson]

Huh. There's an adage about writing fiction, "Use coincidence to get the hero into trouble, but not out of it." I personally love the idea that you get drunk in a bar and go up to harass a stranger (please can we just leave "wedgie" out of it?) and it turns out that you've messed with a total badass. But he's such a zen master that he's not even annoyed...amused if anything...and there's your plot hook right there.

Yep. And sometimes he's just drunk or a normal farmer. I use a mix of both since I like things to be a bit more realistic than some here.

What happens if they roll really low?

It's easier for the bad guys to escape.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Thanks for clarifying! As a follow-up question, what about the following action declaration: "I try to make sure the lock is safe to pick by checking it for traps." Does reducing the scope from an entire passageway to a specific lock make the "checking for traps" approach specific enough to be valid at your table? Do you see more possible approaches for examining a lock for traps than you do for picking that lock?

For context, at my table I consider checking for traps to be a sufficiently-specific approach to be a valid action declaration, but I also interpret that approach as being purely sensory. So, by default, it falls into the "looking for anything out of the ordinary" approach you mentioned. With such an approach I'd call for a WIS (Perception) check against the trap's DC, which gives the character a chance to spot a trap with a DC above their passive perception. (I set trap DC by making a check a check for the trap with a predetermined bonus based on design and circumstances.) Failing to spot a trap I consider to always be a significant consequence, so I consider a roll to be justfied. If the character takes their time and the DC is reachable, then it's an auto-success. (And checking for traps will never be an auto-failure at my table, as described below.)

Non-sensory action declarations such as rolling heavy weights down a hall to trigger pressure plates will be resolved at my table based on the mechanics of the trap in question (if any) and will rarely require any kind of check.

Interesting. While I certainly don't go as far as some have suggested as to telegraph the presence of all traps, I'm still on the side of always giving the characters a chance to spot a trap, so I'll never include one that can't be noticed visually (or via some other sense). The Passive Perception DC at my table to notice a trap before taking an action that may trigger may be high enough that the character doesn't spot the trap, but it will never be so high as to guarantee that character could never notice that trap, no matter how badly the trap rolls. (See above for how I determine trap DC. I will never give a trap a bonus bigger than +8.)

When you elect to include a trap that cannot be spotted visually (or with some other sense) I assume you do not telegraph it, since (by definition) there is nothing for the characters to notice? Also, am I correct in understanding that, unlike @Ovinomancer in this post, if a character at your table fails to declare an action that could result in discovering a trap that cannot be spotted visually (or through some other sense) the character does not get a Wis check (or passive perception) to notice it? If I'm incorrect, and you would give a character such a check to avoid triggering the trap, how do you set an attainable DC if you've already ruled that the trap can't be spotted visually (or through some other sense)?

So, for one, running traps in goal and approach usually means a different approach to the whole thing than more skill-check oriented play. I'll very much have traps that you can't see, but I'm not going to present a trap as something that you'll need to make a check to find -- this defeats the purpose of goal and approach altogether. Instead, the trap is going to be telegraphed in some way that paying attention to the scene (or previous scenes) will alert you to address the situation. In other words, I'm really only going to frame hallways that are clearly trapped (although how and where and what are mysteries) by having a dead body in it, mutilated by the mechanism, or discolorations on the floor from dried blood, or gouges, or... something. This is because I'm not interested in wasting time on all of the hallways that aren't trapped going through the motions -- I'm going to find a way to make this trapped hallway a full encounter.

Usually, though, I either use complex traps that require multiple characters to aid in disarming or add traps to other encounters. That way, the indications that a trap may be present are useful, but the other situations mean that it might not be too useful. I don't do trapped hallways to have trapped hallways. Or rather, get mad at myself when I discover I've fallen into old ways and have started a scene with a trapped hallway.

 

[5ekyu]

FWIW, when it comes to humor at the expense of PC - I have two rules.

1. It must be called for by a due result in circumstance or by pretty much player direct chouce- thry set it up obviosly.
2. It cannot ever be in the strength of that character and should be more akin to a fish out of water humor bit.

Those two are intended to spotlight in clear terms it's not gonna come off as mean or belittling. Its gonna emphasize choices and results already in play.

So far, it has worked well.

 

[Charlaquin]

Thanks for clarifying! As a follow-up question, what about the following action declaration: "I try to make sure the lock is safe to pick by checking it for traps." Does reducing the scope from an entire passageway to a specific lock make the "checking for traps" approach specific enough to be valid at your table? Do you see more possible approaches for examining a lock for traps than you do for picking that lock?

Mmm... I’d still prefer a bit more specificity than that. “Checking” is just such a vague term. “Looking in the keyhole” would be fine, or “probing it carefully with the thieves’ tools before attempting to pick it” or something.

For context, at my table I consider checking for traps to be a sufficiently-specific approach to be a valid action declaration, but I also interpret that approach as being purely sensory. So, by default, it falls into the "looking for anything out of the ordinary" approach you mentioned. With such an approach I'd call for a WIS (Perception) check against the trap's DC, which gives the character a chance to spot a trap with a DC above their passive perception. (I set trap DC by making a check a check for the trap with a predetermined bonus based on design and circumstances.) Failing to spot a trap I consider to always be a significant consequence, so I consider a roll to be justfied. If the character takes their time and the DC is reachable, then it's an auto-success.

I think we agree on all counts here, except the part where you assume “checking for traps” means “looking for anything out of the ordinary.” I don’t think it’s a big ask of the players to just say they’re looking rather than the more vague “checking” and it eliminates a lot of potential miscommunication. Even when you say “purely sensory,” that could mean looking, listening, touching, or even smelling (it probably doesn’t meant tasting, though I did have a character in one game who went out of his way to lick every weird fungus or crystal he cake across in the underdark )

Non-sensory action declarations such as rolling heavy weights down a hall to trigger pressure plates will be resolved at my table based on the mechanics of the trap in question (if any) and will rarely require any kind of check.

Yeah, I’m with you there.

Interesting. While I certainly don't go as far as some have suggested as to telegraph the presence of all traps, I'm still on the side of always giving the characters a chance to spot a trap, so I'll never include one that can't be noticed visually (or via some other sense). The Passive Perception DC at my table to notice a trap before taking an action that may trigger may be high enough that the character doesn't spot the trap, but it will never be so high as to guarantee that character could never notice that trap, no matter how badly the trap rolls. (See above for how I determine trap DC. I will never give a trap a bonus bigger than +8.)

When you elect to include a trap that cannot be spotted visually (or with some other sense) I assume you do not telegraph it, since (by definition) there is nothing for the characters to notice?

Oh no, I always do telegraph my traps, and I narrate my telegraphs regardless of passive Perception. But telegraphing can be done in a lot of ways. Sure, you can call out the raised sections of tile on the floor and the holes in the elaborately stuccoed walls. But you can also have a skeleton with a spike through him in a sunbeam, in a hall striped with other sunbeams. You can have cryptically worded warnings carved into the walls. You can have mysterious red-brown stains on the ceiling. If you plan out your dungeon well, you can introduce a trap early on in an obvious way, and later have another trap just like it without such hinting, but in a similar context. There’s lots of ways to telegraph traps without the players being able to see the trap itself.

Also, am I correct in understanding that, unlike @Ovinomancer in this post, if a character at your table fails to declare an action that could result in discovering a trap that cannot be spotted visually (or through some other sense) the character does not get a Wis check (or passive perception) to notice it?

I only call for checks in response to actions players declare, so no, if you don’t declare an action that could result in you discovering the trap, you won’t get a check to spot it. But you will always get some kind of narration that could indicate the presence of the trap. Usually this will be a very clear indication early in a dungeon, and get more and more subtle the deeper in you get.

 

[Coroc]

To clarify, both of those examples were intended to be in the absence of any die rolls at all, not as the result of a “botched” check.

In the first example the DM rules that success is automatic because it’s easy to hide and the monsters have no reason to be suspicious, etc.

In the second example the DM rules that hiding is impossible (e.g. straight corridor with oncoming monsters) but gives the players an opportunity to propose an action.

Well where's the failure then? All is totally narrative.
If success is automatic you can let the PC roll anyway to keep the tension up or to increase it.
Also in the second example, you could theoretically let them roll this one also, but tell them it is with disadvantage and set the DC to 35.

 

[Xetheral]

Mmm... I’d still prefer a bit more specificity than that. “Checking” is just such a vague term. “Looking in the keyhole” would be fine, or “probing it carefully with the thieves’ tools before attempting to pick it” or something.

I think we agree on all counts here, except the part where you assume “checking for traps” means “looking for anything out of the ordinary.” I don’t think it’s a big ask of the players to just say they’re looking rather than the more vague “checking” and it eliminates a lot of potential miscommunication. Even when you say “purely sensory,” that could mean looking, listening, touching, or even smelling (it probably doesn’t meant tasting, though I did have a character in one game who went out of his way to lick every weird fungus or crystal he cake across in the underdark )

Thanks for clarifying again. I guess I don't see any relevant distinction between "checking" and "looking" at my table where all traps can potentially be noticed without risking triggering them. Any character is going to try non-risky methods first, so I don't see the value (at my table) of asking them to specify whether their approach "checking the lock for traps" involves looking in the keyhole (triggering a Wis (Perception) check) or probing with thieves tools (triggering a non-check resolution based on the mechanics of the trap): it's always going to be the former unless the player is making a mistake that the character would know better than to make.

Oh no, I always do telegraph my traps, and I narrate my telegraphs regardless of passive Perception. But telegraphing can be done in a lot of ways. Sure, you can call out the raised sections of tile on the floor and the holes in the elaborately stuccoed walls. But you can also have a skeleton with a spike through him in a sunbeam, in a hall striped with other sunbeams. You can have cryptically worded warnings carved into the walls. You can have mysterious red-brown stains on the ceiling. If you plan out your dungeon well, you can introduce a trap early on in an obvious way, and later have another trap just like it without such hinting, but in a similar context. There’s lots of ways to telegraph traps without the players being able to see the trap itself.

I don't see a practical distinction between always telegraphing a trap and setting a passive perception DC of 0 to notice the trap. Either way the trap always fails: the primary threat is removed and the trap turns into a terrain obstacle.

One possible distinction I see would be if you only telegraph traps to PCs, and let NPCs blunder into traps that cannot be detected via Perception and without the benefit of telegraphed foreknowledge. If so the purpose of the distinction makes sense, but it's such an overt form of PC plot armor that I wouldn't be comfortable with it at my table. (For reference, I don't cap a PC-made trap's potential bonus, so NPCs might autofail their Passive Perception checks unlike PCs, but that's a much subtler form of plot armor.)

Out of curiosity, do you run a lot of uninhabited dungeons with still-functional, self-resetting traps? The telegraphing methods you describe would only rarely work at my table: almost all my dungeons are inhabited, so the signs of the trap would have been removed when the trap was reset, and the occupants certainly aren't going to advertise their defenses. The rare uninhabited dungeons that were still sealed would have pristine un-triggered traps, and unsealed ones exposed to the elements that might have previously triggered will rarely have been built by a culture with enough engineering expertise to make durable trap mechanisms, let alone self-resetting ones.

Sure, in the exceptional dungeon where it makes sense I'll happily include an already-triggered trap and its grisly outcome, but my motivation for doing so would either be adding flavorful color, or else telegraphing the likelihood of other traps in the same facility. At that point the trap itself isn't a threat.

I only call for checks in response to actions players declare, so no, if you don’t declare an action that could result in you discovering the trap, you won’t get a check to spot it. But you will always get some kind of narration that could indicate the presence of the trap. Usually this will be a very clear indication early in a dungeon, and get more and more subtle the deeper in you get.

May I ask how you make use of Passive Perception at your table? It sounds like characters with high Passive Perception at your table are no more likely to notice traps than any other characters?