D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Maxperson]

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

The point wasn't the rarity of the situation, which is about as rare as a PC picking a random stranger and giving a wedgie, but rather that the situation CAN be one where no roll is needed to determine success or failure. Context is needed to be able to determine if the situation is abusive or not.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

Random != Average

See MaxPerson's example above. Extreme, but illustrates the point.

Just because the PC picked a random person doesn't mean that person is average. You are also leaving it up the DM to decide...arbitrarily...who that person is.

Basically there is no such thing as "fair". You either trust your DM or you do not.

 

[FrogReaver]

The point wasn't the rarity of the situation, which is about as rare as a PC picking a random stranger and giving a wedgie, but rather that the situation CAN be one where no roll is needed to determine success or failure. Context is needed to be able to determine if the situation is abusive or not.

It's rather easy to spot arbitrary level 20 solar monks being inserted in the scene for no other reason than to beat you at wedgies.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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?

Picking a lock is reasonably specific -- I know what your character is doing, where they must be located, and can adjudicate this well.

Checking for traps, on the other hand, doesn't tell me where you're standing, what you're doing (are you hitting the floor with a 10' pole or gingerly testing with your foot?), or anything I'd be comfortable assuming. I'll need a tad more information to adjudicate.

And, since I don't think it's been said lately:

1. I'm going to assume your character is skilled and competent and on the lookout for danger. Giving me an approach isn't a way to trip you up, but rather to let you establish what your character is doing rather than have me assume anything.
2. If your approach is at all reasonable, it'll be worked with. You don't have to know how traps work, just give me a reasonable action -- tell me what your character is doing -- and I'll work with that.

So, that in mind, if you "check for traps" I'll have questions on what that looks like. If you say, 'Okay, I'm going to move cautiously down the hall, stepping carefully and checking for pressure plates while inspecting the hallway carefully for signs of traps," I can work with that. If there's a trap (and usually, something will indicate this), and it's a pressure plate, you find it, no roll, because you called that out. If it's a deadfall on a tripwire, though, I'll ask for a WIS check to see if you notice it in time -- because I assume you're competent and your approach leaves that as uncertain (in my book) with a definite consequence of failure.

 

[Guest 6801328]

P.S. Maybe the Solar is the DM's idea of...what was the phrase..."messing around for the hell of it".

 

[FrogReaver]

Random != Average

See MaxPerson's example above. Extreme, but illustrates the point.

Just because the PC picked a random person doesn't mean that person is average. You are also leaving it up the DM to decide...arbitrarily...who that person is.

Basically there is no such thing as "fair". You either trust your DM or you do not.

First of all, in this case the check would at least in part be determining the nature of the person you picked to wedgie. Starting at the population statistical average is a great way starting point for a check being used to determine that.

Alternatively you could roll a d20 as the DM to determine the nature of the person and then use the randomly generated person to determine auto success or failure or whether a roll is needed. Personally, I wouldn't go through all thought trouble and would just have everything tied into the one player roll, but if that's how you are proposing you would handle the situation then I see no issue with that methodology. For some reason I don't think that's the situation though.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's rather easy to spot arbitrary level 20 solar monks being inserted in the scene for no other reason than to beat you at wedgies.

Yes, which is why I said above that if the reverse wedgie situation was predicated on a previous failure to note badassery in the intended victim, that either method (roll or failure narration) takes on a different context and would be okay.

 

[Maxperson]

It's rather easy to spot arbitrary level 20 solar monks being inserted in the scene for no other reason than to beat you at wedgies.

You're assuming arbitrary where no arbitrary exists. Don't give wedgies while exploring the 7 Heavens. It also doesn't have to be a solar. A level 20 monk wouldn't need to roll vs. a 1st level PC. Remember, the point is context. With no context, we don't know if the situation is abusive or not. It's really that simple.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I dunno.

We (or whoever picked this stupid example) started with "let's give random wedgies in bars it will be really funny!"

But it's not funny if the DM makes the "random stranger" something more surprising than your average commoner?

And, no, this isn't off-topic. Some of you are insisting this "funny" scene MUST be resolved by rolling dice or it just can't be fun. But now you want to claim that the DM can't do unexpected stuff just because it might be funny.

Just how far do you want to go to constrain this example to prove that goal-and-approach won't work?

 

[Maxperson]

Messed up quoting