D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Swarmkeeper]

If I recall correctly, Iserith (or maybe it was Bawylie) has done at least Actual Play with the specific goal of teaching their DMing technique, possibly more.

Iserith DM-ed it. I was a player in it.

Pictures... er... link or it didn’t happen...

Please and thank you!

 

[Maxperson]

See the rules for passive checks though. What you suggest works in the context of Activities While Traveling as I stated upthread, but doesn't work for just "passively" noticing something. You're actively doing stuff with an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure, such as searching for secret doors over and over again while traveling the dungeon, when a passive check comes into play. At the DM's discretion, that activity might mean the PC is not focused on watching for danger and cannot apply passive Perception to noticing hidden threats. Surprise is determined, for example, based on passive Perception while you're actively on alert for danger.

It also works for passive checks as written in the PHB. The PHB states, "Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again,..." The task done repeatedly, though, doesn't have a time frame and can represent what I described in my last post. That squares away the rules in both books non-contradictory.

"Passive checks" aren't like they were in D&D 4e, but that section in the DMG reads as if the writer is confused about that or if it was written while the rules were still in transition. That is why I submit it's written in error.

Rather than just assume one book doesn't know what it's talking about, I try to look for how both books can work together, and running it like I described does that. I can see where you are coming from, but I don't think that's what they intended. Or it might be! The deliberately vague writing of the rulings over rules 5e make it hard to tell sometimes.

 

[Maxperson]

Out of curiosity, how do you determine surprise when it's uncertain? That seems like it could get messy without passive checks.

I set a DC based on the circumstances of the situation for each side with the potential to be surprised and players(or monsters) roll against that. With monsters I just roll for the side. For players, each PC gets a roll.

 

[5ekyu]

Yeah, that works for middling rolls. On very high or very low rolls, though, they pretty much know.

And it can be argued that that's ok. You roll a nat 1 on the forgery and the DM says, "Yeah, that's just not in your ability" or whatever.

But I don't find a dead-end plan as interesting as something with high stakes and tension.

I know (I know I know I know) that RPGs aren't movies or novels. But can you imagine a WWII spy movie scene where the good guys try to forge a passport, but they can't do it, so they just move on to plan B? I mean maybe if they squandered all their time doing it, and now there's no time for plan B. But wasted time counts as a meaningful consequence. In the absence of that, why waste precious screen minutes on such a thing? I feel the same way about table time.

About the movie - nope. I cannot see that. Instead I can see them having this cunning plan, trying the forgery, an accident happening (bad roll or maybe even some progress with setback) getting a good looking doc but finding out the enemy just added a new mark they dont have and suddenly having a reason to need to concoct a new plan off the cuff or part of a plan to get around that.

It's not wasted time to show a failure of a main plan and leads struggling to overcone that extra hurdle. Heck, it's like one of the key transitions points in quite common plot structures.

A GM can make it boring. He just isnt required to.

I mean, your forgery bit kinda reminds me of the midway of most Heist movies.

 

[5ekyu]

Yeah, that works for middling rolls. On very high or very low rolls, though, they pretty much know.

And it can be argued that that's ok. You roll a nat 1 on the forgery and the DM says, "Yeah, that's just not in your ability" or whatever.

But I don't find a dead-end plan as interesting as something with high stakes and tension.

I know (I know I know I know) that RPGs aren't movies or novels. But can you imagine a WWII spy movie scene where the good guys try to forge a passport, but they can't do it, so they just move on to plan B? I mean maybe if they squandered all their time doing it, and now there's no time for plan B. But wasted time counts as a meaningful consequence. In the absence of that, why waste precious screen minutes on such a thing? I feel the same way about table time.

Two different bits... high low rolls "they pretty much know"
In my gsmes, yep. Both player and character know based on the narrative I give them which represents the roll in game world fiction.
What follows of course is "So, what do you do now?"

But for this bit mired in the middle
"But wasted time counts as a meaningful consequence. In the absence of that, why waste precious screen minutes on such a thing? "

Maybe I am wrong and I likely am but this almost seems like you have decided the resolution before the scene. "This will be a scene and a task with jo consequence z now forgery..."
Thst seems to be like choosing the scene after you decide the resolution method and trying to shoehorn the scene to meet thst method.
I know GA is strongly tied to choosing the scenes that suit the method but to me this is the opposite of how I do things - scene and choices drive resolution method, as opposed to being derived from the pre-supposed resolution method.

 

[Yardiff]

My favorite part of DMing is telling them, after the session is over, all the magic items that were hidden behind the secret doors they didn't find.

Let me clarify why I didnt find this post funny.
Its in poor taste to taunt your players in this fashion.
After the session if the players ask about what they missed, THEN you can taunt them about all the cool magic items they missed.

 

[Charlaquin]

Let me clarify why I didnt find this post funny.
Its in poor taste to taunt your players in this fashion.
After the session if the players ask about what they missed, THEN you can taunt them about all the cool magic items they missed.

...You do realize Elfcrusher was speaking ironically, right?

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'm struggling to figure out how you got from what I said to a dead-end plan.

I'll try again, then: I think what you said is true for middling rolls that might be success, might be failure. But nobody gets a 4 and thinks, "Hmm, maybe this will be good enough.” Instead it’s an abandoned plan. But...that sucks. You’ve essentially just ruled out a potentially cool plan, with no tension, no drama, no plot development, because the dice told you to. I say screw the dice.

(@5ekyu raises a great point related to this...I’ll respond in a sec.)

As for your spy movie statement, I've seen movies where plan A doesn't work, so they have to go to plan B.

Sure, but in a way that heightened the drama and raised the stakes, right? Not just a scene that could be deleted with no change to the story, I hope. (Then again, there are some terrible movies out there so this probably exists.)

 

[Ristamar]

I applaud you on your optimism.

Hah. Not sure I'd label it as optimism.

I listen to a lot of podcasts and skim through a lot of D&D games on Twitch. The vast majority of them look/sound/feel largely the same. I don't expect them to be great works of entertainment, but unfortunately they typically don't feature any exemplary strengths worthy of discussion or emulation.

Even the few I genuinely enjoy that merit a subscription have plenty of routines and practices that run contrary to my gaming preferences. However, they also consistently enhance the game in other ways that I find interesting or entertaining.

 

[Guest 6801328]

About the movie - nope. I cannot see that. Instead I can see them having this cunning plan, trying the forgery, an accident happening (bad roll or maybe even some progress with setback) getting a good looking doc but finding out the enemy just added a new mark they dont have and suddenly having a reason to need to concoct a new plan off the cuff or part of a plan to get around that.

This I like (if I'm following what you're saying, anyway).

I could see the forgery attempt failing for a reason, and that leads to a side adventure. "Looks like we need to steal one of these things in order to make a good forgery..."

I like it even better if the players are aware beforehand that the first attempt is going to take precious time, so that once they fail they have fewer options, unless they steal the McGuffin...etc.