D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Lanefan]

As long as the DM knows when to call for it...
When the clue would matter?

Perhaps - if there's one specific time or situation where it would. But I still prefer rolling up front and in effect holding the results in abeyance on one outcome or the other.

A flip-side example: what if success in reading the rune-stones actually sets off some effect far away (now) that the PCs won't and can't know about until much later, if ever at all? Failure, however, means the stones animate right now and try to beat up or chase off the PCs. On success all you do here is narrate whatever the runes say, and nothing changes for the PCs.

All the more reason, really, as any information imparted on the players weeks/months ago, but to the PC moments/hours ago is going to be problematic in the same way.[/QUOTE]Yes, I'll make allowance for this, and it's relatively frequent. But if something was told to the players 3 months ago real-time and 3 months has also passed in the game world, it's on them to remember.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The referee's job is the same in either instance: to enforce the rules and ensure things are done in good faith as far as possible.

I gotta admit, I'm really not following the logic of "players are expected to push against the rules as hard as they can without getting caught, as long as it's in good faith, and the referees job is to enforce the good faith part."

What?

My version is simpler: I trust my players. If I don't like how they play, I won't play with them.

 

[Lanefan]

Wait...are you talking about rolling the dice to see if they find the clue, or whether they figure out the clue?

Find it.

In my mind I've been kind of building in the figure-it-out stage with finding it at all: if you find it now, its relevance will become apparent either now or at some point downstream.

If it's truly an optional short-cut, I would give them the clue, but leave it to the players to figure out.

Of course, it might be gated behind an objective. E.g., kill the orc chieftain, find the clue in his treasure chest.

Here it's gated behind being able to read (or decipher, if in code) the runes.

But I'm really totally completely over the whole, "Everybody give me a Perception check." "18!" "Ok, you spot...."

Fair enough. I know I use this (or similar) far more than I should, but knowing how often in real life I miss seeing things that are right in front of my face I never put it past anyone to be able to miss something that should be nigh unmissable.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Fair enough. I know I use this (or similar) far more than I should, but knowing how often in real life I miss seeing things that are right in front of my face I never put it past anyone to be able to miss something that should be nigh unmissable.

Yes, that's totally true about real life, but I'm not sure it makes the game more fun to simulate it. (Translation: I'm pretty sure it doesn't.)

 

[Lanefan]

I gotta admit, I'm really not following the logic of "players are expected to push against the rules as hard as they can without getting caught, as long as it's in good faith, and the referees job is to enforce the good faith part."

What?

My version is simpler: I trust my players. If I don't like how they play, I won't play with them.

Chances are that I come from a background featuring a bit more adversarial DM-player dynamic than you have, so to me that's just how the game is played: the DM, as far as the rules and fairness allow, is more or less out to get you; and you're out to not be got.

In other words, very old-school.

 

[iserith]

Fair enough. I know I use this (or similar) far more than I should, but knowing how often in real life I miss seeing things that are right in front of my face I never put it past anyone to be able to miss something that should be nigh unmissable.

But can you see how that method leads to then needing to implement table rules like "no metagaming" to avoid players acting as if there is something in the room to find when they roll poorly? Or rolling that check in secret for them? Or saying that retries are impossible when there's nothing about the situation that makes that true?

This can all be avoided.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Chances are that I come from a background featuring a bit more adversarial DM-player dynamic than you have, so to me that's just how the game is played: the DM, as far as the rules and fairness allow, is more or less out to get you; and you're out to not be got.

In other words, very old-school.

Fair enough. That's how I played in the 80's. As a teenager. But not anymore.

 

[Kinematics]

But I'm really totally completely over the whole, "Everybody give me a Perception check." "18!" "Ok, you spot...."

Recent game:

<At a celebration festival>

[Everybody roll perception!]

My human barbarian is the only one to make the check. (20-something total)

"You hear wings flapping in the sky above you."

Since I have no darkvision, I can't see anything. I nudge the half-elf next to me. "Hey, do you see anything?"

<half-elf rolls a nat 1>

[The half-elf is busy trying to keep her plate of food on her lap after you nearly knock her off the bench. She glares at you, somewhat spoiled by the rib bone clenched in her teeth.]

<Backs off from the half-elf. Nudges another character on the other side> "Hey, do you—"

<rolls a 2>

<talking to another guest> "Hey, I'm busy here! Quit bugging me if it isn't important!"

[OK. Well, boulders start falling from the sky as gargoyles attack.]

~~~

In this case, I know meta-wise that the sound of wings means there's an attack incoming. Heck, I knew that before the GM even called for the perception check. However I don't know this for sure in-character, so I don't immediately react to something I can't see, and instead try to get confirmation from nearby characters.

Each of those characters had darkvision, so could be reasonably expected to be able to see the fliers up in the dark sky. The roll isn't to determine if they can see anything, but whether they do see anything.

The rolls informed the truth of the state of the world at that time. It wasn't a roll to determine, "Do you see anything?", it was a roll to determine "What are you doing right now, and are you in a position to pay attention?"

Failure meant status quo in the Exploratory sense — the gargoyles attacked just like they intended, without interference. However failure also helped create part of the scene — what were the characters doing other than being part of a filler scene that no one is going to remember? It tells us a bit about the half-elf gorging on food, which showed a bit of shift in her behavior related to other events that have been driving her crazy. And the other character finding someone she was interested in at the gathering provided an optional hook for another event later on.

If the rolls were only about whether the characters were capable of seeing anything, this would be a situation where the GM just skipped the rolls and told them about gargoyles flying in overhead. It's clean, antiseptic, and... lacking (though only in hindsight). It's Exploratory. The GM knows exactly what's there (the gargoyles), and knows that the characters could see them if they looked up. Using the goal-and-approach method, no Perception roll would be needed. Just roll initiative for combat.

However making the roll shifted it to Revelatory. The roll itself creates parts of the world, and how the characters are interacting with it. The gargoyles attacking are less important than the characters actually feeling like they're a part of the world. Failure provides something for the players that goes beyond the status quo/"You don't see anything" response.

I suppose that falls under the "consequences of failure" category — not in the sense of the action itself, but in the sense that something else could be going on which can interact with the chosen action.

 

[Beleriphon]

However making the roll shifted it to Revelatory. The roll itself creates parts of the world, and how the characters are interacting with it. The gargoyles attacking are less important than the characters actually feeling like they're a part of the world. Failure provides something for the players that goes beyond the status quo/"You don't see anything" response.

I suppose that falls under the "consequences of failure" category — not in the sense of the action itself, but in the sense that something else could be going on which can interact with the chosen action.

I don't think this is one of those things that gets covered by Goal/Approach processing. In part because the GM has already determined what they expect to happen as a roll being needed. This is one of those "Did you notice..." situations. And probably one of the few where there isn't an option of not rolling, in a DM called for roll the consequence IS failure because whatever the roll was about can't be avoided at that point.

 

[Charlaquin]

Recent game:

<At a celebration festival>

[Everybody roll perception!]

My human barbarian is the only one to make the check. (20-something total)

"You hear wings flapping in the sky above you."

Since I have no darkvision, I can't see anything. I nudge the half-elf next to me. "Hey, do you see anything?"

<half-elf rolls a nat 1>

[The half-elf is busy trying to keep her plate of food on her lap after you nearly knock her off the bench. She glares at you, somewhat spoiled by the rib bone clenched in her teeth.]

<Backs off from the half-elf. Nudges another character on the other side> "Hey, do you—"

<rolls a 2>

<talking to another guest> "Hey, I'm busy here! Quit bugging me if it isn't important!"

[OK. Well, boulders start falling from the sky as gargoyles attack.]

Ugh. There is so much of the DM telling the players what their characters are doing in that example, that would drive me up the wall as a player.

In this case, I know meta-wise that the sound of wings means there's an attack incoming. Heck, I knew that before the GM even called for the perception check. However I don't know this for sure in-character, so I don't immediately react to something I can't see, and instead try to get confirmation from nearby characters.

You know that the sound of flapping wings indicates an incoming attack? That sounds like quite a conclusion to jump to. Or is it that you know that a Perception check means an incoming attack?

Each of those characters had darkvision, so could be reasonably expected to be able to see the fliers up in the dark sky. The roll isn't to determine if they can see anything, but whether they do see anything.

The rolls informed the truth of the state of the world at that time. It wasn't a roll to determine, "Do you see anything?", it was a roll to determine "What are you doing right now, and are you in a position to pay attention?"

Failure meant status quo in the Exploratory sense — the gargoyles attacked just like they intended, without interference. However failure also helped create part of the scene — what were the characters doing other than being part of a filler scene that no one is going to remember? It tells us a bit about the half-elf gorging on food, which showed a bit of shift in her behavior related to other events that have been driving her crazy. And the other character finding someone she was interested in at the gathering provided an optional hook for another event later on.

Yeah, this is pretty typical of games where checks are made with the specifics of the action left abstract and/or determined retroactively based on the result. I am not a fan of this style of action resolution at all, as it gives the dice too much power and often leads to the DM dictating actions taken by the PCs, which is a big nope for me.

If the rolls were only about whether the characters were capable of seeing anything, this would be a situation where the GM just skipped the rolls and told them about gargoyles flying in overhead. It's clean, antiseptic, and... lacking (though only in hindsight). It's Exploratory. The GM knows exactly what's there (the gargoyles), and knows that the characters could see them if they looked up. Using the goal-and-approach method, no Perception roll would be needed. Just roll initiative for combat.

I don’t know what you think it’s “lacking.” Maybe lacking in slapstick antics where the characters fail at tasks that should be trivial for them for silly reasons. If you ask me, the game is much better off for the lack of that. What you describe here seems immeasurably preferable to the initial example to me.

However making the roll shifted it to Revelatory. The roll itself creates parts of the world, and how the characters are interacting with it. The gargoyles attacking are less important than the characters actually feeling like they're a part of the world. Failure provides something for the players that goes beyond the status quo/"You don't see anything" response.

I suppose that falls under the "consequences of failure" category — not in the sense of the action itself, but in the sense that something else could be going on which can interact with the chosen action.

Yeah, this technique where the roll is made to determine the state of things - not “does your character see the gargoyles?” but “can the gargoyles be seen by your character under present circumstances?” is pretty common. I get it, but I’m not a fan.