Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Consequences of Failure
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7797713" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>See, I would have framed this whole thing differently and never landed in the spot you did. I agree, in the framing you've presented, the solution is to alter how you use the mechanics. This situation, though, is far from a fixed or necessary type of encounter. If you instead frame the bridge as having lookouts, then the challenge is known and the need to roll isn't providing information you'd rather be hidden. It's the choice to hide information that usually causes this conflict and need to use the mechanics in a way to obfuscate or otherwise mitigate the hidden information. Don't get me wrong, this is a perfectly valid way to play, but it's not a necessary way to play.</p><p></p><p>As a second point, this also works if you're trying to push a planned failure consequence, like the shape-shifted druids now tailing the character. But, this can be done even with more obvious framing. Frame both a guard and a druid watching the bridge and then, on a fail, just describe that the character doesn't see the druid anymore, but the guard isn't following. This means that the player might know they were spotted (they failed), but now is wondering if the druid is going for reinforcements, or maybe is an bird, or something worse. You don't have to explicitly spell out the exact consequence every time, especially if the PC wouldn't be in a position to notice. </p><p></p><p>There's still plenty of mystery and intrigue available even if you do point-of-conflict resolution with more obvious scenes. The reason is that players only get the information the DM gives them, and if a DM is acting to conceal information, that channel gets distorted in ways that are hard to judge from only one side -- eg, the DM may think they've provided enough information, but the players are just lost. I prefer to keep that channel as wide and open as possible by not constructing situations that require me to hide information and instead let the process of play generate the drama. It's does this very well on it's own.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7797713, member: 16814"] See, I would have framed this whole thing differently and never landed in the spot you did. I agree, in the framing you've presented, the solution is to alter how you use the mechanics. This situation, though, is far from a fixed or necessary type of encounter. If you instead frame the bridge as having lookouts, then the challenge is known and the need to roll isn't providing information you'd rather be hidden. It's the choice to hide information that usually causes this conflict and need to use the mechanics in a way to obfuscate or otherwise mitigate the hidden information. Don't get me wrong, this is a perfectly valid way to play, but it's not a necessary way to play. As a second point, this also works if you're trying to push a planned failure consequence, like the shape-shifted druids now tailing the character. But, this can be done even with more obvious framing. Frame both a guard and a druid watching the bridge and then, on a fail, just describe that the character doesn't see the druid anymore, but the guard isn't following. This means that the player might know they were spotted (they failed), but now is wondering if the druid is going for reinforcements, or maybe is an bird, or something worse. You don't have to explicitly spell out the exact consequence every time, especially if the PC wouldn't be in a position to notice. There's still plenty of mystery and intrigue available even if you do point-of-conflict resolution with more obvious scenes. The reason is that players only get the information the DM gives them, and if a DM is acting to conceal information, that channel gets distorted in ways that are hard to judge from only one side -- eg, the DM may think they've provided enough information, but the players are just lost. I prefer to keep that channel as wide and open as possible by not constructing situations that require me to hide information and instead let the process of play generate the drama. It's does this very well on it's own. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Consequences of Failure
Top