Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
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="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7801336" data-attributes="member: 6919838"><p>I am very curious about this part so I will highlight it at the first even though it appears below... </p><p></p><p>Regarding this complaint... which appears multiple times through your response but perhaps best summed as...</p><p></p><p>"That feels artificial to me, and it also creates a split between the character's state of mind and the player's state of mind, in the sense that the character thinks they gave it a good shot and is reasonably sure of the result, but the player knows it was just a bad roll. "</p><p></p><p>Do you have the same issue with attack rolls and saves?</p><p></p><p>If an attack roll is made and they both "fail to meet the AC" but a player knows whether its z roll if 3 or a roll of 19 do you see that as a case where there should be a split like you describe?</p><p></p><p>If the saving throw vs the fireball or Thunderwave fails and they still take full dmage or get knocked down and the player sees a roll of 3 or 19 on his save do you see that as another case of such a split that causes you problems? </p><p></p><p>In these cases, if the player acts on that knowledge and changes tactics or not based on "the roll" is that an issue or is that fine?</p><p></p><p>Or is it just in ability checks where you see the player knowing the roll and acting like their character does too as a issue?</p><p></p><p>My perspective is... I take my toll as GM as narrating the outcome the same in all three - I provide the character info to match what the player has by narration. Then both character and player can act on that info. </p><p></p><p>So, see, the thing is to me establishing that there were ways of play thst you did not prefer is great, everyone has those but it doesnt support making a particular change especially if that change brings extra baggage. .</p><p></p><p>"<strong>Rolling for things like stealth or forgery <em>before</em> an adversary tries to detect it:</strong>"</p><p></p><p>Your reference this and go on about the knowledge the player and character haved being different. The player acting on knowledge of the die roll is not satisfying to you.</p><p></p><p>Really?</p><p></p><p>So if in a fight in your game the fighter rolls a 19 and misses and the player goes "crap" and changes tactics in ways they would not do if they had rolled a 3 and missed - how do you deal with that? Or if a player rolls a 19 on a save vs fireball and still fails vs rolling a 3 and failing? </p><p></p><p>What steps have you taken to eliminate those cases of see the roll and draw conclusions to get info the character would not have - that his effort was not a hood one and his next swing is likely to ducceedcor that his swing would have worked in most cases but this is an exceptional case?</p><p></p><p>To my way of playing, I use my narrative in cases of save, skills and attacks to illustrate the effects in a way that both the player and the character both have info to work on. </p><p></p><p>So, a good forgery result or z bad forgery result shows the character the same info as the die roll in terms of how good it appears to look. Spending extra time and resources gives "advantage" because of it being choices that are more likely to produce better results. A good or bad stealth gives you a description that covers how quiet an approach seems to be going. Now you can react and adjust if needed. </p><p></p><p>Poor results tend to produce some progress with setback descriptions - the narrative showing that this may be worse going forward unless they change things. </p><p></p><p>Etc etc etc - no info in players head that isnt in characters head by the big standard way of "gm narrates or describes outcome."</p><p></p><p>To me, the "problem" of player gets too much knowledge on early die roll is created when a GM who decides to describe the result of a role in a way that cuts the character out of the information loop. It's the GM cutting the character out from info thats where the division occurs. </p><p></p><p>Of course, in forgery, stealth etc knowing the roll tells you nothing certain about whether or not you will get spotted cuz you font know the DC. </p><p></p><p></p><p>"<strong>Making zero-consequence, "no progress" ability checks, such as "looking for traps" or knowledge checks:</strong>"</p><p></p><p>So, again to me its the GM choice here that's the problems.</p><p></p><p>If this roll and reroll bother you, then in my case I simply establish that for these kinds of checks "some progress with setback" will be common instead of "no progress with rerolls."</p><p></p><p>In the most basic application, the narrative I provide again gives an indication of "confidence" and a low roll might well get you a lot of info, some good and some bad but also gives you a sort of tapped out where it obvious future repetition is made with disad and/or just failure. A key being that part of that info gained points to ways to still make progress - another source, another angle, etc. </p><p></p><p>Again, all coming from the std rules, all coming from putting roll and narrative together and more to the point, it doesnt put into effect a resolution or gameplay method that requires cutting down on scenes presented.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7801336, member: 6919838"] I am very curious about this part so I will highlight it at the first even though it appears below... Regarding this complaint... which appears multiple times through your response but perhaps best summed as... "That feels artificial to me, and it also creates a split between the character's state of mind and the player's state of mind, in the sense that the character thinks they gave it a good shot and is reasonably sure of the result, but the player knows it was just a bad roll. " Do you have the same issue with attack rolls and saves? If an attack roll is made and they both "fail to meet the AC" but a player knows whether its z roll if 3 or a roll of 19 do you see that as a case where there should be a split like you describe? If the saving throw vs the fireball or Thunderwave fails and they still take full dmage or get knocked down and the player sees a roll of 3 or 19 on his save do you see that as another case of such a split that causes you problems? In these cases, if the player acts on that knowledge and changes tactics or not based on "the roll" is that an issue or is that fine? Or is it just in ability checks where you see the player knowing the roll and acting like their character does too as a issue? My perspective is... I take my toll as GM as narrating the outcome the same in all three - I provide the character info to match what the player has by narration. Then both character and player can act on that info. So, see, the thing is to me establishing that there were ways of play thst you did not prefer is great, everyone has those but it doesnt support making a particular change especially if that change brings extra baggage. . "[B]Rolling for things like stealth or forgery [I]before[/I] an adversary tries to detect it:[/B]" Your reference this and go on about the knowledge the player and character haved being different. The player acting on knowledge of the die roll is not satisfying to you. Really? So if in a fight in your game the fighter rolls a 19 and misses and the player goes "crap" and changes tactics in ways they would not do if they had rolled a 3 and missed - how do you deal with that? Or if a player rolls a 19 on a save vs fireball and still fails vs rolling a 3 and failing? What steps have you taken to eliminate those cases of see the roll and draw conclusions to get info the character would not have - that his effort was not a hood one and his next swing is likely to ducceedcor that his swing would have worked in most cases but this is an exceptional case? To my way of playing, I use my narrative in cases of save, skills and attacks to illustrate the effects in a way that both the player and the character both have info to work on. So, a good forgery result or z bad forgery result shows the character the same info as the die roll in terms of how good it appears to look. Spending extra time and resources gives "advantage" because of it being choices that are more likely to produce better results. A good or bad stealth gives you a description that covers how quiet an approach seems to be going. Now you can react and adjust if needed. Poor results tend to produce some progress with setback descriptions - the narrative showing that this may be worse going forward unless they change things. Etc etc etc - no info in players head that isnt in characters head by the big standard way of "gm narrates or describes outcome." To me, the "problem" of player gets too much knowledge on early die roll is created when a GM who decides to describe the result of a role in a way that cuts the character out of the information loop. It's the GM cutting the character out from info thats where the division occurs. Of course, in forgery, stealth etc knowing the roll tells you nothing certain about whether or not you will get spotted cuz you font know the DC. "[B]Making zero-consequence, "no progress" ability checks, such as "looking for traps" or knowledge checks:[/B]" So, again to me its the GM choice here that's the problems. If this roll and reroll bother you, then in my case I simply establish that for these kinds of checks "some progress with setback" will be common instead of "no progress with rerolls." In the most basic application, the narrative I provide again gives an indication of "confidence" and a low roll might well get you a lot of info, some good and some bad but also gives you a sort of tapped out where it obvious future repetition is made with disad and/or just failure. A key being that part of that info gained points to ways to still make progress - another source, another angle, etc. Again, all coming from the std rules, all coming from putting roll and narrative together and more to the point, it doesnt put into effect a resolution or gameplay method that requires cutting down on scenes presented. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Consequences of Failure
Top