D&D General Do Saving throws Change the Fiction?

[Reynard]

EDIT:
I know this OP is a little hard to parse. Truth be told I have been stuck home with covid and I don't think my brain was quite translating what I getting at correctly.

I think my actual question, now that I try and parse the mess I wrote, was more along the lines of: how do you use savings throw results to define the fiction and present the new game state. The reason i was focusing on saving throws is because they are a little different than skill checks or attack rolls. First, they are reactive. Second, they usually end up (at least partially) negating the impact of a thing happening in the fiction.
------OP follows

This is spinning out of the gloves thread.

When you are playing and/or running the game, do you use saving throws to change the fiction? That is to say, does the result of the saving throw retcon the outcome of a thing?

Note by the way that I AM NOT asking you what the rules say or what the right way to do it is, or asking for advice. I am asking YOU, at your table, how do you do it.

As a way to explain what i mean, here's an example:

A player character is moving down a hallway and fails to perceive a pit trap that suddenly opens up beneath their feet. As GM, you call for a Dex/Reflex/Wands saving throw. The PC succeeds and you say: just before you step on the tile you see a hint of a wide crack, darkness, below and as it gives way you are able to throw yourself backward to avoid falling in.

That seems like a simple example, and it is, but it still changes the fiction based on the result of the roll. Prior to the result of the roll, the PC had failed their check.

As an alternative, imagine the PC is banging there 10 foot pole on the ground in front of them and this is supposed to grant them advantage on the perception roll (or passive perception check, or whatever the mechanism is). They still fail to perceive it but succeed at their saving throw. "The floor suddenly gives way where you thought it was solid, but you are able to wedge your pole between the walls and keep from tumbling into the pit." That wedged pole is a new state that has no origin in the saving throw mechanism, but makes sense in the context of the fiction of what was happening right before the save was called for.

A more common but less interesting version of this is when the GM tells you what your horrible fate is, and then lets you make a save. "The dragons breathes on you, melting your bones to slag! Make a saving throw." I see it all the time, and in some cases it is more complex and requires back tracking to make sense of a successful save.

I guess what I am asking is, when you run D&D, do you a) treat saving throws as a retconning of the fiction that has been narrated, or b) do you (at least endeavor to) stop the narration at the point of calling for the saving throw.

Now that I have written this all out, I try to do b most of the times but it isn't uncommon for me to get over excited and say to much, then have to backpedal a little. At the same time, I do like to use the results of rolls to modify the game state in ways that aren't inherent in the mechanism itself (the wedged pole above) because I think it makes the process of saving throws (and skill checks etc) more interesting than the generally binary nature of them.

 

[Lanefan]

A player character is moving down a hallway and fails to perceive a pit trap that suddenly opens up beneath their feet. As GM, you call for a Dex/Reflex/Wands saving throw. The PC succeeds and you say: just before you step on the tile you see a hint of a wide crack, darkness, below and as it gives way you are able to throw yourself backward to avoid falling in.

That seems like a simple example, and it is, but it still changes the fiction based on the result of the roll. Prior to the result of the roll, the PC had failed their check.

Not in my view. The check to find the trap failed, sure, and that part has already finished. The subsequent saving throw means the PC still managed to avoid the trap they didn't see coming.

If you like, success on the second roll in effect turns the first roll into a fail-forward situation. I don't think it retcons anything, however.

A more common but less interesting version of this is when the GM tells you what your horrible fate is, and then lets you make a save. "The dragons breathes on you, melting your bones to slag! Make a saving throw." I see it all the time, and in some cases it is more complex and requires back tracking to make sense of a successful save.

That's on the GM: narration should come after the mechanics determine the outcome, not before. Better would be: "The dragon breathes on you, hoping to melt your bones to slag. Roll me a save and let's see if your bones are still solid!"

I guess what I am asking is, when you run D&D, do you a) treat saving throws as a retconning of the fiction that has been narrated, or b) do you (at least endeavor to) stop the narration at the point of calling for the saving throw.

If I know a save is involved, I stop the narration until it's done.

 

[Quickleaf]

It's a huge bag of "it depends" on how the GM manages info dissemination, foreshadowing, traps, etc.

For me personally, the answer almost always is to let the consequences play out & find ways to make failure fun – when I'm doing that, I don't need to introduce special rolls to "save the PCs."

However.

I do think there is one place in the rules – Falling – where there should be more ways to save yourself after being pushed off a cliff or failing a check than are currently presented in the rules.

Things like grabbing onto a tree root or a vine, grappling a giant bat mid-air, etc. In this instance, I say should because many fantasy books/movies have these sorts of saving-yourself-when-falling-scenes, and for practical table-running reasons it helps minimize the party getting unintentionally divided by large distances in the middle of combat. I introduced some bespoke "falling reaction" house rules for a scene (the aarakocra cliffs in Tomb of Annihilation) where there were risks of a 500+ foot fall, and they worked nicely.

 

[Kurotowa]

I've seen both methods. One where the DM calls for blind saves with no build up, and then narrates events based on the success or failure. The other where the DM sets up what are basically mini-cliffhangers, and then adds retroactive embellishments to suit whatever the result is. And this isn't just for saves, but attacks as well. Some DMs encourage players to narrate their fancy attacks before the roll, others only give the green flag when the dice report a major success.

Of the two methods, I think I prefer the one where the dice results are translated into a narrative after they're rolled. But that has a major downside, which is that when players and the DM get fatigued they can start cutting corners on the narrative and the game spirals into a very bare bones "You hit for 14 damage, next turn" state.

 

[Minigiant]

To me...The Saving throw chooses the fiction. It doesn't change the fiction. The Saving throw doesn't revert time unless it is given via time magic or time travelling powers


The Saving Throw determines what happens at the Rollers last moment of being able to alter their future.

The Reflex/Dex saving throw is rolled at the last moment the victim of the trap could dodge successfully.

 

[Mort]

To me...The Saving throw chooses the fiction. It doesn't change the fiction. The Saving throw doesn't revert time unless it is given via time magic or time travelling powers


The Saving Throw determines what happens at the Rollers last moment of being able to alter their future.

The Reflex/Dex saving throw is rolled at the last moment the victim of the trap could dodge successfully.

That's certainly the way I look at it.

For ex. if baddie tries to dominate a PC, the PCs save result doesn't change the fiction - it determines what happens next.

 

[Umbran]

This is spinning out of the gloves thread.

When you are playing and/or running the game, do you use saving throws to change the fiction? That is to say, does the result of the saving throw retcon the outcome of a thing?

Well, I don't usually narrate the result before the die is rolled, so typically, the saving throw determines the fiction. In occasions where we realize there was an error, and the saving throw result should have been different, if it is very close to the event, I'll retcon it. If the saving throw was a couple rounds back, though, I probably let it stand.

That seems like a simple example, and it is, but it still changes the fiction based on the result of the roll. Prior to the result of the roll, the PC had failed their check.

But, there are two checks - one to perceive ahead of triggering it, one to evade if they do trigger it.

So, the resulting fiction is really two elements "You didn't see it before it opened, but you manage to hop away when it does open." That's not changing the fiction of the first test, it is adding to the fiction with the second.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I guess what I am asking is, when you run D&D, do you a) treat saving throws as a retconning of the fiction that has been narrated, or b) do you (at least endeavor to) stop the narration at the point of calling for the saving throw.

In the context of our 5e game, definitely b - we don't narrate the results until the Saving Throw has been made.

In other words, the PC is now aware of a dangerous situation and the saving throw represents their ability to mitigate the consequences.

As DM, IMO, it is on me to describe the situation in which a Save will be needed, call for said Save, and then narrate the results of the failed or successful Save. If the player wants to add color as to how their PC, with a successful save, avoided the consequences, I'd encourage them to do so to add to the story we're all creating together.


To use the OP example, the pit trap in the hallway that went undetected until too late:

"There is an ominous crack and the false floor in front of you gives way - make a DC 15 Dex Save to avoid falling into the revealed pit"

If they succeed on the Saving Throw: "A few pebbles fall down the now open pit in the hallway before you, clattering on a dark floor many 10s of feet below. That was a close call, what did your PC do to avoid falling?" If the player decides their PC wedged the pole into the wall to stop their fall, then I'll take that story prompt to set the scene going forward. But I'm not going to tell the player that's what their PC did. As DM, I've got enough on my plate without also describing how the PCs act/think/speak.

If they fail the Saving Throw: "You are falling into the pit... what do you do now?" This gives the player an opportunity to perhaps have their PC reach out to grab hold of the edge or try to use the pole in some creative way or go limp and hope for the best or whatever they see fit. Or for party wizard to cast featherfall as a reaction or for the PC marching just behind to try to reach out to help their falling comrade or...

 

[jgsugden]

I play fast and loose with the fiction around the die rolls. Success is success, and failure is failure, but we change the way that manifests all the time.

If you land the killing blow on a foe with your greatsword attack I am perfectly ok with the player saying they instead dealt tghe final blow by kicking the enemy off the tower. In that situation, there are ramifications of the change in fiction - the gear on the target is now at the base of the tower and fragile things they carried may have broken from the fall.

If they make a saving throw in response to a pit trap they did not detect, we roll the save and then I suggest a way it manifests. If they fail they may get halfway across before it trips and they plummet. If they succeed they may feel the trap start to give out and lean back just in time to catch themself on the edge.

We're telling a good story. Die rolls are there to take control of the story out of our hands, but they don't mean that we have to relegate ourselves to the simplest implementation of what the die roll tells us - just that we have to honor the spirit of it.

 

[J.Quondam]

I've always assumed the fiction isn't established until after the saving throw is rolled. I generally try to narrate just what's necessary to provoke the saving throw, what @Kurotowa nicely refers to as "mini-cliffhangers." If the situation is particularly interesting, I usually also try to involve players in that narration of the outcome of that roll to give them a say in how it resolves. (eg, "yes" versus "yes, but..." things like what side of the pit trap a PC ends up on a successful dex save).

 

[Deset Gled]

When you are playing and/or running the game, do you use saving throws to change the fiction? That is to say, does the result of the saving throw retcon the outcome of a thing? ...

As a way to explain what i mean, here's an example:

...

As an alternative, imagine the PC is banging there 10 foot pole on the ground in front of them and this is supposed to grant them advantage on the perception roll (or passive perception check, or whatever the mechanism is). ...


I guess what I am asking is, when you run D&D, do you a) treat saving throws as a retconning of the fiction that has been narrated, or b) do you (at least endeavor to) stop the narration at the point of calling for the saving throw.

Neither of the examples you give seem like they describe a "retcon" in any way that I have used that word before. Your question, as stated, does not make sense to me.

 

[aco175]

I'm mostly in line with the OP in how things get resolved. 5e has many powers and spells that let you backup a second and have a do-over. Even a shield spell changes a hit to a miss now. My problem is when a rogue takes no damage from a DEX save. How does he avoid the fireball and not move to another square. I generally just say he "gets small" and things blow over.

 

[overgeeked]

When you are playing and/or running the game, do you use saving throws to change the fiction?

Yes, always. All rolls should change the fiction.

That is to say, does the result of the saving throw retcon the outcome of a thing?

No, never. I hate retconning things.

Making a save is actively avoiding something nasty. You’re caught flat-footed by the dragon and it breaths a gout of fire at you. Make a DEX save to avoid some of the flames.

It’s not you were already hit by the dragon, now roll to undo some of the damage.

The way I try to frame things is almost all rolls are active. You do something to avoid a negative consequence. Roll stealth to avoid being seen by the guards. Roll STR to lift this iron gate in the next six seconds to avoid being trapped in here with whatever’s coming down the hall. Roll persuasion to avoid paying full price for these supplies.

 

[DND_Reborn]

A player character is moving down a hallway and fails to perceive a pit trap that suddenly opens up beneath their feet. As GM, you call for a Dex/Reflex/Wands saving throw. The PC succeeds and you say: just before you step on the tile you see a hint of a wide crack, darkness, below and as it gives way you are able to throw yourself backward to avoid falling in.

That seems like a simple example, and it is, but it still changes the fiction based on the result of the roll. Prior to the result of the roll, the PC had failed their check.

No, the saving throws never retcon the game.

In the example you provided, the DEX save would be for the PC moving off of the pit before they fall in. How they move off depends on the PC and narrative (jumping off, grabbing the edge so they don't fall in, etc.).

 

[Clint_L]

I'm not sure about saving throws specifically but with regards to retcons in general: sure. If I screw up then I try to recover with something like, "but then, as that horrible fate flashes before your eyes, you throw yourself narrowly to the side and merely suffer a painful, but survivable rash."

I mean, we're only human. Players get it. The worst thing would be to double down on your mistake so that players saw you as screwing them over rather than just admitting you screwed up.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

When you are playing and/or running the game, do you use saving throws to change the fiction? That is to say, does the result of the saving throw retcon the outcome of a thing?

Not that I can think of. I've always tended to be like "Make X saving throw" before I start describing stuff, I guess that's just what I was taught. Sometimes people ask why if it's not obvious but I usually make them roll first unless explaining the why will cause them to use a resource or not or something (rarely applicable).

Actually I can think of one example - I made an player saves vs. a sleep spell, then like, 10 seconds later, after being told they'd been sleep'd, they said plaintively but meekly "But I'm an elf!", and I was like balls yes you are, so I made the 90% resist check and they resisted, so yeah they didn't get sleeped.

I also have multiple times made a DM do take-backsies when they said a ghoul paralyzed me because I habitually play Elves/Half-Elves. Particularly confounding in 5E as the fact that Elves/Half-Elves are immune is in ghoul description, like right in the attack block, not in the main rules! It's some "read the small print" stuff!

 

[Reynard]

I know the thread OP is a little hard to parse. Truth be told I have been stuck home with covid and I don't think my brain was quite translating what I getting at correctly.

I think my actual question, now that I try and parse the mess I wrote, was more along the lines of: how do you use savings throw results to define the fiction and present the new game state. The reason i was focusing on saving throws is because they are a little different than skill checks or attack rolls. First, they are reactive. Second, they usually end up (at least partially) negating the impact of a thing happening in the fiction.

 

[Clint_L]

I take the saving throws into account, so generally I don't describe the action until I know how they turned out. So I don't think they change the impact of a thing happening, but rather change what happens. Like, the players weren't dead from the dragon breath and then not dead anymore because they made their save. They always dodged the full effect and got away singed. Does that answer what you are getting at? It's still a bit confusing.

 

[mamba]

When you are playing and/or running the game, do you use saving throws to change the fiction? That is to say, does the result of the saving throw retcon the outcome of a thing?

Note by the way that I AM NOT asking you what the rules say or what the right way to do it is, or asking for advice. I am asking YOU, at your table, how do you do it.

As a way to explain what i mean, here's an example:

A player character is moving down a hallway and fails to perceive a pit trap that suddenly opens up beneath their feet. As GM, you call for a Dex/Reflex/Wands saving throw. The PC succeeds and you say: just before you step on the tile you see a hint of a wide crack, darkness, below and as it gives way you are able to throw yourself backward to avoid falling in.

For me, the outcome has not been fully decided until the throw result is clear.

In your example, there are two checks here

1) passive perception for detecting the trap, that failed
2) Dex check to avoid falling into the trap, this one succeeds, so the char is hanging on to the side of the pit / floor of the room and pulls himself up, manages to jump aside in time before the floor fully collapses, or something else that makes sense

This is not a retroactive thing where somehow the char detects the trap in time to not step on it. That moment passed in 1)

 

[Malmuria]

A more common but less interesting version of this is when the GM tells you what your horrible fate is, and then lets you make a save. "The dragons breathes on you, melting your bones to slag! Make a saving throw." I see it all the time, and in some cases it is more complex and requires back tracking to make sense of a successful save.

Saving throws are a story mechanic. In a challenge game! The incoherence! /s

Chainmail’s rules for spells, magical attacks, and similar hazards led to saving throws in original D&D. The first Dungeon Master’s Guide explained the concept. “Because the player character is all-important, he or she must always—or nearly always—have a chance, no matter how small, of somehow escaping what otherwise be would be inevitable destruction.”

“Someone once criticized the concept of the saving throw as ridiculous,” Gary wrote. “Could a man chained to a rock, they asked, save himself from a blast of red dragon’s breath? Why not? I replied. Imagine that the figure, at the last moment, of course, manages to drop beneath the licking flames, or finds a crevice in which to shield his or her body, or succeeds in finding some way to be free of the fetters. Why not?” Saving throws grant a last chance, but they leave the details of why a save worked to the storytelling of the player and DM. The brilliance of hit points comes from their abstraction, and in original D&D saves are just as abstract as hit points.

For 25 Years, D&D Put Saving Throws In Groups Made For Just 3 Creatures and 2 Spells

Today, Dungeons & Dragons of matches saving throws to ability scores. But for most of the game’s history, D&D grouped saving throws by 5 sources: spell or staff, wand, death ray or poison, …

dmdavid.com