Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8285435" data-attributes="member: 6779196">There’s a meaningful difference between rules not addressing a scenario at all and rules specifically addressing a scenario in a way you don’t like.But if there’s no consequence for failure, it isn’t a challenge. “Missable bonus” describes with near-perfect accuracy where failure is possible but the only result of failure is not-success. Heck, you even called the scenario with the safe a bonus yourself.“Should?” I disagree. By my understanding of 5e rules, a roll only “should” be called for if failure and success are both meaningfully possible and failure has a meaningful consequence. If you want to call for rolls in other situations you can, but I’ve found that only calling for rolls when they are necessary (as defined by the rules (as I understand them)) leads to significantly better gameplay. YMMV.Interesting, that is quite the opposite of my own experience. It would seem that when we call for rolls is not the only variable at play here. I wonder what else we’re doing differently that is creating this disparity of results.I disagree that dangerous situations having meaningful stakes doesn’t make sense.Fun moments and finding alternate ways around obstacles seem to me to happen either way. “Making unimportant success states interesting” would seem to me to be the very arbitrarily added drama you detest.  If you create interesting challenges, the outcomes will naturally be interesting. Making the outcome of an uninteresting scenario interesting seems artificial.This is something that could happen regardless of when you do or don’t call for checks.I don’t see how a roll being required directly lead to either A or B. A is a matter of worldbuilding, totally independent of when rolls are called for. B could have happened with or without a roll.No, if there is no consequence for failure then by definition nothing happens on a failure. Failure results in the status quo being maintained - in other words, no change. In a very literal sense, nothing of consequence has happened. If you disagree, tell me what has actually happened as a result of a consequence-free failure.In-character frustration is not mutually exclusive with consequences for failure.The world doesn’t just roll over, the game just doesn’t focus on inconsequential tasks.Again, this outcome is not mutually exclusive with failure having meaningful consequences. On the contrary, consequences for failure make this decision more interesting because now both options are viable and present a risk-reward proposition.Sure. Point being, by doing this you are introducing a consequence for failure. In this case, the consequence is that you can’t succeed without changing your approach or the circumstances.Yes, and I’d imagine the result was a whole lot of pointless rolls. “Oops, I failed. Oh, nothing is changed? Ok, I try again.” Rinse and repeat until you roll a success or get bored of throwing d20s at a no-stakes obstacle. I don’t blame you for not liking retries if you allowed them when failure just meant preserving the status quo. Narrating success when failure has no consequence is meant (among other things) specifically to avoid these kinds of meaningless rolls.It is within your power as DM to make there be a reason for there to be a guard there. Or if you don’t want there to be one, that’s fine. That just means it’s not a consequential scenario and can be moved on from quickly so you can get to the good stuff sooner.</blockquote>

Verification