Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JoeNotCharles" data-source="post: 4981786" data-attributes="member: 79945">Yes.  No contradiction here, unless you think "consequence" means "failure".Blundering around until they finally decide that the priest must have gotten away is a highly unsatisfying way to spend a session.  Either make it clear up front, almost immediately, that the priest got away, and that's the end of this part of the adventure, or have their blundering around looking for him have some further payoff.  The DM just had them run a long way into a long dead end, and then have to backtrack out of it.I thought it went without saying that, since the priest got away, "finding a clue" wasn't going to put them back to being one encounter behind him.  It could take many more tough adventures to find him again now.  The story's on a completely new track now, of tracking the priest down rather than nabbing him just after fighting his minions - that's a consequence.  It doesn't have to be an unsatisfying one.I mean, in-character the PC's failed, and NPC's should treat it that way.  Out-of-character, the players haven't "failed" - they've made a choice to rest up instead of going after the priest immediately.  If that's "failure" the DM should just say, "You chose poorly, and lost the game."  But that's not the way D&D works.</blockquote>