D&D 5E When Failure Isn't an Option in 5e

[Oofta]

That's the point though. The OP is discussing how failure can impact the game, but making it so certain situations basically slam things to a halt rather than making them harder or forcing alternate approaches

Also, you're seeming to confuse mistakes and rolling low, given you refer to players not PCs (and indeed the sentiment only works with PCs). It's not a "mistake" if you roll to search a room with Investigate, and despite having Advantage from someone helping you or w/e, the dice roll low. Depending on the DM if you carefully describe the search you might auto-succeed anyway, but this is the sort of thing that tended to be an issue.

In my experience it's mostly an issue in pre-written adventures. As @jgsugden says, if there's even a little bit of a sandbox and the players are aware it exists, it's usually possible for them to work around it. In at least 50% of the adventures I've written which were a bit more railroad-y (normally I got for "scenarios" which are what @Oofta is describing I think, i.e. stuff is happening, do you want to get involved? Maybe an NPC asks you to, but you don't have to, and could ignore them and get involved in a different way), the players surprised the hell out of me with an approach I totally hadn't considered and which was really good.

As @prabe says too this can be a learned behaviour. This is one of the reasons I look askance at a lot of Adventure Path-type stuff, and particularly this idea that these sort of heavily-worked pre-gen Adventure Path-type adventures are a "good way for DMs to learn", because I actually feel like they push people into a particular way of approaching adventures which is quite limited. I have met players before who were befuddled by the idea of having to do their own thing. Indeed, full disclosure, I've kind of been one - not in D&D, but in Shadowrun, at one point in a very rail-road-y adventure the writers expect the PCs to go off and do research and talk to contacts and so on, and there's no way forward without them guessing this and having the appropriate skills/contacts to do so. Me and the other players were mystified by this. But it was largely learned because the entire SR campaign up to then had been basically "doing what we were told".

But I think the main thing is that you can make failed rolls and stuff interesting by designing for that, rather than just making them punishing. Personally I think it's generally better, if you want "punishing consequences" or the like to be looking more at that happening because of fundamentally terrible plans, rather than mere bad rolling. Now, there are some plans that pivot on a few rolls, and maybe some of those are fundamentally terrible plans, but most of what the OP is referring to isn't that.

In my campaigns the world is always changing and evolving. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. Most of the changes are pretty insignificant, but I have had city-states fall because the adventurers failed. In other cases, PCs turned a potential big bad (and potential long term threat) into an ally. In other cases they succeeded beyond my expectations and a region was left in a far more stable state than I had been anticipating affecting my general concepts for potential future campaign arcs.

It goes both ways. Sometimes the PCs fail and bad things happen. But unless it's a TPK, it's not the end of the campaign it's just opening up different obstacles. In other cases failure may be a setback but not a permanent one. Especially if running a mystery scenario, if they miss a clue it's not going to be the last clue they will ever get. It just means that if they had picked up on the clue they would have solved the mystery more quickly, perhaps they could have prevented some damage or even a death. Maybe their reward will be slightly less if they fail.

In other words, there will never be a secret door they must find. If they find the secret door they can bypass a fight or be in position to set up an ambush. If they fail to stop the dragon, the dragon burns their home base to ash and their favorite Num Num bakery is gone, the owner fled to parts unknown. That just sets up another path, another story arc where they have to face down a more powerful foe with a rallying cry of "Remember Num Num!"

 

[Bacon Bits]

Just made a new post about failure in 5e DnD inspired by a number of recent discussions I've seen on twitter recently about it.

When Failure Isn't an Option in 5e

Hm. I think my only criticism of the post is with the phrasing of the bolded point: Players should always have the minimal information and access they need to advance the story.

My issue is that phrasing is ambiguous. It could mean, "Players should never have less than the minimal information they need to advance," or it could mean, "Players should never have more than the minimal information they need to advance." (It could also mean both, but that doesn't really change my response.)

The former I agree with, and I think that's what the post is arguing for after reading everything. But I had to read awhile before I got that.

The latter I would disagree with, and feels like encouraging a conflict of interest in the game.

 

[Shiroiken]

That's the point though. The OP is discussing how failure can impact the game, but making it so certain situations basically slam things to a halt rather than making them harder or forcing alternate approaches.

That's just it, slamming the door should always be a possibility IMO. Others disagree, and that's fine.

Also, you're seeming to confuse mistakes and rolling low, given you refer to players not PCs (and indeed the sentiment only works with PCs). It's not a "mistake" if you roll to search a room with Investigate, and despite having Advantage from someone helping you or w/e, the dice roll low. Depending on the DM if you carefully describe the search you might auto-succeed anyway, but this is the sort of thing that tended to be an issue.

I said players because I meant players. Bad die rolls happen, but as you pointed out, failure from just that is largely a sign of bad adventure design. More than one set of clues should be possible to find, and more than one avenue possible to complete the main objective. I've found that "fail forward" is a crutch to support that bad design. The only exception is combat, and even then a failure of strategy and tactics can often be placed upon the players.

I was referring to when players don't pursue those alternatives. Sadly, I feel that AP design has created the learned behavior you mentioned, where players are happily led by the nose. I've found inattention to detail (a flaw of my own) can easily generate failure, since it might preclude some of those alternatives. Sometimes it's just a lack of initiative/imagination by the players, which I guess goes back to that learned behavior.

 

[jmartkdr2]

But if the story DOESN'T go on, do you end that nights session and send the players home?

Nah, we plan the next campaign.

 

[prabe]

Nah, we plan the next campaign.

That sounds like not just failure, but FAILURE.

 

[jmartkdr2]

That sounds like not just failure, but FAILURE.

TPKs happen, sometimes.

But I do agree with OP's first point - it shouldn't come from a single roll. That's bad adventure design.

 

[prabe]

TPKs happen, sometimes.

But I do agree with OP's first point - it shouldn't come from a single roll. That's bad adventure design.

Yeah. I was attempting humor.

I also agree with the broader point that--TPKs aside--there should be more things the PCs can try, at least for a while. Maybe they will fail to save the world, and that can still make for at least a somewhat satisfying story.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I said players because I meant players. Bad die rolls happen, but as you pointed out, failure from just that is largely a sign of bad adventure design.

Bad adventure design is on the DM, and the OP's article is DM advice. So I don't think it's wrong.

That's just it, slamming the door should always be a possibility IMO. Others disagree, and that's fine.

I think you're kind of overstating the position. What the OP is describing is how to avoid a situation there the door slams shut when you didn't really intend it to, if you read the article, not making some sort of "throw himself in front of the king's horse" plea for kindness to inept players, which would relate more to your comment.

Even with the OP's advice, sufficiently bad decision-making from the players could absolutely "slam the door shut". Just not poor rolling alone. Seems pretty reasonable given he's describing DM-side setup.

I've found inattention to detail (a flaw of my own) can easily generate failure, since it might preclude some of those alternatives.

Yeah and the one time I've encountered this ending an adventure in the wild, from player-side, it was absolutely the DM's fault. In the debrief afterwards the DM thought he'd communicated certain information which he absolutely had not, and eventually he admitted he hadn't, looking at his notes.

I've also seen DMs be pretty bad on the providing this kind of detail side a few times. Sometimes actively trying to be cagey about stuff there was no reason to be anything but honest about. The very worst was a guy who insisted on making checks to know something that would have been completely obvious simply by looking at the wall, he like literally wouldn't describe the pattern on it (he was an all-round not-very-good DM and mostly there to show off his OC though).

 

[toucanbuzz]

I'm not really sure what that means. I doubt you mean the campaign ends but maybe? Failure can be an end to that strategy, but there has to be some place to go with the game.

I didn't mean to sidetrack the conversation from good game design (roll with the punches, see where things take you when rolls or decisions don't work out with the storyline), but I also wanted to iterate my belief that ultimate failure should always be on the table. This could take the discussion into another well-harped upon topic ("how to handle TPKs/character deaths"), which I don't want to get into.

I keep that "ultimate failure" card handy because my players want risk associated with rolls and decision making. If they catch on that the DM is making the party immortal to keep a storyline going, I know they'll lose some element of thrill. There's others that might play another way, that no matter what, the story keeps going somewhere, and the risk is losing the storyline you want.

 

[OptionalRule]

My issue is that phrasing is ambiguous. It could mean, "Players should never have less than the minimal information they need to advance," or it could mean, "Players should never have more than the minimal information they need to advance." (It could also mean both, but that doesn't really change my response.)

Ah, that's interesting feedback. As the author I obviously knew what I meant but didn't get that across well.

I meant it as you seem to as well. 'Never have less than'. They should always be able to move forward but they shouldn't be limited to that.

I will say though, I do try to automatically give the least information and leave it up to the players to take action to get more information. That's rather the point of my own style of encounter design. Yes you could jump blindly ahead with this, but if you put a little thought and action into it, you can probably discover a lot more to set yourself up for success and act in a more informed way.