Lots of good advice here. I never let a single roll determine everything in an attempt like this. First roll is a fail for sure, but also was NOT a critical fail. Ruling out a secondary throw would be a pretty severe punishment in this case. Without it being critical, a secondary dex saving throw of some sort is always a given, with some punishable damage or consequence. This is where a failed check would kill the PC or a success could land the child in the lava on top of a 1d10 damage to the PC. At least they're alive and able to carry on and have learned consequences to rushed action. However, I will also say that one of my DMs times us in real time once a decision like this is made and goes six seconds at a time. For him, once the bard chooses to run and jump, the clock starts and the roll is made. Based on the roll, he'd explain the outcome and another six seconds given to make a choice. If you don't react, you lose your ability to and could very likely die due to freezing up in the moment. Definitely adds intensity to a lot of situations, but it's also fair.
I'd have her save the kid, but on the way back, the kid slips or whatever. Then give the player a clear choice, with the understanding this is permanent, between saving the kid and dying or letting the kid die (or accepting that the kid was already dead before she tried to save it). Therefore, you aren't punishing the player for failing and still letting them have control over their ultimate destiny.
Figure out this in such a way that the other players can't intervene (holding on to or reaching for the kid with one hand while holding on to the kid with the other. Or maybe the rope is frayed (on the cliff face even) and isn't strong enough to hold both people or whatever.
I’d allow a secondary check if she or the party can narrate her way out of it. So you give her something like “the recently molten rock at the edge of the lava is not as firm as you expect. You all see it crumble as she leaps. She is clearly not going to make it. You each get one action as a reaction, what do you do?”
"As you sprint into action you literally trip over your own feet and eat more dirt than you'd like to in your lifetime. Be grateful it wasn't a nat 1 because your nose just barely touched some old horse manure. Also take xx points of fall damage."
In the first place, as a DM, I almost certainly would not set up a situation like this. I favor players being brave and self-sacrificing with their characters, because that is what heroes do. Therefore, I would probably set up a situation in which it is dangerous but reasonably possible to save this kid without a single die roll causing insta-death. So this exact situation is not likely to come up in my adventures.
However, if it did, then I would probably not have the character die off, because as some mentioned above, the character is being heroic, and heroism should be rewarded. If we let a random die roll determine success/failure here, and the character turns into ash and can’t even be resurrected (let alone having died), the message this sends to the other players (assuming they like their characters) is, “don’t be heroic, because if the dice go against you your character is gone.” And to be clear, this bard didn’t die saving the child, she died trying, but failing, to save the child. And there’s nothing really epic about that.
Also we have to be clear that although the 2 on d20 determines a “failed skill check” it is up to the DM to determine what that means. For example, attempting to disarm a trap and failing does not necessarily mean the trap goes off. In my 3.5e NWN modules, I scripted it so a “near failure” was just a failure, but a “far failure” set off the trap. (If you roll within 5 below the DC, it doesn’t disarm, 6 or more you set it off). That kind of thing is DM’s discretion.
Therefore, I would consider doing this one of several ways. One possibility is to rule that the check was being done to see if she saves the kid. A failure, then, doesn’t mean the bard dies, but the kid dies. The “eat dirt as you trip” idea from above would be appropriate, followed by watching as the kid dies in whatever graphic way you want. The failure has a consequence, but the consequence is related to the attempt.
But I don’t really like that idea dramatically, so I probably would just have the bard face plant and the kid remain in a state of “not yet saved.” Much the way a failed lock pick means the lock remains in a state of “not yet picked” or “still locked.” The party would then have to discuss what to do. I would probably prohibit the bard from trying again without some change happening — at our table back in the day, skill checks were never allowed immediately after a failure (at least, by the same character). If someone were to help in such a way as to change the conditions, I would allow a re-roll. Or if she changed the conditions (“I cast levitate on myself” etc), I would allow a re-do.
However, realistically I don’t think I’d probably have done any of those things. Instead, seeing that 2, I would probably very quietly place a d20 with the “1” facing up and say that because the lava is bubbling and heaving, it gets to make “skill checks” against her. So that her roll is not to land on the pillar but to avoid the lava. So now, unless I roll a 1 you are going to get hit and fall in. Then I would roll the d12 or d10 behind the screen to make a “thunk” and gape at the die roll, and then I would raise the screen to show the d20 with the 1 facing up. I can almost guarantee at least with my group, everyone would cheer as I described that she was a little singed but she made it. This is the heroic and dramatic thing, and to me, is what the player deserves for having the character do something brave.
Yes I know, people will complain that “it’s not what the rules as written” say to do. But I don’t care. The heroic thing trumps the rules, as does the drama of the scene. And most importantly, the players doing the heroic thing ought to be, in my view, rewarded, to encourage more heroic behavior. I don’t want to run a campaign for a group of selfish cowards. I want to DM for a group of heroes. (BTW, yes, I would make that clear in session 0 if not before.)
But mostly, IMO, given the starting conditions, the bard making it over and saving the kid is the only thing that makes good dramatic sense. Slipping and falling into the lava and burning alive is the sort of thing that happens in a Wile E Coyote skit, not a dramatic fantasy novel.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Drama does trump rules. But Drama requires stakes. Heroism is meaningless if we shield the heroes from failure because we make it an objectively right choice and an objectively wrong choice. The player failed. Should they instantly die? No. Should they just be given more rolls or just be given the success? No, because failure here is a gift. How a character reacts to failing to be heroic-- to maybe come to terms with the fact that not everyone is going to be saved is a more interesting character beat than saving the kid. Infinitely. Actually, success, if we are talking about drama is boring. In dramas, we want to see bad things happen to our characters. We also want to see them ultimately triumph, but we want to see bad things happen along the way: a story how you dealt with a giant warband which made you go "oh my god, we're dead" is a better story than a bunch of orcs which posed no real challenge.
I agree that drama requires stakes. But I think the setup in the OP is just something I would not have designed that way.
I agree with Matt Colville that dice do not provide drama. They provide suspense, perhaps (wondering if the roll will go your way or not) but they do not provide drama. They provide randomness, which is the opposite of drama.
Consequently, for a situation like this, I tend to set it up so that the situation is going to be resolved in some way other than a random die roll. A great example of this would be the “Spider-Man” choice in the first Spidey movie back years ago... When Green Goblin gave him a choice of using his powers to save his girlfriend, or a cable car full of innocent people. The question is not whether Spidey can make his DEX save to rescue one of them — it’s a low DC roll, and he has high bonuses, so as long as he doesn’t roll a Nat 1... it’s a 19/20 chance he rescues someone. But... he only has one action this round, and he literally cannot save both — so what does he do?
The drama from this case comes not from the die roll, but from the catch-22 choice. From whether he goes with his heart and saves the girl he has a crush on, or goes with his head, as it were, and saves the greater number of people. Or of course, is is player really, super clever, and can he take a minute to survey the map, flip through his Spidey abilities in the PHB And XGE supplement, and figure out a way to save them both in one round — perhaps by using both an action and a bonus action to do something unexpected. Again, here the drama isn’t coming from the die roll... it’s coming from the content of the scene.
So going back to the OP... instead of just a lone boy at the top of a pillar with lava bubbling up, I’d be more likely to have, say, a little boy on one pillar, and some material object the bard (or the party) really, very much wants (or even needs for a quest) on the other. Our Bard “Frodette” can rescue Samwise, or the One Ring. Which one does she do? That’s the drama. Not rolling a 12 or higher on 1d20.
Now when we do stakes and consequences... let’s say Frodette goes for the One Ring. Well, Sam’s going to die, and Frodette is going to have to live with that, forever. Let’s say she saves Sam. Well, the Nazgul just got back the One Ring, and the whole entire game world has been screwed to save one hobbit... and Frodette’s going to have to live with that too. But what she is living with is the consequences of an actual decision, not the consequences of rolling badly on a poorly balanced cheap plastic icosahedron.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Good stuff here. While I don't like to kill off characters it happens from time to time.
In the moment some of these scenarios are hard to come up with. I have left several sessions on a cliff hanger like this. Stepping away for a time certainly gives you some time to ponder good options and leaves all the players with the feeling of a good TV show left in a cliffhanger for the week (or until next session).
Maybe they both fall to lower sinking ledges and the party has the choice of save the bard or the boy, or neither. Save the boy, but lose an item. The party has a chance to save one or both, but at the risk of their own death. Or possibly, the bard dies but the boy lives and is old enough to start a quest to resurrect the bard from the charred hand that was saved.
Quote from BigLizard>>There are two things really.
There is absolutely nothing random about that scenario or the resulting cast of the die. It was all very deliberate and calculated event, that started at character creation and culminated in the events of a story to a dramatic moment.
Sorry. I don't know how you cast dice. But if you somehow manages to do it with absolutely NOTHING random about it, we are not talking about the same thing. As long as there is dice involved, there is also randomness involved. All your stats etc are only stats that makes something more or less likely. There's still the completely RANDOM roll involved.
As a DM, the bard who rolled a 2 to land her jump to save the boy gets a Dexterity saving throw. She makes her jump onto the pillar, but lands badly/unsteadily and is teetering on the edge. A successful Dex save allows her to correct and settle; a failed Dex save and she falls.
This also allows the party time to react, as they can see her teetering. Everybody who wants one gets one action to try and help if the Dex save fails - effectively a single reaction, save that whatever they can try gets a roll. Whatever the party chooses to do, adjudicate as normal.
If everything fails? Then the bard falls into the lava and horribleness ensues. The bard's player would be allowed her final words, as I very much agree with Matthew Mercer in that allowing a player to speak the final words of a doomed character, even when the narrative may have to stretch a little to allow for it, is very important. The final disposition of the child the bard died to save depends on the party's future actions, but I would likely lower DCs to save said kid as a karmic reward for the bard's heroism. Depending on whether I could.
No DM enjoys killing PCs. But when characters are put in a situation where lives are riding on their actions, sometimes the dice say no. Without that tension, heroism has no meaning. It's absolutely awful when a PC dies unexpectedly, and even worse when they die 'senselessly'. But those are also the moments that can make an entire campaign. Who knows - that bard's death may galvanize her party, and it's certainly ensured that the players are as personally invested as they possibly can be in ensuring that the demon who caused the death goes down as permanently as possible.
I think some of it depends on how you define drama. It's pretty clear from this thread and others that there is more than one way to think about drama, and people thinking about it in different ways have different takes on just how much or how little impact die rolling should have on the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
no matter how you implement the dice mechanics, you must have them to produce those clutch moments in which drama climaxes and without them, the drama is at best anticlimactic. I mean you jump a cross a lava pit to save someone.. great, now make that moment dramatic without rolling the dice.
Except...
The dice did not create the moment. The DM did. The OP was (presumably) not generated by the author rolling dice using random tables in the DM guide. The OP was created by a DM using storytelling devices or narrative intuition or what have you. The only thing that makes the "roll to jump over the flaming lava" seem "dramatic" is the setup. The die roll isn't providing the drama -- the setup is. It's easy enough to see that this is the case, since players roll dice hundreds of times in an adventure but hardly any of these rolls are ever going to be thought of as "dramatic."
I find it useful to distinguish suspense (tension caused by the inability to know the outcome of the die before it is cast) from drama. By suspense I refer to the intense feeling that an observer goes through while awaiting the outcome of an event. By drama I refer to the representation (usually through dialogue or performance) of fictional events involving a conflict of forces. The dice can make a dramatic scene (like the lava jump) suspenseful because while the die is tumbling through the air or along the table-top, you don't know the outcome, so you are in suspense, on the edge of your seat, etc. This can be pleasurable, exciting, and fun, which is why we roll dice in the first place.
But what made the lava jump dramatic, was the portrayal of the fictional events through dialogue and performance, and the conflict of forces (the lava as the force of death vs. the bard as the force of life, as it were). The key to drama is the conflict -- without conflict, you have no drama. If there was no lava, there would be no drama - even if the bard rolled d20 to "walk across the room." Because nothing was there to stop the bard and so there was no dramatic setup -- there is no conflict.
So to me, what causes drama is not die rolls -- it is the conflict. Characters often die in battle, which is an overt, physical conflict. The die roll doesn't cause the character to die -- the conflict does. The example I gave above of the first Spidey movie and the scene where he has to make a choice between MJ and a group of innocents -- the conflict is within Spidey of what to do. That is drama. The significance of the conflict gives the scene its weight, and causes the drama. All the die can do provide you the option of a little period of suspense leading up to the resolution of the conflict. And, if you wish, ensure that the conflict is resolved, not arbitrarily by willful human beings, but "objectively" by a truly impartial mediator (assuming the die is not rigged, of course).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I'd keep the story going and the character alive but the failure worsens the situation in a fun dynamic way. It's the non-boring option.
I look to the player's cunning: can they out think the problem and invent a cool cinematic way out, because I'm more than likely going to reward their cunning before I reward the heroism of their character. Dumb heroes die all the time. Inspiration can help dumb heroes. ;)
DM: "You rolled a 2? {Evil smile}. You make it across, but you were so terrified of the bubbling lava below and the sudden blast of heat, you landed poorly on the pillar and crashed into the kid. In fact, your clumsy landing sends a crack cascading all the way down the pillar where it calves at the base. The pillar of rock tilts and quickly teeters away from the direction you jumped, it's base crumbling and grinding the stone into the lava below. The kid already terrified now screams, her eyes wide in watery fear as the pillar of rock crumbles and falls with the both of you sliding towards certain doom. What do you do?"
Player's responses (looking for good, novel, cinematic, or character driven ideas): - just hold on to where we are with all my might. [Ask if the player is really sure cos it looks like this side is going to hit first?] They are. [oh dear the player froze and had no good idea to get out, if they're very new to RP I'd go easy on them, perhaps allow someone in the group to offer suggestions... otherwise] (Death. no roll required.) - jump with kid to new pillar [kind of obvious] (dex save for yourself, with disadvantage if you're taking the kid - ooh the dilemma of the choice!) - clamber to the side of the pillar that would be the topside once it falls into the lava and ride it down [a bit smarter and more cinematic] (athletics skill check to grapple the kid to the other side of the falling pillar). Thinking ahead: after this roll they could be on a rapidly sinking rock platform dozens of feet below (another failure might mean them being caught in the splash zone but still on top of it). - use the momentum of the falling rock, and waiting until the optimum moment to throw the kid to safety [even in the face of certain doom the bard remains true to his conviction of saving the innocent, plus its cinematic!] (Get inspiration! athletics check to throw the kid upward to the edge - now to quickly think what to do with the bard, he's so selfless!) - {Insert "Patrick Rothfuss BS" card} Bard: "Aren't there lots of pillars? I'm going to throw my weight with my hips so that I can direct this pillar of rock into its nearest neighbor, temporarily halting its fall as it crashes into it. Oh, and I'm also going to sing a warcry of the Uthgaardt as I tell the kid to hold onto my leg. Afterwards my plan is to raise the kid up to the higher ledge and clamber up afterwards." (Give advantage, make the DC super low cos its awesome, narrate the BS as a rock ballad)
Be sure to ask the other players if anyone is doing anything. Is the bard all on his own while they just look on? Perhaps one of them has something very smart that might mitigate another bardic failure. Involving the rest of the party in the bard's failure is another way to exacerbate the situation. The cost of failing ties up more PCs.
So let's say the bard fails again on their second check above, and all other attempts from the rest of the group fail. How can the DM put them in even worse shape, without instantly killing them? That's where the fun lies. I'm also looking to change up the skill check or save between attempts. I don't want to ask the player to keep making the exact same check. Obviously, this only works a limited number of times. Too much of this and it becomes farce, so save it for the big stakes. Once your players cannot believably see a way out (third failure is usually the kicker), they're more likely to accept their character's death as something they had agency in, regardless of their repeated bad luck - especially if it looked cool. The whole group was there as "Things got worse and worse and WORSE" and nobody succeeded in preventing it. You weren't out to kill them on one bad die roll. But even then, have it narratively mean something - give something to the player of that dead character, some final act or description to cement the lore of the character's passing - it's no trivial thing.
If you insta-kill PCs on single checks, not only do you make very cautious overly prepared players who don't do things in the heat of the moment which slows down the play to a crawl - not only for fear of character death but also of "group groan" as the other players resent your non-optimal actions that reset the group composition, retread introductions of the new PC, delay the plot, kill off all the connections that PC had to established NPCs, end all subplots the DM had prepared for that character, etc..., you also show your hand as a DM who cannot think creatively on the spot. Your job as a DM is not to be boring. With a no stakes just by the way "Oh look you failed and fell in the lava, you dead." skill check. That's not edgy and gritty, that's a yawn-fest. I'd also say slamming into the pillar requiring a strength save after the failed check to also be a bit boring as you haven't heightened the danger with the failure, only delayed the check with another - and it's kind of expected (oh what there was a branch just conveniently sticking out of the cliff right where I fell?). Are you just going to have the player roll d20s until they hit a 15? No. That makes a mockery of all dice rolls. Make the failure mean something by adding to the stakes.
Every once in a while you can immediately escalate into something wholly unexpected to save the character from insta-death to near certain death: DM: "You rolled a 2. You're not going to make it. The kid's eyes are crestfallen as she realises you're going to die too. Just like her. Your arms and legs begin to flail and a scream rushes up your throat only to be engulfed by an almighty eruption of lava and a roar. You look down to see the purple worm you didn't kill - remember you guys turned tail and ran - it comes bursting up out of the lava in a titanic roar of pain and anger, it's 20' diameter maw enclosing both the now crumbling pillar of rock with the kid, and you. You fall passed its hundreds of teeth, and globs of molten lava as its snaps shut. Blackness and heat. Everyone, roll initiative." (notice that the purple worm is previously established, it helps)
Your mileage will vary. It's D&D. Meat grinder is a legitimate style of play. Just be sure everyone is on the same page and has a stack of character sheets. ;)
Review of poll options: Instant death. She fell into the lava which will melt her body on contact. Too quick. Not cinematic. Boring movie.
Give the bard a second skill check to catch herself. Failure here is instant death. Doesn't pay respect to the first roll. Doesn't increase the stakes. It's a do-over.
Give the player a check for insight to realize she won't make it and stop himself. Failure is death. This should of happened before the jump roll was made, not after a failed roll was seen.
Give the party checks for insight/ Dex/ etc to stop the player before she leaps, realizing she won't make it This should of happened before the jump roll was made, not after a failed roll was seen.
Tell the player to reroll because you forgot they had inspiration. Death happens on fail Argh. Retcons. They diminish both the failure and the importance of how inspiration is acquired.
Rule that the failed check just means that they leaped onto the side of the column. Death not an option No meaningful consequence of failing. Too protective of not only dumb ideas, but of no ideas.
Rule that the leap didn't happen and ask the player to pick a new plan. Doesn't respect the player's actions and agency. No retcons.
Rule for drama. Roll for memories. If there isn't a meaningful failure condition, do not roll. Ever. (Perception checks, I'm .... clunk, roll, roll, roll, stop... 14, looking at you... maybe?)
Torq -- what a great answer. In particular, I wish that I had written this:
If you insta-kill PCs on single checks, not only do you make very cautious overly prepared players who don't do things in the heat of the moment which slows down the play to a crawl - not only for fear of character death but also of "group groan" as the other players resent your non-optimal actions that reset the group composition, retread introductions of the new PC, delay the plot, kill off all the connections that PC had to established NPCs, end all subplots the DM had prepared for that character, etc..., you also show your hand as a DM who cannot think creatively on the spot. Your job as a DM is not to be boring. With a no stakes just by the way "Oh look you failed and fell in the lava, you dead." skill check. That's not edgy and gritty, that's a yawn-fest.
It's what I have been trying, and failing, to convey for a while but you have said it well and I have not said it really at all. Somehow you crawled inside my head and pulled out what I was thinking when I could not do so on multiple attempts.
(I guess I rolled a nat 1 on my writing skill check... repeatedly...)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
A game feels heroic when you took a risk with your character, actually put him in danger of dying and come out successfully and those moments are just as memorable as the ones where characters fail and die horribly.
Except if you are just going by the "dice are dramatic" premise, the only thing you did to come out successfully was roll high on d20.
I mean, I get it. To you, what's "fun" is that suspenseful die roll and the lack of safety net. I understand that point of view and have many gamer friends online who feel this way. I knew people who refused to play City of Heroes (and probably still do even though it is now being run for free on private servers) because every mission was scaled to your level and group size, so there was almost no way to "get in over your head" and, if you don't screw up, you almost cannot faceplant in COH (I have a level 50+ scrapper right now on the private servers who in something like 1,000 missions has faceplanted maybe 12 times, usually to me being careless). They prefer games that "don't hold your hand," and greatly prefer games like EVE which are open PVP (more or less) and there is no hand-holding and you can die any time to an enemy in unpredictable ways. They feel this is more realistic and exciting, and this is a very similar point of view to what you are expressing. As I say, there is nothing wrong with that.
However, there's also nothing wrong with preferring to play games in other ways, and what this thread shows is that there are many different points of view on this, and a whole bunch of different ways that the DM-type people responding here might handle it. Just because some people like there to be a sense of "high risk" and meat grinder adventures, doesn't mean everyone does. And it doesn't mean that everyone who prefers not to have those meat grinder conditions... is wrong.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
@biglizard From one old timer to another, I can happily disagree that I'm being assumptive. I see your 30 years and raise it to 35... is there a prize? chuckle... but truly what does all that time at a table mean. Does it make our RP style more legitimate? Experience is grand and all, and we're both going to be relatively stuck in our ways, but if people with just 1 year of experience are loving 5e and it's design that inherently protects the heroes from death, and they're having fun - who are we to argue otherwise.
If you and your players have fun with instant death saving throws, all power to you. I've certainly insta-killed characters in long running campaigns with failed saves (The Banshee's range on her scream is impressive back in 3e), but rarely did it improve the game for me or my players. As a group, we didn't feel it added to the experience - not character death, all the players embraced potentially dying, just instant death due to one dice roll. Not saying I didn't instakill a character ever, just rarely. And back in 1e and 2e days, it was tough work keeping players alive, instant death wasn't the only things to fear; even a pack of kobolds could easily decimate a 1st level party with pointed sticks. ;)
A word on what I consider fair or unfair about instantly killing a character. I don't mean it's unfair on the player if they knowingly enter the lair of an ancient red dragon, having taken no precautions or sneaky routes, fail their save vs the dragon's first breath weapon, and die from a singular attack. That player's character is charred toast. What I do think is unfair are surprise rolls (save versus death because your passive perception didn't notice the trapped chest), or singular skill checks that could be more fun if failure wasn't always death.
As a playing style, does this mean I molly-coddle the players? No I don't think so. Important combat, damage and save rolls are routinely rolled openly so that they knew I can't fib behind the screen. Players pay attention to the open roll. I didn't do it for any other reason than it is fun to heighten the stakes, which is exactly what my post is all about. If the best thing to do in the scene, all things considered (story, character, group, fun, appropriately thematic and dramatic) is to kill that character... then by all means do it memorably. Heighten the stakes, don't prematurely nip the opportunity in the bud. Keep character death meaningful by not making it arbitrary.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rule for drama. Roll for memories. If there isn't a meaningful failure condition, do not roll. Ever. (Perception checks, I'm .... clunk, roll, roll, roll, stop... 14, looking at you... maybe?)
I am a bit confused about the Task being rolled for. Did you state "roll to not fall into the lava and died a horrible death" or was it "roll to jump over to the pillar so you can save the kid"?
I would go with the second wording and would focus on why they are trying to jump over some lava. Save the kid.
When they rolled the 2, I would describe them tripping while they were running up to the edge to jump heroically over to the pillar, stumbling and falling prone right at the edge, feeling the heat of the lava wash over them as they watch in horror as the pillar crumble and the kid falls off to their to death, screaming pitifully as they burn up in the lava.
Falling the roll still has consequences, they failed in saving the kid. I don't know if I would ever set my playing up so they could kill themselves because they fail a single roll. Now, if the player had stated "I going to jump into the lava and swim over to the pillar, climb up the pillar and save the kid and they are not immune to fire damage, I would not even roll, they just commented suicide. I would ask them if that what the want to do, repeating back "So you want to climb down into a pool of burning lava, try to swim through it and then climb out of it and climb up a crumbling pillar to get to the child?" just so I am sure about exactly what they want to do and if they state yes, time for them to roll a new character.
From one old timer to another, I can happily disagree that I'm being assumptive. I see your 30 years and raise it to 35... is there a prize? chuckle... but truly what does all that time at a table mean.
I can beat you both -- I started playing D&D with the Basic Set in January 1982, which makes it 38 years this month. (I got the game for Christmas but it took me a while to learn and understand it and for my friend and I to start playing, yes, just the two of us at first.) So if there's a prize, I think I get it, at least among the three of us. Now get off my lawn!
but if people with just 1 year of experience are loving 5e and it's design that inherently protects the heroes from death, and they're having fun - who are we to argue otherwise.
l don't want to put words in someone else's keyboard, but from what I gather from BL's writing, he believes that the older-school "save or die" type of mechanic is more enjoyable because it "raises the stakes" (or "drama"), and that everyone will like this style better if only they would try it. Having lived through the transition from "save or die" (which I originally started with thanks to old school D&D) to "characters usually go unconscious, not dead, if they lose a fight or fail a roll" (which I got from Champions not much more than 1 year later), I do not agree, and clearly you do not. But I don't think BL is being "ornery" here -- I think he genuinely has way more fun the old-school way, and he truly believes everyone else will too, probably because, in his 30 years as player and DM (where the experience comes in) that is when he and his table have had the most fun.
What I can't figure out is why, if someone really believes that the older, harsher, more deadly rules of prior editions make for a superior gaming experience than the, shall we say, more "curated" style of 5e, one would keep playing 5e. I think those who have said it is designed to appeal to the video-game-raised younger folks who are used to being able to respawn after death and keep their character forever, are probably correct. I was surprised myself, when reading the (5e) PHB for the first time a few months ago, to see just how hard it is for characters to die in the normal course of things. Poison doesn't kill you anymore; 0 hp means you're just "unconscious" and you have to roll < 10 three times in a row to die. That seems very "sanitized' to someone who is used to the 1e or 2e experience, for a D&D game.
But it does not seem "sanitized" to me for a roleplaying game, because I spent the majority of my time playing RPGs other than D&D, such as Champions, precisely because death was rarer in those other games, and thus more significant. Tons of characters died in our D&D games over the years. I hardly remember any of the characters any more and I only remember one actual death -- because it was the first AD&D death, and it was a save-or-die fail at level 1 for my friend's character, who I was playing at the time, and I felt really guilty about it. But all those other deaths? They did not stick with me because life is so cheap in D&D. In Champions, though, even now, decades later, I can recite the name, character, and circumstances of every single death we ever had, because there were so few, and this made them memorable. This does not make people who like deadlier games wrong, but it explains why my friends and I gravitated toward Champions and away from D&D... and why one of those same friends and I have gravitated back toward D&D with 5e. Having read the rules one of my first reactions was, "Wow, they have almost got a hybrid game between Champions and D&D here," which to me, was a good thing.
But I can easily see how someone who wants a more "old school" Tomb-of-Horrors game, would not like 5e... and would prefer 1e, or perhaps Dungeon Crawl Classics, or something like that. What I don't agree with is arguing that 5e ought to be played that way not just by one group by "by everyone" because we would "all have more fun that way." It's simply not the case, as my game group proved in 1983, for crying out loud, when we all moved away from lethal D&D toward Champions, which was a very non-lethal game. We had more fun without the lethality, and plenty of others do too.
What I do think is unfair are surprise rolls (save versus death because your passive perception didn't notice the trapped chest), or singular skill checks that could be more fun if failure wasn't always death.
Here again... some people have more fun with failure = death. Not you, and not me... but it all depends on the person. I know people who play video games on that "hardcore" mode where you can't reload if you die or lose or whatever. This can mean if you die that you loose maybe tens or even hundreds of hours of gameplay. I am not on board for that -- my time is limited, and I don't like living on the knife edge constantly. But tons of players do like that, or else those modes would not exist in video games. This is the same style preference as the save-or-die mentality. Lots of people like it. I don't... but that's me.
Keep character death meaningful by not making it arbitrary.
This is the key for me. And it's why I think, more than any other reason, we preferred Champions to D&D. In Champions, although a number of characters died over the years, no death in Champions was ever arbitrary because, as the game was designed, it kind of can't happen that way. In D&D, as far as I recall, just about every single death was arbitrary -- almost always due to failed save-or-die rolls (which is why I do't remember any of them -- because they had no meaning or purpose). Or because a Kobold with a 1d4 dagger rolled a 4 against your perfectly healthy Illusionist with that beefy 3 hp that you rolled on 1d4 yesterday when you made him up. Arbitrary deaths are not dramatic, and not meaningful, and consequently tend not to be memorable.
Did you state "roll to not fall into the lava and died a horrible death" or was it "roll to jump over to the pillar so you can save the kid"?
I would go with the second wording and would focus on why they are trying to jump over some lava. Save the kid.
This is the same thing I said above. Failing the roll means failing to achieve the stated objective, which was not to "avoid burning in lava" but to "save a small child." Failing the roll means you watch the kid die.
I don't know if I would ever set my playing up so they could kill themselves because they fail a single roll.
Agreed. Again, because (see above) it's arbitrary. Which is why I have also said that, although I was answering the OP (and other things later), I would just not have set up a situation exactly like this. If I wanted them to have the chance to be heroic and save the kid, I would have made it possible to do, or at least made it so you have to fail multiple rolls, like hopping from one thing to another or whatever, before you actually die (giving the character a chance to retreat/rethink, and also, less chance of rolling < 10 several times in sequence than just once, or what have you).
What several of us here are saying, to sum up, is not that we want to protect characters from the actual consequences of their actions. As Torq said, you walked into the red dragon's cave without protection and challenged it by taking it's treasure -- you knew what was going to happen (or should have). Enjoy your last moments on earth. They will be, em, crispy. What we are saying instead is that, we don't think rolling a random number on a die is necessarily an action for which "consequences must be had" in every case, and that we find "save or die" situations to not be fun for the DM or the players.
I can beat you both -- I started playing D&D with the Basic Set in January 1982, which makes it 38 years this month. (I got the game for Christmas but it took me a while to learn and understand it and for my friend and I to start playing, yes, just the two of us at first.) So if there's a prize, I think I get it, at least among the three of us. Now get off my lawn!
Cheers to you fellow oldie, I think we'd be comfortable at one another's gaming table. Your prize is to have a lawn with a sign, and a camping chair that can hold a beer. You're welcome. ;)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rule for drama. Roll for memories. If there isn't a meaningful failure condition, do not roll. Ever. (Perception checks, I'm .... clunk, roll, roll, roll, stop... 14, looking at you... maybe?)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Lots of good advice here. I never let a single roll determine everything in an attempt like this. First roll is a fail for sure, but also was NOT a critical fail. Ruling out a secondary throw would be a pretty severe punishment in this case. Without it being critical, a secondary dex saving throw of some sort is always a given, with some punishable damage or consequence. This is where a failed check would kill the PC or a success could land the child in the lava on top of a 1d10 damage to the PC. At least they're alive and able to carry on and have learned consequences to rushed action. However, I will also say that one of my DMs times us in real time once a decision like this is made and goes six seconds at a time. For him, once the bard chooses to run and jump, the clock starts and the roll is made. Based on the roll, he'd explain the outcome and another six seconds given to make a choice. If you don't react, you lose your ability to and could very likely die due to freezing up in the moment. Definitely adds intensity to a lot of situations, but it's also fair.
I'd have her save the kid, but on the way back, the kid slips or whatever. Then give the player a clear choice, with the understanding this is permanent, between saving the kid and dying or letting the kid die (or accepting that the kid was already dead before she tried to save it). Therefore, you aren't punishing the player for failing and still letting them have control over their ultimate destiny.
Figure out this in such a way that the other players can't intervene (holding on to or reaching for the kid with one hand while holding on to the kid with the other. Or maybe the rope is frayed (on the cliff face even) and isn't strong enough to hold both people or whatever.
I’d allow a secondary check if she or the party can narrate her way out of it. So you give her something like “the recently molten rock at the edge of the lava is not as firm as you expect. You all see it crumble as she leaps. She is clearly not going to make it. You each get one action as a reaction, what do you do?”
"As you sprint into action you literally trip over your own feet and eat more dirt than you'd like to in your lifetime. Be grateful it wasn't a nat 1 because your nose just barely touched some old horse manure. Also take xx points of fall damage."
Full of rice, beans, and bad ideas.
I am not in love with any of these options.
In the first place, as a DM, I almost certainly would not set up a situation like this. I favor players being brave and self-sacrificing with their characters, because that is what heroes do. Therefore, I would probably set up a situation in which it is dangerous but reasonably possible to save this kid without a single die roll causing insta-death. So this exact situation is not likely to come up in my adventures.
However, if it did, then I would probably not have the character die off, because as some mentioned above, the character is being heroic, and heroism should be rewarded. If we let a random die roll determine success/failure here, and the character turns into ash and can’t even be resurrected (let alone having died), the message this sends to the other players (assuming they like their characters) is, “don’t be heroic, because if the dice go against you your character is gone.” And to be clear, this bard didn’t die saving the child, she died trying, but failing, to save the child. And there’s nothing really epic about that.
Also we have to be clear that although the 2 on d20 determines a “failed skill check” it is up to the DM to determine what that means. For example, attempting to disarm a trap and failing does not necessarily mean the trap goes off. In my 3.5e NWN modules, I scripted it so a “near failure” was just a failure, but a “far failure” set off the trap. (If you roll within 5 below the DC, it doesn’t disarm, 6 or more you set it off). That kind of thing is DM’s discretion.
Therefore, I would consider doing this one of several ways. One possibility is to rule that the check was being done to see if she saves the kid. A failure, then, doesn’t mean the bard dies, but the kid dies. The “eat dirt as you trip” idea from above would be appropriate, followed by watching as the kid dies in whatever graphic way you want. The failure has a consequence, but the consequence is related to the attempt.
But I don’t really like that idea dramatically, so I probably would just have the bard face plant and the kid remain in a state of “not yet saved.” Much the way a failed lock pick means the lock remains in a state of “not yet picked” or “still locked.” The party would then have to discuss what to do. I would probably prohibit the bard from trying again without some change happening — at our table back in the day, skill checks were never allowed immediately after a failure (at least, by the same character). If someone were to help in such a way as to change the conditions, I would allow a re-roll. Or if she changed the conditions (“I cast levitate on myself” etc), I would allow a re-do.
However, realistically I don’t think I’d probably have done any of those things. Instead, seeing that 2, I would probably very quietly place a d20 with the “1” facing up and say that because the lava is bubbling and heaving, it gets to make “skill checks” against her. So that her roll is not to land on the pillar but to avoid the lava. So now, unless I roll a 1 you are going to get hit and fall in. Then I would roll the d12 or d10 behind the screen to make a “thunk” and gape at the die roll, and then I would raise the screen to show the d20 with the 1 facing up. I can almost guarantee at least with my group, everyone would cheer as I described that she was a little singed but she made it. This is the heroic and dramatic thing, and to me, is what the player deserves for having the character do something brave.
Yes I know, people will complain that “it’s not what the rules as written” say to do. But I don’t care. The heroic thing trumps the rules, as does the drama of the scene. And most importantly, the players doing the heroic thing ought to be, in my view, rewarded, to encourage more heroic behavior. I don’t want to run a campaign for a group of selfish cowards. I want to DM for a group of heroes. (BTW, yes, I would make that clear in session 0 if not before.)
But mostly, IMO, given the starting conditions, the bard making it over and saving the kid is the only thing that makes good dramatic sense. Slipping and falling into the lava and burning alive is the sort of thing that happens in a Wile E Coyote skit, not a dramatic fantasy novel.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Drama does trump rules. But Drama requires stakes. Heroism is meaningless if we shield the heroes from failure because we make it an objectively right choice and an objectively wrong choice. The player failed. Should they instantly die? No. Should they just be given more rolls or just be given the success? No, because failure here is a gift. How a character reacts to failing to be heroic-- to maybe come to terms with the fact that not everyone is going to be saved is a more interesting character beat than saving the kid. Infinitely. Actually, success, if we are talking about drama is boring. In dramas, we want to see bad things happen to our characters. We also want to see them ultimately triumph, but we want to see bad things happen along the way: a story how you dealt with a giant warband which made you go "oh my god, we're dead" is a better story than a bunch of orcs which posed no real challenge.
I agree that drama requires stakes. But I think the setup in the OP is just something I would not have designed that way.
I agree with Matt Colville that dice do not provide drama. They provide suspense, perhaps (wondering if the roll will go your way or not) but they do not provide drama. They provide randomness, which is the opposite of drama.
Consequently, for a situation like this, I tend to set it up so that the situation is going to be resolved in some way other than a random die roll. A great example of this would be the “Spider-Man” choice in the first Spidey movie back years ago... When Green Goblin gave him a choice of using his powers to save his girlfriend, or a cable car full of innocent people. The question is not whether Spidey can make his DEX save to rescue one of them — it’s a low DC roll, and he has high bonuses, so as long as he doesn’t roll a Nat 1... it’s a 19/20 chance he rescues someone. But... he only has one action this round, and he literally cannot save both — so what does he do?
The drama from this case comes not from the die roll, but from the catch-22 choice. From whether he goes with his heart and saves the girl he has a crush on, or goes with his head, as it were, and saves the greater number of people. Or of course, is is player really, super clever, and can he take a minute to survey the map, flip through his Spidey abilities in the PHB And XGE supplement, and figure out a way to save them both in one round — perhaps by using both an action and a bonus action to do something unexpected. Again, here the drama isn’t coming from the die roll... it’s coming from the content of the scene.
So going back to the OP... instead of just a lone boy at the top of a pillar with lava bubbling up, I’d be more likely to have, say, a little boy on one pillar, and some material object the bard (or the party) really, very much wants (or even needs for a quest) on the other. Our Bard “Frodette” can rescue Samwise, or the One Ring. Which one does she do? That’s the drama. Not rolling a 12 or higher on 1d20.
Now when we do stakes and consequences... let’s say Frodette goes for the One Ring. Well, Sam’s going to die, and Frodette is going to have to live with that, forever. Let’s say she saves Sam. Well, the Nazgul just got back the One Ring, and the whole entire game world has been screwed to save one hobbit... and Frodette’s going to have to live with that too. But what she is living with is the consequences of an actual decision, not the consequences of rolling badly on a poorly balanced cheap plastic icosahedron.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Good stuff here. While I don't like to kill off characters it happens from time to time.
In the moment some of these scenarios are hard to come up with. I have left several sessions on a cliff hanger like this. Stepping away for a time certainly gives you some time to ponder good options and leaves all the players with the feeling of a good TV show left in a cliffhanger for the week (or until next session).
Maybe they both fall to lower sinking ledges and the party has the choice of save the bard or the boy, or neither. Save the boy, but lose an item. The party has a chance to save one or both, but at the risk of their own death. Or possibly, the bard dies but the boy lives and is old enough to start a quest to resurrect the bard from the charred hand that was saved.
Everyone is the main character of their story
Sorry. I don't know how you cast dice. But if you somehow manages to do it with absolutely NOTHING random about it, we are not talking about the same thing. As long as there is dice involved, there is also randomness involved. All your stats etc are only stats that makes something more or less likely. There's still the completely RANDOM roll involved.
Ludo ergo sum!
To answer the original question:
As a DM, the bard who rolled a 2 to land her jump to save the boy gets a Dexterity saving throw. She makes her jump onto the pillar, but lands badly/unsteadily and is teetering on the edge. A successful Dex save allows her to correct and settle; a failed Dex save and she falls.
This also allows the party time to react, as they can see her teetering. Everybody who wants one gets one action to try and help if the Dex save fails - effectively a single reaction, save that whatever they can try gets a roll. Whatever the party chooses to do, adjudicate as normal.
If everything fails? Then the bard falls into the lava and horribleness ensues. The bard's player would be allowed her final words, as I very much agree with Matthew Mercer in that allowing a player to speak the final words of a doomed character, even when the narrative may have to stretch a little to allow for it, is very important. The final disposition of the child the bard died to save depends on the party's future actions, but I would likely lower DCs to save said kid as a karmic reward for the bard's heroism. Depending on whether I could.
No DM enjoys killing PCs. But when characters are put in a situation where lives are riding on their actions, sometimes the dice say no. Without that tension, heroism has no meaning. It's absolutely awful when a PC dies unexpectedly, and even worse when they die 'senselessly'. But those are also the moments that can make an entire campaign. Who knows - that bard's death may galvanize her party, and it's certainly ensured that the players are as personally invested as they possibly can be in ensuring that the demon who caused the death goes down as permanently as possible.
Please do not contact or message me.
I think some of it depends on how you define drama. It's pretty clear from this thread and others that there is more than one way to think about drama, and people thinking about it in different ways have different takes on just how much or how little impact die rolling should have on the game.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Except...
The dice did not create the moment. The DM did. The OP was (presumably) not generated by the author rolling dice using random tables in the DM guide. The OP was created by a DM using storytelling devices or narrative intuition or what have you. The only thing that makes the "roll to jump over the flaming lava" seem "dramatic" is the setup. The die roll isn't providing the drama -- the setup is. It's easy enough to see that this is the case, since players roll dice hundreds of times in an adventure but hardly any of these rolls are ever going to be thought of as "dramatic."
I find it useful to distinguish suspense (tension caused by the inability to know the outcome of the die before it is cast) from drama. By suspense I refer to the intense feeling that an observer goes through while awaiting the outcome of an event. By drama I refer to the representation (usually through dialogue or performance) of fictional events involving a conflict of forces. The dice can make a dramatic scene (like the lava jump) suspenseful because while the die is tumbling through the air or along the table-top, you don't know the outcome, so you are in suspense, on the edge of your seat, etc. This can be pleasurable, exciting, and fun, which is why we roll dice in the first place.
But what made the lava jump dramatic, was the portrayal of the fictional events through dialogue and performance, and the conflict of forces (the lava as the force of death vs. the bard as the force of life, as it were). The key to drama is the conflict -- without conflict, you have no drama. If there was no lava, there would be no drama - even if the bard rolled d20 to "walk across the room." Because nothing was there to stop the bard and so there was no dramatic setup -- there is no conflict.
So to me, what causes drama is not die rolls -- it is the conflict. Characters often die in battle, which is an overt, physical conflict. The die roll doesn't cause the character to die -- the conflict does. The example I gave above of the first Spidey movie and the scene where he has to make a choice between MJ and a group of innocents -- the conflict is within Spidey of what to do. That is drama. The significance of the conflict gives the scene its weight, and causes the drama. All the die can do provide you the option of a little period of suspense leading up to the resolution of the conflict. And, if you wish, ensure that the conflict is resolved, not arbitrarily by willful human beings, but "objectively" by a truly impartial mediator (assuming the die is not rigged, of course).
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I'd keep the story going and the character alive but the failure worsens the situation in a fun dynamic way. It's the non-boring option.
I look to the player's cunning: can they out think the problem and invent a cool cinematic way out, because I'm more than likely going to reward their cunning before I reward the heroism of their character. Dumb heroes die all the time. Inspiration can help dumb heroes. ;)
DM: "You rolled a 2? {Evil smile}. You make it across, but you were so terrified of the bubbling lava below and the sudden blast of heat, you landed poorly on the pillar and crashed into the kid. In fact, your clumsy landing sends a crack cascading all the way down the pillar where it calves at the base. The pillar of rock tilts and quickly teeters away from the direction you jumped, it's base crumbling and grinding the stone into the lava below. The kid already terrified now screams, her eyes wide in watery fear as the pillar of rock crumbles and falls with the both of you sliding towards certain doom. What do you do?"
Player's responses (looking for good, novel, cinematic, or character driven ideas):
- just hold on to where we are with all my might. [Ask if the player is really sure cos it looks like this side is going to hit first?] They are. [oh dear the player froze and had no good idea to get out, if they're very new to RP I'd go easy on them, perhaps allow someone in the group to offer suggestions... otherwise] (Death. no roll required.)
- jump with kid to new pillar [kind of obvious] (dex save for yourself, with disadvantage if you're taking the kid - ooh the dilemma of the choice!)
- clamber to the side of the pillar that would be the topside once it falls into the lava and ride it down [a bit smarter and more cinematic] (athletics skill check to grapple the kid to the other side of the falling pillar). Thinking ahead: after this roll they could be on a rapidly sinking rock platform dozens of feet below (another failure might mean them being caught in the splash zone but still on top of it).
- use the momentum of the falling rock, and waiting until the optimum moment to throw the kid to safety [even in the face of certain doom the bard remains true to his conviction of saving the innocent, plus its cinematic!] (Get inspiration! athletics check to throw the kid upward to the edge - now to quickly think what to do with the bard, he's so selfless!)
- {Insert "Patrick Rothfuss BS" card} Bard: "Aren't there lots of pillars? I'm going to throw my weight with my hips so that I can direct this pillar of rock into its nearest neighbor, temporarily halting its fall as it crashes into it. Oh, and I'm also going to sing a warcry of the Uthgaardt as I tell the kid to hold onto my leg. Afterwards my plan is to raise the kid up to the higher ledge and clamber up afterwards." (Give advantage, make the DC super low cos its awesome, narrate the BS as a rock ballad)
Be sure to ask the other players if anyone is doing anything. Is the bard all on his own while they just look on? Perhaps one of them has something very smart that might mitigate another bardic failure. Involving the rest of the party in the bard's failure is another way to exacerbate the situation. The cost of failing ties up more PCs.
So let's say the bard fails again on their second check above, and all other attempts from the rest of the group fail. How can the DM put them in even worse shape, without instantly killing them? That's where the fun lies. I'm also looking to change up the skill check or save between attempts. I don't want to ask the player to keep making the exact same check. Obviously, this only works a limited number of times. Too much of this and it becomes farce, so save it for the big stakes. Once your players cannot believably see a way out (third failure is usually the kicker), they're more likely to accept their character's death as something they had agency in, regardless of their repeated bad luck - especially if it looked cool. The whole group was there as "Things got worse and worse and WORSE" and nobody succeeded in preventing it. You weren't out to kill them on one bad die roll. But even then, have it narratively mean something - give something to the player of that dead character, some final act or description to cement the lore of the character's passing - it's no trivial thing.
If you insta-kill PCs on single checks, not only do you make very cautious overly prepared players who don't do things in the heat of the moment which slows down the play to a crawl - not only for fear of character death but also of "group groan" as the other players resent your non-optimal actions that reset the group composition, retread introductions of the new PC, delay the plot, kill off all the connections that PC had to established NPCs, end all subplots the DM had prepared for that character, etc..., you also show your hand as a DM who cannot think creatively on the spot. Your job as a DM is not to be boring. With a no stakes just by the way "Oh look you failed and fell in the lava, you dead." skill check. That's not edgy and gritty, that's a yawn-fest. I'd also say slamming into the pillar requiring a strength save after the failed check to also be a bit boring as you haven't heightened the danger with the failure, only delayed the check with another - and it's kind of expected (oh what there was a branch just conveniently sticking out of the cliff right where I fell?). Are you just going to have the player roll d20s until they hit a 15? No. That makes a mockery of all dice rolls. Make the failure mean something by adding to the stakes.
Every once in a while you can immediately escalate into something wholly unexpected to save the character from insta-death to near certain death:
DM: "You rolled a 2. You're not going to make it. The kid's eyes are crestfallen as she realises you're going to die too. Just like her. Your arms and legs begin to flail and a scream rushes up your throat only to be engulfed by an almighty eruption of lava and a roar. You look down to see the purple worm you didn't kill - remember you guys turned tail and ran - it comes bursting up out of the lava in a titanic roar of pain and anger, it's 20' diameter maw enclosing both the now crumbling pillar of rock with the kid, and you. You fall passed its hundreds of teeth, and globs of molten lava as its snaps shut. Blackness and heat. Everyone, roll initiative."
(notice that the purple worm is previously established, it helps)
Your mileage will vary. It's D&D. Meat grinder is a legitimate style of play. Just be sure everyone is on the same page and has a stack of character sheets. ;)
Review of poll options:
Instant death. She fell into the lava which will melt her body on contact.
Too quick. Not cinematic. Boring movie.
Give the bard a second skill check to catch herself. Failure here is instant death.
Doesn't pay respect to the first roll. Doesn't increase the stakes. It's a do-over.
Give the player a check for insight to realize she won't make it and stop himself. Failure is death.
This should of happened before the jump roll was made, not after a failed roll was seen.
Give the party checks for insight/ Dex/ etc to stop the player before she leaps, realizing she won't make it
This should of happened before the jump roll was made, not after a failed roll was seen.
Tell the player to reroll because you forgot they had inspiration. Death happens on fail
Argh. Retcons. They diminish both the failure and the importance of how inspiration is acquired.
Rule that the failed check just means that they leaped onto the side of the column. Death not an option
No meaningful consequence of failing. Too protective of not only dumb ideas, but of no ideas.
Rule that the leap didn't happen and ask the player to pick a new plan.
Doesn't respect the player's actions and agency. No retcons.
Rule for drama. Roll for memories.
If there isn't a meaningful failure condition, do not roll. Ever. (Perception checks, I'm .... clunk, roll, roll, roll, stop... 14, looking at you... maybe?)
Torq -- what a great answer. In particular, I wish that I had written this:
It's what I have been trying, and failing, to convey for a while but you have said it well and I have not said it really at all. Somehow you crawled inside my head and pulled out what I was thinking when I could not do so on multiple attempts.
(I guess I rolled a nat 1 on my writing skill check... repeatedly...)
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Except if you are just going by the "dice are dramatic" premise, the only thing you did to come out successfully was roll high on d20.
I mean, I get it. To you, what's "fun" is that suspenseful die roll and the lack of safety net. I understand that point of view and have many gamer friends online who feel this way. I knew people who refused to play City of Heroes (and probably still do even though it is now being run for free on private servers) because every mission was scaled to your level and group size, so there was almost no way to "get in over your head" and, if you don't screw up, you almost cannot faceplant in COH (I have a level 50+ scrapper right now on the private servers who in something like 1,000 missions has faceplanted maybe 12 times, usually to me being careless). They prefer games that "don't hold your hand," and greatly prefer games like EVE which are open PVP (more or less) and there is no hand-holding and you can die any time to an enemy in unpredictable ways. They feel this is more realistic and exciting, and this is a very similar point of view to what you are expressing. As I say, there is nothing wrong with that.
However, there's also nothing wrong with preferring to play games in other ways, and what this thread shows is that there are many different points of view on this, and a whole bunch of different ways that the DM-type people responding here might handle it. Just because some people like there to be a sense of "high risk" and meat grinder adventures, doesn't mean everyone does. And it doesn't mean that everyone who prefers not to have those meat grinder conditions... is wrong.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
@biglizard
From one old timer to another, I can happily disagree that I'm being assumptive. I see your 30 years and raise it to 35... is there a prize? chuckle... but truly what does all that time at a table mean. Does it make our RP style more legitimate? Experience is grand and all, and we're both going to be relatively stuck in our ways, but if people with just 1 year of experience are loving 5e and it's design that inherently protects the heroes from death, and they're having fun - who are we to argue otherwise.
If you and your players have fun with instant death saving throws, all power to you. I've certainly insta-killed characters in long running campaigns with failed saves (The Banshee's range on her scream is impressive back in 3e), but rarely did it improve the game for me or my players. As a group, we didn't feel it added to the experience - not character death, all the players embraced potentially dying, just instant death due to one dice roll. Not saying I didn't instakill a character ever, just rarely. And back in 1e and 2e days, it was tough work keeping players alive, instant death wasn't the only things to fear; even a pack of kobolds could easily decimate a 1st level party with pointed sticks. ;)
A word on what I consider fair or unfair about instantly killing a character. I don't mean it's unfair on the player if they knowingly enter the lair of an ancient red dragon, having taken no precautions or sneaky routes, fail their save vs the dragon's first breath weapon, and die from a singular attack. That player's character is charred toast. What I do think is unfair are surprise rolls (save versus death because your passive perception didn't notice the trapped chest), or singular skill checks that could be more fun if failure wasn't always death.
As a playing style, does this mean I molly-coddle the players? No I don't think so. Important combat, damage and save rolls are routinely rolled openly so that they knew I can't fib behind the screen. Players pay attention to the open roll. I didn't do it for any other reason than it is fun to heighten the stakes, which is exactly what my post is all about. If the best thing to do in the scene, all things considered (story, character, group, fun, appropriately thematic and dramatic) is to kill that character... then by all means do it memorably. Heighten the stakes, don't prematurely nip the opportunity in the bud. Keep character death meaningful by not making it arbitrary.
Rule for drama. Roll for memories.
If there isn't a meaningful failure condition, do not roll. Ever. (Perception checks, I'm .... clunk, roll, roll, roll, stop... 14, looking at you... maybe?)
I am a bit confused about the Task being rolled for. Did you state "roll to not fall into the lava and died a horrible death" or was it "roll to jump over to the pillar so you can save the kid"?
I would go with the second wording and would focus on why they are trying to jump over some lava. Save the kid.
When they rolled the 2, I would describe them tripping while they were running up to the edge to jump heroically over to the pillar, stumbling and falling prone right at the edge, feeling the heat of the lava wash over them as they watch in horror as the pillar crumble and the kid falls off to their to death, screaming pitifully as they burn up in the lava.
Falling the roll still has consequences, they failed in saving the kid. I don't know if I would ever set my playing up so they could kill themselves because they fail a single roll. Now, if the player had stated "I going to jump into the lava and swim over to the pillar, climb up the pillar and save the kid and they are not immune to fire damage, I would not even roll, they just commented suicide. I would ask them if that what the want to do, repeating back "So you want to climb down into a pool of burning lava, try to swim through it and then climb out of it and climb up a crumbling pillar to get to the child?" just so I am sure about exactly what they want to do and if they state yes, time for them to roll a new character.
I can beat you both -- I started playing D&D with the Basic Set in January 1982, which makes it 38 years this month. (I got the game for Christmas but it took me a while to learn and understand it and for my friend and I to start playing, yes, just the two of us at first.) So if there's a prize, I think I get it, at least among the three of us. Now get off my lawn!
l don't want to put words in someone else's keyboard, but from what I gather from BL's writing, he believes that the older-school "save or die" type of mechanic is more enjoyable because it "raises the stakes" (or "drama"), and that everyone will like this style better if only they would try it. Having lived through the transition from "save or die" (which I originally started with thanks to old school D&D) to "characters usually go unconscious, not dead, if they lose a fight or fail a roll" (which I got from Champions not much more than 1 year later), I do not agree, and clearly you do not. But I don't think BL is being "ornery" here -- I think he genuinely has way more fun the old-school way, and he truly believes everyone else will too, probably because, in his 30 years as player and DM (where the experience comes in) that is when he and his table have had the most fun.
What I can't figure out is why, if someone really believes that the older, harsher, more deadly rules of prior editions make for a superior gaming experience than the, shall we say, more "curated" style of 5e, one would keep playing 5e. I think those who have said it is designed to appeal to the video-game-raised younger folks who are used to being able to respawn after death and keep their character forever, are probably correct. I was surprised myself, when reading the (5e) PHB for the first time a few months ago, to see just how hard it is for characters to die in the normal course of things. Poison doesn't kill you anymore; 0 hp means you're just "unconscious" and you have to roll < 10 three times in a row to die. That seems very "sanitized' to someone who is used to the 1e or 2e experience, for a D&D game.
But it does not seem "sanitized" to me for a roleplaying game, because I spent the majority of my time playing RPGs other than D&D, such as Champions, precisely because death was rarer in those other games, and thus more significant. Tons of characters died in our D&D games over the years. I hardly remember any of the characters any more and I only remember one actual death -- because it was the first AD&D death, and it was a save-or-die fail at level 1 for my friend's character, who I was playing at the time, and I felt really guilty about it. But all those other deaths? They did not stick with me because life is so cheap in D&D. In Champions, though, even now, decades later, I can recite the name, character, and circumstances of every single death we ever had, because there were so few, and this made them memorable. This does not make people who like deadlier games wrong, but it explains why my friends and I gravitated toward Champions and away from D&D... and why one of those same friends and I have gravitated back toward D&D with 5e. Having read the rules one of my first reactions was, "Wow, they have almost got a hybrid game between Champions and D&D here," which to me, was a good thing.
But I can easily see how someone who wants a more "old school" Tomb-of-Horrors game, would not like 5e... and would prefer 1e, or perhaps Dungeon Crawl Classics, or something like that. What I don't agree with is arguing that 5e ought to be played that way not just by one group by "by everyone" because we would "all have more fun that way." It's simply not the case, as my game group proved in 1983, for crying out loud, when we all moved away from lethal D&D toward Champions, which was a very non-lethal game. We had more fun without the lethality, and plenty of others do too.
Here again... some people have more fun with failure = death. Not you, and not me... but it all depends on the person. I know people who play video games on that "hardcore" mode where you can't reload if you die or lose or whatever. This can mean if you die that you loose maybe tens or even hundreds of hours of gameplay. I am not on board for that -- my time is limited, and I don't like living on the knife edge constantly. But tons of players do like that, or else those modes would not exist in video games. This is the same style preference as the save-or-die mentality. Lots of people like it. I don't... but that's me.
This is the key for me. And it's why I think, more than any other reason, we preferred Champions to D&D. In Champions, although a number of characters died over the years, no death in Champions was ever arbitrary because, as the game was designed, it kind of can't happen that way. In D&D, as far as I recall, just about every single death was arbitrary -- almost always due to failed save-or-die rolls (which is why I do't remember any of them -- because they had no meaning or purpose). Or because a Kobold with a 1d4 dagger rolled a 4 against your perfectly healthy Illusionist with that beefy 3 hp that you rolled on 1d4 yesterday when you made him up. Arbitrary deaths are not dramatic, and not meaningful, and consequently tend not to be memorable.
This is the same thing I said above. Failing the roll means failing to achieve the stated objective, which was not to "avoid burning in lava" but to "save a small child." Failing the roll means you watch the kid die.
Agreed. Again, because (see above) it's arbitrary. Which is why I have also said that, although I was answering the OP (and other things later), I would just not have set up a situation exactly like this. If I wanted them to have the chance to be heroic and save the kid, I would have made it possible to do, or at least made it so you have to fail multiple rolls, like hopping from one thing to another or whatever, before you actually die (giving the character a chance to retreat/rethink, and also, less chance of rolling < 10 several times in sequence than just once, or what have you).
What several of us here are saying, to sum up, is not that we want to protect characters from the actual consequences of their actions. As Torq said, you walked into the red dragon's cave without protection and challenged it by taking it's treasure -- you knew what was going to happen (or should have). Enjoy your last moments on earth. They will be, em, crispy. What we are saying instead is that, we don't think rolling a random number on a die is necessarily an action for which "consequences must be had" in every case, and that we find "save or die" situations to not be fun for the DM or the players.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I think she knocked the boy and herself into the lava.
Because of her heroic choice though, there will be a poem written about this deed.
Admin of /r/dndnsnj on reddit.com
Admin of dndsnj on Discord!
Join us: DNDSNJ
Cheers to you fellow oldie, I think we'd be comfortable at one another's gaming table. Your prize is to have a lawn with a sign, and a camping chair that can hold a beer. You're welcome. ;)
Rule for drama. Roll for memories.
If there isn't a meaningful failure condition, do not roll. Ever. (Perception checks, I'm .... clunk, roll, roll, roll, stop... 14, looking at you... maybe?)