D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Xetheral]

Although I'm a fervent convert to the goal-and-approach way, I'll admit that years of ingrained (calcified?) gaming habits sometimes makes it hard to implement in the heat of the moment. I still occasionally revert to my old DMing habits. "Um....gimme a Perception check?" I'm just the disciple, not the master, so I'm starting this discussion more to get advice than to impart wisdom. So for those who want to play this way, let's talk about how to do it, especially how to always incorporate a "meaningful consequence of failure."

For those who don't want to play this way, I'm really going to try to restrain from arguing with you about it in this thread, but derail away! I'm going to do my best to interpret any question as a genuine inquiry.

I'll start with a medium-hard one: stealth. (I do also want to discuss the "Do I know about X?" scenario, too. That's a tougher one.)

One question that might arise is whether failing a stealth check, and thus failing to hide, really counts as a consequence. Isn't that the same outcome as not rolling at all? It might be if you think of it as "failing a die roll" instead of "failing at a task." But if the player attempts something with consequence, and fails, they are worse off than if they hadn't attempted it. E.g., if the player takes a risk by trying to sneak past the dragon, then the failure state is alerting (or moving a step closer to alerting) the dragon. The player could have said, "$%@# the dragon! I'm not going in there!"

So I think a key feature is that the player has to actively / knowingly undertake a task with risk. If the party hears something coming and they say, "Let's all hide!" my instinct would be to say "Ok, let's have stealth checks." But in this case the failure state IS the same as not doing anything.

Maybe take an (approximate) average of "passive Stealth" in the party, and then compare to the monster's passive perception? (Or you could have the monster roll Perception...which raises the whole question of whether the "consequence of failure" principle applies to NPCs.)

Alternatively, does this need to be resolved by comparing die rolls or passives at all? What about simply choosing an outcome based on the story. E.g.:

• The monster comes close enough to give a scare, but sees nothing, however the party gains some clue/information relevant to the adventure.
• Make it clear the monster is ABOUT to discover them because there isn't really anything to hide behind, and give them a chance to think of a plan. E.g. trying to distract/mislead it. That plan might involve risk.

What would YOU do in this case?

From my standpoint, the purpose of only calling for a check if there is a meaningful consequence of failure is to address situations where retries are possible. In any situation where a retry isn't possible, I would argue that failure on the check is inherently a meaningful consequence: the player had one chance to get it right, and now that they failed they have fewer options.

Stealth checks can't be retried, because you don't know you failed until it's too late. Ergo, in my view, stealth checks have a meaningful consequence of failure, and thus a check is appropriate (assuming the outcome is in doubt). The same applies to perception checks to notice something that isn't static, and knowledge checks to determine if the character knows anything relevant about the situation.

I don't see anything about the goal-and-approach method that requires that "meaningful consequence of failure" be defined as "worse than taking no action at all". I recognize that some people play it that way, but I don't think that requirement follows from the text of the rules. Goal-and-approach works just fine even with a lower threshold for "meaningful consequence".

(Edit due to premature post.)

 

[Guest 6801328]

You should... maybe have made this a + thread. I think the valuable discussion that could have been had here is going to get buried under trying to defend your premise.

Mmm...I get annoyed when posters write some variation on, "And you can only participate in this conversation if you agree with me."

I'm just not going to get sucked into debates about the merits, and (gently?) deflect.

 

[iserith]

"Meaningful consequence for failure" often gets confused with "something terrible must always happen." That's only sometimes true. It depends on the context. What is meaningful and what is a consequence is determined by the situation. The key thing is to not RACE to an ability check without considering what's going on.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: It's a good habit for the DM to only ask for the ability check and let the player add the skill proficiency he or she thinks applies based on the description the player offered.

While this is not, strictly speaking, in keeping with the process laid out in the rules, it is a natural extension of what is in the rules. The section on Ability Checks says players may ask if a skill proficiency applies to an ability check. I suggest just skipping the question and using an assumption that the players are acting in good faith to apply their own skill proficiency. The key thing here though is they cannot ADD description after the call for the roll just to get a skill proficiency applied. That is taking advantage of the assumption of good faith. All description must occur BEFORE the call for the roll. (Obviously, it's not good to be a hardass in all cases, but let the players know the expectation and seek their buy-in, then hold them to their agreements. They'll learn.)

This method neatly sidesteps the very common issue of the DM and players not being on the same page with the ability check. "Deception? Oh, I was actually being truthful. Can I use Persuasion?" The more of that sort of interruption that can be skipped the better in my view and just asking for the ability check and not the skill proficiency is a good way to achieve that in my experience.

I actually hadn't seen (or noticed) you describe that specific approach. But I like it. Sure, it MIGHT get abused by a player who always wants to use their best stat, but as long as they describe an approach that uses that stat it's ok. I mean, if it's really outlandish I can rule auto-failure. But really the points you make about "good faith" and "not being a hardass" cover pretty much everything.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I don't see anything about the goal-and-approach method that requires that "meaningful consequence of failure" be defined as "worse than taking no action at all". I recognize that some people play it that way, but I don't think that requirement follows from the text of the rules. Goal-and-approach works just fine even with a lower threshold for "meaning consequence".

Yup, that's true.

I personally think it's more fun when there is a meaningful consequence, so I try to both craft the challenge and handle the adjudication in a way that accomplishes that.

 

[iserith]

I actually hadn't seen (or noticed) you describe that specific approach. But I like it. Sure, it MIGHT get abused by a player who always wants to use their best stat, but as long as they describe an approach that uses that stat it's ok. I mean, if it's really outlandish I can rule auto-failure. But really the points you make about "good faith" and "not being a hardass" cover pretty much everything.

It's reasonable behavior for a player to engage largely in tasks that the character has the best chance in which to succeed (best ability score, proficiency or expertise in relevant skill proficiency, plus any additional features that may modify the roll). The key thing is they need to establish that BEFORE the call for the roll. No saying, "Oh, yeah, I was using my thieves' tools on that..." after you've called for the Dex check. That should be part of them describing what they want to do which precedes the call for the check.

 

[Oofta]

Sorry for the side track, but I don't see how we can address the issue you pose without addressing the fact that the only reason you have a problem is because of the straight jacket you put on yourself.

As others have probably stated more elegantly than I - if the rogue hadn't tried to sneak past the dragon they could have tried something else. Maybe they should have tried a distraction. Maybe they should have taken a different route. Those decisions all have an impact.

So failing the check is it's own penalty. It's the same with most knowledge checks. Trying to remember the history of the McGuffin and fail to recall anything with an intelligence history check? You don't remember anything.

I occasionally throw in a cost for failure if I've indicated that what they're trying is particularly dangerous, but that doesn't apply to all checks.

 

[5ekyu]

Sorry for the side track, but I don't see how we can address the issue you pose without addressing the fact that the only reason you have a problem is because of the straight jacket you put on yourself.

As others have probably stated more elegantly than I - if the rogue hadn't tried to sneak past the dragon they could have tried something else. Maybe they should have tried a distraction. Maybe they should have taken a different route. Those decisions all have an impact.

So failing the check is it's own penalty. It's the same with most knowledge checks. Trying to remember the history of the McGuffin and fail to recall anything with an intelligence history check? You don't remember anything.

I occasionally throw in a cost for failure if I've indicated that what they're trying is particularly dangerous, but that doesn't apply to all checks.

Agree...

My points would be the following...

1 5e itself does not require a meaningful consequence on every failed ability check (or as stated in reverse - diasllow rolls which dont have meaningful consequences)
2 5e itself doesnt require "meaningful consequence to be "a penalty"
3 5e fitself doesnt require waiting until there is bad stuff about to happen before making a check.

So, if a GM decides to for his game make it necessary to have these and then they run into problems on how to always adhere to it - my advice is "stop doing that."

Stealth

I allow stealth checks on approach...
I dont require it to wait until its hide or caught...
In part it covers how close you can get before it's an issue and a failed check can really mean "its dry leaves and twigs ahead, not much cover, - you made it in some distance but farther in is more difficult."

A failed check on a low roll might say "you are making more noise than usual, do far so good but it's obvious dome of your gear is out of sorts or loose. Do you press on, stop here, or fall back to adjust?"

There's no reason to pretend you dont know if you are quiet or not. There no reason to wait until its do or die to resolve it.

So, since I do not give myself those non-5e restrictions as part of some universal methodology, I dont really run into stealth problems in resolutions. You get some progress and a setback or no progress and that gives me a wide latitude to fit the result to the scene.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Sorry for the side track, but I don't see how we can address the issue you pose without addressing the fact that the only reason you have a problem is because of the straight jacket you put on yourself.

I see it as a "challenge" not a problem, and it's due to a "high bar", not a straight jacket.

But your mileage may vary.

As others have probably stated more elegantly than I - if the rogue hadn't tried to sneak past the dragon they could have tried something else. Maybe they should have tried a distraction. Maybe they should have taken a different route. Those decisions all have an impact.

So failing the check is it's own penalty.

Um, yes? That's exactly what I was trying to say. Maybe I phrased it poorly.

It's the same with most knowledge checks. Trying to remember the history of the McGuffin and fail to recall anything with an intelligence history check? You don't remember anything.

Here I disagree, unless there was some sort of opportunity cost of to trying to remember. E.g., during combat: "Ok, you can think back and try to remember all the examples of that you've seen, but you're going to have to focus and won't be able to take any other actions for the round. In fact, you're free to repeat that each round until you succeed, if you like."

I occasionally throw in a cost for failure if I've indicated that what they're trying is particularly dangerous, but that doesn't apply to all checks.

I get that. And what I'm saying is that I think the game is much more interesting when the game state changes regardless of whether there is success or failure, so the question is how to accomplish that in some of the less-obvious cases.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Agree...

My points would be the following...

1 5e itself does not require a meaningful consequence on every failed ability check (or as stated in reverse - diasllow rolls which dont have meaningful consequences)
2 5e itself doesnt require "meaningful consequence to be "a penalty"
3 5e fitself doesnt require waiting until there is bad stuff about to happen before making a check.

So, if a GM decides to for his game make it necessary to have these and then they run into problems on how to always adhere to it - my advice is "stop doing that."

Great! Thank you for your advice.

Stealth

I allow stealth checks on approach...
I dont require it to wait until its hide or caught...
In part it covers how close you can get before it's an issue and a failed check can really mean "its dry leaves and twigs ahead, not much cover, - you made it in some distance but farther in is more difficult."

A failed check on a low roll might say "you are making more noise than usual, do far so good but it's obvious dome of your gear is out of sorts or loose. Do you press on, stop here, or fall back to adjust?"

There's no reason to pretend you dont know if you are quiet or not. There no reason to wait until its do or die to resolve it.

Oh, that's interesting. Do you think it's unreasonable for somebody to overestimate their own stealthiness? Does stealth mean absolute silence, or just "silent enough", but you underestimate what "enough" is? Is it possible to be doing great, and thinking "I got this", and then make a mistake at a critical moment?

So, since I do not give myself those non-5e restrictions as part of some universal methodology, I dont really run into stealth problems in resolutions. You get some progress and a setback or no progress and that gives me a wide latitude to fit the result to the scene.

Oh, yes. When I used to play the other way I had no problem resolving all sorts of situations. Don't know what to do? Pick a skill and let the dice answer it for you. We rolled lots of dice, and forged ahead.

The thing is, I got tired of that.

Your mileage may vary.