D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Guest 6801328]

Then I go back to the fact that you're being overly-restrictive in your approach for no reason. I'd have to hunt through the PHB to get the exact wording but it explains there that sometimes a failed check just means you make no progress.

Again, this isn't about rules, this is about a preference.

Not getting information that could be useful can be it's own penalty.

How are you worse off than if you hadn't tried? (Maybe there's an opportunity cost, but the above sentence doesn't specify.

Getting noticed even though you were trying to be sneaky is bad.

Yup. Agreed.

Not being able to tell if someone is lying is not helpful.

This is like your first example. There's also zero cost to trying. Again, at least according to that sentence.

In combat if I swing my sword and miss, there is no penalty other than that I didn't do damage. Same here.

Turns are a precious resource. Have you ever missed and thought, "Drat, I knew I should have done that other thing"? At the very least, you could have taken the Dodge action.

 

[Celebrim]

I would distinguish between boredom with the old way, and challenge of consistently using a different (and I think better) way.

You and Oofta both made an argument like, which I find puzzling. If this were, say, a forum on mountain biking, and I said, "I got bored riding on bike paths, and I'm trying to get into downhilling, but I'm having trouble with the big drops..." I would be surprised by the response, "Then why don't you just stick with bike paths?"

I like challenges, and getting better at hard things.

I hate analogies. I've discovered over the years that analogies have two big problems. First, they tend to lead only to arguing over the aptness of the analogy. And secondly, I've discovered that when I appeal to analogies that it usually has turned out to mean that I didn't understand the problem as well as I thought I did. It took me decades to learn that lesson, often painfully.

In your case, the problem with your analogy is that I'm not telling you to stay away from the big drops and stick to bike paths. The problem I'm having is that you are insisting you already know why you are having problems with the big drops and that proper answers to solve your problem have to be in the form you expect. You want to at the same time get help to address your problem with the big drops and also insist that you already know what you are doing and that there is nothing wrong with your applied technique.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I hate analogies. I've discovered over the years that analogies have two big problems. First, they tend to lead only to arguing over the aptness of the analogy. And secondly, I've discovered that when I appeal to analogies that it usually has turned out to mean that I didn't understand the problem as well as I thought I did. It took me decades to learn that lesson, often painfully.

In your case, the problem with your analogy is that I'm not telling you to stay away from the big drops and stick to bike paths. The problem I'm having is that you are insisting you already know why you are having problems with the big drops and that proper answers to solve your problem have to be in the form you expect. You want to at the same time get help to address your problem with the big drops and also insist that you already know what you are doing and that there is nothing wrong with your applied technique.

Ok, thanks for participating.

 

[iserith]

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.

As with many things, striving for balance helps. Per DMG, p. 236: "Some DMs rely on rolls for almost everything... a drawback of this approach is that roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success. Perhaps that's what you got tired of? "It doesn't really matter what I say - can I just roll a die?"

 

[Charlaquin]

Then I go back to the fact that you're being overly-restrictive in your approach for no reason. I'd have to hunt through the PHB to get the exact wording but it explains there that sometimes a failed check just means you make no progress.

Not getting information that could be useful can be it's own penalty.

Just seems like a waste of time to me if that’s the only penalty. If the only penalty is that you don’t get the information, who cares? Just try again. If there’s something stopping you from trying again (including the DM ruling that you can’t retry with the same skill), then not getting the information wasn’t really the only penalty.

Getting noticed even though you were trying to be sneaky is bad. Not being able to tell if someone is lying is not helpful.

In combat if I swing my sword and miss, there is no penalty other than that I didn't do damage. Same here.

See, I would argue that all of these examples satisfy the requirement of a cost or consequence. Missing your Attack cost you your action (or a fraction of it if you have Extra Attack.) Failing to detect the lie means you might believe something that isn’t true. Getting noticed while trying to be stealthy usually leaves you in a dangerous situation. All of these things are meaningful costs/consequences for failure. What’s not such a meaningful cost/consequence is when you fail to find whatever you’re searching for and the only penalty is that you don’t find it until you try again and roll better. Or failing to pick the lock and the only penalty is that the door remains locked until you try again and roll better. Now, if the time it takes to try again brings you that much closer to the completion of the evil ritual, or the next roll for random encounters, that’s a different story.

 

[Celebrim]

Standard phb under ability checks defines failed check redult as no progress or some progress with setback.

It's the basic definition.

- emphasis added

Isn't "no progress" exactly the result Oofta is suggesting might come up?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Failing to detect the lie means you might believe something that isn’t true.

You can rely on roleplaying for this, but in general I'd prefer the check be structured in a way that can result in the player (not just the character) getting bad information. And the problem with that is that it depends on the DMs acting ability or poker face or whatever.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I do this too, and I like it a lot. It makes my job easier, only having to decide which of the six abilities I feel is most appropriate, and leaving it to the player to determine if one of their Proficiencies is applicable. If I ask for a Perception check to find the secret door hidden among the masonry, a player who isn’t trained in Perception will probably just roll straight Wisdom. But if I just ask for a Wisdom check, and it’s established ahead of time that it is up to the player to suggest applicable Proficiencies when an ability check is called for, they might say, “I’m trained in Mason’s Tools, would that help?” to which I would be happy to say yes.

Oh, I just realized I read iserith backwards: I thought it was that the player gets to choose the ability, not the proficiency. Interesting. I need to digest this.

 

[Charlaquin]

You can rely on roleplaying for this, but in general I'd prefer the check be structured in a way that can result in the player (not just the character) getting bad information. And the problem with that is that it depends on the DMs acting ability or poker face or whatever.

Yeah, I don’t handle lie detection that way, but I was trying to meet Oofta’s argument on its own terms. I find that is usually a more effective way to get one’s perspective across.

 

[5ekyu]

I would distinguish between boredom with the old way, and challenge of consistently using a different (and I think better) way.

You and Oofta both made an argument like, which I find puzzling. If this were, say, a forum on mountain biking, and I said, "I got bored riding on bike paths, and I'm trying to get into downhilling, but I'm having trouble with the big drops..." I would be surprised by the response, "Then why don't you just stick with bike paths?"

I like challenges, and getting better at hard things.

Well, see but in the case of bike paths vs downhilling, there may be abpn actual difference in challenge due to it being steeper and requiring more effort. There may be added gain and value in it over bike paths.

But if you were say "I am leading a group of casual bikers weekly through some trails and... " then you go into the downhills, that's a whole different animal. Is your downhill challenge better for the group?

See, the case here is you are talking like its raising the bar, but there doesn't seem to show sanyway it's a higher bar, just one with more trouble.

I mean, sure, I can choose to swim laps covered in molasses wearing golashes and a fedora but it's just causing problems for no gain.

I can tell the other swimmers all about how much higher a bar it us, but if these problems impact them... should they care about my bsr?