D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[iserith]

Let's talk about knowledge!

Specifically, the player does not know X, but wants to know if his/her character does know X.

...

What about obviously low rolls are no result, but close-but-no-cigar rolls are wrong information?

Not being able to recall lore may well be a meaningful consequence in context. If it's not, then the DM just gives the player the information they seek. Generally speaking, the more information the players have, the better equipped they are to act and drive the game forward. But if there's no reasonable way the character could have access to the information in the DM's view, perhaps because that info is purposefully hidden, obscured by misinformation, lost to time or whatever, the DM just says the character fails to recall the lore, no roll.

If a player wants to have a character recall lore, I want to know specifically what the player wants the character to recall and what the character is drawing upon to recall that lore. If I decide that there's going to be an ability check, then on a success, I tell the player what he or she wanted to recall and nothing more, regardless of how much the check exceeds the DC. If he or she fails the check, I provide information, but not specifically what was desired. This is something like progress combined with a setback in that you didn't get what you wanted, but you got something. I do not and will not ever provide false information.

 

[Celebrim]

If you keep track of time, then the loss of time is a perfectly viable cost. In the lock-pick example, I “charge” 10 minutes for slow, subtle actions. Like searching a room or picking a lock. I don’t charge any time for loud, fast actions (like kicking a door down). But, every hour I roll for random encounters.

So my players always have the opportunity to weigh whether a slow, subtle approach or a fast, loud approach is worth taking.

I generally agree with you about the point, if not maybe the specifics. For example, you will always eventually find yourself in scenarios where random encounters don't make a lot of sense given the fiction, much less hourly random encounters. I would caution against always inventing a random encounter to punish players for time wasting.

But in general, I agree that time spent can be a meaningful consequence of failure. Someone earlier proposed a scenario where the party was trying to find information in a library. We could easily imagine a situation where there was no meaningful consequence of failing some sort of research or investigation check because the library had no meaningful random encounters for whatever reason. But at the same time, depending on the size of the library the consequences of an exhaustive approach to searching it could be meaningful in and of itself.

But whether it is or not really isn't important. What is important is that if the players propose to do an exhaustive search that has no meaningful consequence of failure, and all their contingencies are accounted for, this is essentially down time. With party permission, you can resolve this as simply as saying, "Ok, two weeks pass, and you are neck deep in books, bored, and have discarded an almost endless number of false leads that led nowhere, when Sandra says, "Hey guys. Take a look at this. I think I found something." Hopefully, with good game design and functional players, whatever they found will lead to exciting challenges.

 

[billd91]

But in other cases (e.g. failing a knowledge check) it's not clear that failing is any worse than not trying. You can end up with "I might as well roll; it don't cost me nuthin'" which is something I want to avoid.

Well, does the player (or PC) actually want to know something or is this just kind of an "eh, might as well" situation? If they really want to know something then, even if there's no difference in failing vs not trying, they aren't going to pass up testing their ability. The consequence of failing should be measured against succeeding, not lack of trying. And that should be the case with a number of situations, such as the previous stealth example.

 

[Bawylie]

I generally agree with you about the point, if not maybe the specifics. For example, you will always eventually find yourself in scenarios where random encounters don't make a lot of sense given the fiction, much less hourly random encounters. I would caution against always inventing a random encounter to punish players for time wasting.

But in general, I agree that time spent can be a meaningful consequence of failure. Someone earlier proposed a scenario where the party was trying to find information in a library. We could easily imagine a situation where there was no meaningful consequence of failing some sort of research or investigation check because the library had no meaningful random encounters for whatever reason. But at the same time, depending on the size of the library the consequences of an exhaustive approach to searching it could be meaningful in and of itself.

But whether it is or not really isn't important. What is important is that if the players propose to do an exhaustive search that has no meaningful consequence of failure, and all their contingencies are accounted for, this is essentially down time. With party permission, you can resolve this as simply as saying, "Ok, two weeks pass, and you are neck deep in books, bored, and have discarded an almost endless number of false leads that led nowhere, when Sandra says, "Hey guys. Take a look at this. I think I found something." Hopefully, with good game design and functional players, whatever they found will lead to exciting challenges.

Maybe you missed it, but I said I roll for random encounters. Not that wandering monsters show up hourly. There’s a threat of danger or complication, not a certainty.

Threat of a danger is usually more motivating than an inevitable danger, I find.

Aside from that - I used the example to illustrate the point. By tracking time, I usually have built-in costs with looming consequences. I don’t always have that, but well over 80% of the time, I do. So tracking time can be a very useful tool to employ regularly to avoid inventing unique costs and consequences for every declared action. Some of this can be automated and work very, very well.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Imposing worse than do nothing consequences on every situation is going to either break verisimilitude, or be antagonistic in practice, or be railroading in practice. Retroactively trying to transform the scenario into one where whatever the PC's propose it has a worse than do nothing consequence isn't a solution to every problem, and may indeed make things worse.

Fully agree. Not every task needs to turn into this. (I thought I already said that.)

Now, the interesting question to me is, "Is this scenario one that can become a meaningful risk/reward decision point, with benefits for success and penalties for failure?"

Maybe it can't. Or not well. But I think it's interesting to ask.

 

[MarkB]

So, just as a general note, the approach you're looking for seems very reminiscent of the concept behind most Powered By The Apocalypse games, in which the DM basically never rolls dice, and the players' rolls effectively determine the success or failure of both their own actions and those of their opposition.

I'm not suggesting that you go play those games instead, but I would suggest that it may be worth your time to take a closer look at some of those systems, and see how they handle those mechanics. I'm currently running a Scum and Villainy campaign, and the system has some useful dials for setting the outcome of both success and failure of checks.

Let's talk about knowledge!

Specifically, the player does not know X, but wants to know if his/her character does know X.

I'd really love to find a way to resolve these situations using "GaAwUOaMC" (Goal and Approach with Uncertain Outcome and Meaningful Consequences.) Not necessarily every time somebody wants to know something, but neither do I always want to resolve that with DM fiat.

Wrong answers are a possibility, but I neither like secret rolls, nor leaving that to roleplaying on non-secret rolls.

What about obviously low rolls are no result, but close-but-no-cigar rolls are wrong information?

That just feels the wrong way around. I know D&D's checks are generally binary, but as a player I'd dislike being penalised more for a near-miss than a complete failure.

It also doesn't feel like fully embracing the system you're proposing. If there are meaningful consequences for failure, then there shouldn't be a "nothing gained, nothing lost" middle ground - the middle ground is choosing not to make the roll.

This may be one of those "choose which you like the least" situations.

• Meaningful consequences for failure
• Rolls in the open
• Not roleplaying known-to-be-false information

Choose any two.

 

[Charlaquin]

Maybe you missed it, but I said I roll for random encounters. Not that wandering monsters show up hourly. There’s a threat of danger or complication, not a certainty.

Threat of a danger is usually more motivating than an inevitable danger, I find.

Aside from that - I used the example to illustrate the point. By tracking time, I usually have built-in costs with looming consequences. I don’t always have that, but well over 80% of the time, I do. So tracking time can be a very useful tool to employ regularly to avoid inventing unique costs and consequences for every declared action. Some of this can be automated and work very, very well.

This. Also worth noting, “random encounter” doesn’t always have to mean “wandering monsters.” Maybe in the library a “random encounter” means the librarian comes and scolds you. (And in case it wasn’t clear, that was meant as a joke, not a serious suggestion.)

 

[Guest 6801328]

I think I see what you're getting at. I guess I don't see the point of actively discouraging people from trying to use their abilities.

Could you explain how what I am describing is "actively encouraging people from trying to use their abilities"?

Wouldn't players want to propose approaches to their goals that:
A) Are more likely to autosucceed because they use the strengths of their character?
B) If a roll is called for, will use one of those strengths as the basis for the roll?

But every single check? I can't see how that would make the game more enjoyable.

I agree. Which is why I grant autosuccess (or failure) on many tasks.

Maybe I should just rephrase. You've decided your approach before you've defined your goal. What's your goal? What impact on gameplay are you trying to achieve?

I started typing an answer to this, but honestly it's just inviting thread derailment. I started the thread pretty explicitly saying "this is for people who want to play this way." I'm not going to try to persuade people they should.

 

[Guest 6801328]

So, just as a general note, the approach you're looking for seems very reminiscent of the concept behind most Powered By The Apocalypse games, in which the DM basically never rolls dice, and the players' rolls effectively determine the success or failure of both their own actions and those of their opposition.

I'm not suggesting that you go play those games instead, but I would suggest that it may be worth your time to take a closer look at some of those systems, and see how they handle those mechanics. I'm currently running a Scum and Villainy campaign, and the system has some useful dials for setting the outcome of both success and failure of checks.

For the record I love the PoA system.

Were you suggesting I "take a closer look" in order to inform how I run 5e, or because I might want to play those instead of 5e?

 

[5ekyu]

I generally agree with you about the point, if not maybe the specifics. For example, you will always eventually find yourself in scenarios where random encounters don't make a lot of sense given the fiction, much less hourly random encounters. I would caution against always inventing a random encounter to punish players for time wasting.

But in general, I agree that time spent can be a meaningful consequence of failure. Someone earlier proposed a scenario where the party was trying to find information in a library. We could easily imagine a situation where there was no meaningful consequence of failing some sort of research or investigation check because the library had no meaningful random encounters for whatever reason. But at the same time, depending on the size of the library the consequences of an exhaustive approach to searching it could be meaningful in and of itself.

But whether it is or not really isn't important. What is important is that if the players propose to do an exhaustive search that has no meaningful consequence of failure, and all their contingencies are accounted for, this is essentially down time. With party permission, you can resolve this as simply as saying, "Ok, two weeks pass, and you are neck deep in books, bored, and have discarded an almost endless number of false leads that led nowhere, when Sandra says, "Hey guys. Take a look at this. I think I found something." Hopefully, with good game design and functional players, whatever they found will lead to exciting challenges.

My go-to for investigations as research is that a failure means tat resources give you a little bit but not the whoe thing and is now tapped out - unless you change your effort further attempts the sane way get either disad (with more setbacks) or they fail.

But... The "bit" will often include another direction you can try, another avenue. It might mention a certain temple to Bloohah and a priest named Willowdale. That opens up going to that temple, fiding other temples or fiding Willowdales etc and might involve different skills - persuasion for instance.

But...

For any task that takes more than a quick moment - including this research - i tend to resolve it as an extended roll and a race to three successes or failures. Each failure "taps out" or hinders that one avenue - typically making you change your effort or do simething to gain advantage (to counter disad.)

Obviously my extended task bit is ahouse rule but i like its results on play.