D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[iserith]

Just being trained in religion is probably sufficient for a lot of the knowledge checks. The cases where it isn’t sufficient, should be weightier or more significant scenarios than “Who’s that poke-undead?” IMO, anyway.

Right, as with the mention of background above, informing the DM that your character is drawing on, say, formal religious training at the monastery before it was burned down by pillaging orcs from across the sea, is both helping your DM fairly and consistently adjudicate the action while entertaining the table with an interesting tidbit from your character's past.

 

[5ekyu]

I believe the core idea is to eliminate inconsequential checks. Not necessarily all checks altogether.

For instance, in the normal course of adventuring, a cleric trained in religion probably shouldn’t need a check to recall religious lore, or discern the purpose of a cult’s ritual, perform a regular religious service, or stuff like that. Whereas recreating that ritual or devising a counter-ritual might well need the check.

Just being trained in religion is probably sufficient for a lot of the knowledge checks. The cases where it isn’t sufficient, should be weightier or more significant scenarios than “Who’s that poke-undead?” IMO, anyway.

The basic rules already explicitly cover this. The first paragraph in the DMG on ability checks covers things so easy its not worth fretting over like wsalking across the room. Thst paragraph is where the "meaningful consewuence" comes from.

The next section adds a broader rule - that you reslly need a chance of failure and a chance of success to need to roll. If either is missing the roll is not needed.

Then they go on later to sdd auto-success for a proficient attempt at DC 10 or less.

Those are different from saying if you toll there will be or must be a chance of worse than "no progress"

 

[Oofta]

1. I should hope a player has not written a novel about their character’s backstory. Not doing so leaves room for improvisation, which is just fine at our table.
2. I should hope a player is not trying to justify everything with specious backstory claims. That is encroaching on bad actor territory.
3. After finding out what they want to know, why they want to know it, and how they could possibly know it, with reasonable specificity, the DM can still say No because reasons, right?

All I know is that I've played with people that would try to abuse it. That may not apply to your group.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

All I know is that I've played with people that would try to abuse it. That may not apply to your group.

Me too - and they are no longer at our table. So, currently, it does not apply to any of the groups I DM.

 

[Oofta]

I believe the core idea is to eliminate inconsequential checks. Not necessarily all checks altogether.

For instance, in the normal course of adventuring, a cleric trained in religion probably shouldn’t need a check to recall religious lore, or discern the purpose of a cult’s ritual, perform a regular religious service, or stuff like that. Whereas recreating that ritual or devising a counter-ritual might well need the check.

Just being trained in religion is probably sufficient for a lot of the knowledge checks. The cases where it isn’t sufficient, should be weightier or more significant scenarios than “Who’s that poke-undead?” IMO, anyway.

That's fine and I agree. But that's not what the OP wants (@Elfcrusher correct me if I'm wrong). If there's not a cost to failure then he doesn't want the check.

My explicit example was remembering something that allowed the group to bypass an expensive and potentially dangerous side mission. To me the cost is the lost opportunity of skipping the whole Jimmy the Nose encounter.

That didn't meet the criteria that he's looking for. Therefore, if failing a knowledge check simply means you don't know anything, it doesn't qualify as a check worth making.

Back to what @Lanefan was stating, and that I agree with, is that the cost of not calling (or allowing) for a roll is that they know there is nothing to find or learn. Don't bother with an insight check, because the NPC is telling the truth.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

So, meaningful consequence for a failed “knowledge check”...

Is “not knowing” really enough? That seems to encourage the “I try again” scheme or the next player declaring “I try!” In which case, the meaningful consequence for failure materializes: “after a group discussion that lasts X minutes, you cobble together the facts you were looking for.” And now we’re that much closer to @Bawylie’s potential wandering monster threat. Time can be a dangerous cost. Unless it isn’t - in which case, no roll - just Yes or No.

Sorry, kinda thinking out loud here... thoughts?

 

[iserith]

Side note:

Bad actors gonna bad act. To directly or indirectly say that doing something is not a good idea essentially because bad actors exist is not a good argument against doing something in a voluntary activity in my view.

Also, if everyone at the table is aware of the goals of play, that is, everyone has a good time and creates an exciting, memorable story together, then everything the player does has to be in line with that. Why then do some discuss people who aren't doing that as if it's proof of anything other than someone at the table is doing something they shouldn't be doing in the first place?

 

[Oofta]

So, meaningful consequence for a failed “knowledge check”...

Is “not knowing” really enough? That seems to encourage the “I try again” scheme or the next player declaring “I try!” In which case, the meaningful consequence for failure materializes: “after a group discussion that lasts X minutes, you cobble together the facts you were looking for.” And now we’re that much closer to @Bawylie’s potential wandering monster threat. Time can be a dangerous cost. Unless it isn’t - in which case, no roll - just Yes or No.

Sorry, kinda thinking out loud here... thoughts?

I don't allow retries on knowledge checks. Either you know something or you don't. There are cases where I might, because something may happen or some additional bit of information may jog someone's memory but that's pretty exceptional.

 

[iserith]

So, meaningful consequence for a failed “knowledge check”...

Is “not knowing” really enough?

Technically it's "not recalling," but yeah, it could be. It depends on the context. It becomes a heck of a lot clearer if you ask your players to be reasonably specific because then their goal for desiring the information becomes clear.

That seems to encourage the “I try again” scheme or the next player declaring “I try!” In which case, the meaningful consequence for failure materializes: “after a group discussion that lasts X minutes, you cobble together the facts you were looking for.” And now we’re that much closer to @Bawylie’s potential wandering monster threat. Time can be a dangerous cost. Unless it isn’t - in which case, no roll - just Yes or No.

Sorry, kinda thinking out loud here... thoughts?

Retries are in theory possible, if (1) the task is not impossible and (2) the PCs have time to spare. But on a failure, give them information that they didn't want, but is nonetheless interesting (and possibly useful if they figure out how to use it). I'll bet good money they don't attempt a retry. It's really only on the "You dunno" or "Nothing happens" narrations that the other players tend to want to pile on with attempts of their own or attempt retries.

 

[Bawylie]

That's fine and I agree. But that's not what the OP wants (@Elfcrusher correct me if I'm wrong). If there's not a cost to failure then he doesn't want the check.

My explicit example was remembering something that allowed the group to bypass an expensive and potentially dangerous side mission. To me the cost is the lost opportunity of skipping the whole Jimmy the Nose encounter.

That didn't meet the criteria that he's looking for. Therefore, if failing a knowledge check simply means you don't know anything, it doesn't qualify as a check worth making.

Back to what @Lanefan was stating, and that I agree with, is that the cost of not calling (or allowing) for a roll is that they know there is nothing to find or learn. Don't bother with an insight check, because the NPC is telling the truth.

Ok, fair enough. Maybe I misunderstand the issue.