D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[5ekyu]

Nice. At least there is some acknowledgement in this thread about the shortcomings of goal and approach.

So can we make goal and approach (as meant here) work for knowledge checks.

I think it's possible to make anything have a meaningful consequence of failure so long as you aren't too picky about how that failure looks.

Consider an arcana check to learn how to shut off the magical portal. Perhaps a failed arcana check gives you the information but also has an enemy come through the portal or gives true info that the portal is (now) more difficult to shut off than it would have been if you succeeded.

In other words, if you don't maintain that the consequence of failure must directly follow from whatever your character is trying to do then you can have exactly what you are looking for. Personally I dislike that technique, though I still like having it in my toolbox just in case.

When I choose to use "some progress with setbsck" for insight, I have at times used it as "distracted" and for instance the setback was missing the pickpocket that snatched your pouch. Of course, they gsjnedxdome useful info from the insight failure too.

 

[FrogReaver]

It isn't. What's required is to change your conception of what a History check can do. Skip using it as a "Can I Please Know Things, DM?" skill and use it to actually do things in the environment. This requires the DM to do a little bit of extra thinking in prep to write down a note to say "remember to mention the historical significance of this trap/puzzle/secret door."

I've had history be used to find secret doors, disarm traps (a curse written on a sarcophagus), and influence nobles at court. I've also had it used by a player to analyze an ongoing battle and make a recommendation to the army's general on tactics.

"Do I Remember Stuff, Please?" is boring. Just give information. Stop building encounters and scenes where hiding information is part of the scene. You can have very exciting scenes by not gating information behind checks -- even mysteries and intrigue (in fact, I think these get easier when you stop confusing mystery and intrigue with gated information).

What the absolute Heck. The OP specifically asked to discuss the "Do I know about X?"

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.)

 

[iserith]

Here's a thing to consider:

If you're struggling to see a meaningful consequence for failure when botching an Intelligence check to recall lore, then perhaps there isn't one. If there isn't one, then there's no ability check. Either give the specific information the player is seeking or don't.

But sometimes, when you're actually playing the game with all of its layered context and drama instead of discussing it in the abstract, a situation will arise where there definitely is uncertainty as to the outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. And then you'll ask for an ability check.

Most of the time, however, you probably won't. So just give them the information. Or don't. Maybe even err on the side of the former since they may well be seeking the information because they don't think they have enough context to make informed choices.

That you may not ask for many ability checks related to recalling lore doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the method of adjudication laid out in the rules. That just looks to me like a conclusion based on a presupposition that comes from somewhere other than the game itself. When it comes to presuppositions, it might be useful to examine why that thought exists in the first place and whether you can do away with it.

 

[5ekyu]

The tricky thing here is (assuming you have open rolls) that the player know he/she failed the roll, so giving them false information isn't going to lead to a bad result, and therefore isn't really a penalty for failure. (Caveat: if your table enforces the sort of roleplaying where it is expected that the player will act on the knowledge anyway, because to do otherwise would be "metagaming", then this might work for you.)

I suppose...hearking back to @Charlaquin's comment about stealth...you make them roll at the critical moment. That is, when the character actually attempts to shut down the portal, and commits to it, that's when the roll is made.

And maybe that's the general case answer to these scenarios? (Not that you handle ALL knowledge tasks this way, but when the stars align and inspiration strikes.)

Let's try it out with monster abilities/features. As long as the DM is willing to be flexible, I could see something like this:
Player: "Thinking back to my course in Elemental Combat Fundamentals in Wizard School, I try to recall if these things have any special vulnerabilities."
DM: "Well, what do you remember?"
Player: "That they are especially vulnerable to sonic damage!"
DM: "Cool, try it out."
(Player casts Shatter)
DM: "Let's see an Intelligence check."
Player (using @iserith's method): "I'm going to apply Arcana, since this was something I learned in Wizard school....oh, sheet, I rolled a 2. So 7 total."
DM: "Well, lucky for you it wasn't a total fail* and you managed to not heal the thing, but you can tell that not only did it not do as much damage as you were expecting, but it barely seemed to affect it."

Two things about this scenario:
1) Whatever the stat block said, the DM was willing to switch it up on the fly. (Although from now on these creatures probably have resistance to sonic damage.)
2) The penalty for failure came in the form of an underutilized spell slot, and turn. (EDIT: In my book this qualifies for Ovinomancer's criterion, as the odds have just shifted in the monster's favor.)

And I'll point out that the above scenario, with higher stakes and more dramatic effect, could very well turn into the sort of story that gets told around that table for years to come. "Remember the time...?" Which is in some ways my ultimate test.

*By the way, I don't intend to keep promoting gradations of success. I tossed that one idea out there a while ago, and that seemed to have gotten interpreted as "Elfcrusher is arguing for degrees of success."

So the above conversation could have had this inserted:
"Sure. Tell me what you remember, and when you act on it you can roll Int with a DC of X. If you fail it will produce the opposite intended effect."

This example can work, I mean it works in other systems that embrace it. The player's choices before the roll and the die roll are creating the scene not interacting with it.

Isnt thst kinda ths vore premise of PbtA or fo I have that mixed up with other indie games. Its a playstyle that fits some well.

My question though would be "why not have this be the normal procedure for all the ability checks if it is acceptable to your group?"

I ask because it seems to conflict with goal and approach.

Goal and approach has an understood existing scdne, the players then describe an approach and that is used to assess the odds of success and failure including auto-success and auto-fail. That seems very much at least a bit contrary to "the roll determines the facts of the scene."

Not arguing for or against this new approach, but wondering ehy you would see it as beneficial to have two such divergent resolution systems and not just the one - this new one - tossing G-A for this check-driven fiction method?

 

[iserith]

It isn't. What's required is to change your conception of what a History check can do. Skip using it as a "Can I Please Know Things, DM?" skill and use it to actually do things in the environment. This requires the DM to do a little bit of extra thinking in prep to write down a note to say "remember to mention the historical significance of this trap/puzzle/secret door."

I've had history be used to find secret doors, disarm traps (a curse written on a sarcophagus), and influence nobles at court. I've also had it used by a player to analyze an ongoing battle and make a recommendation to the army's general on tactics.

"Do I Remember Stuff, Please?" is boring. Just give information. Stop building encounters and scenes where hiding information is part of the scene. You can have very exciting scenes by not gating information behind checks -- even mysteries and intrigue (in fact, I think these get easier when you stop confusing mystery and intrigue with gated information).

Yes, essentially what is happening here is the character is recalling lore or making a deduction sufficient to then take a subsequent action with automatic success.

In an Eberron heist one-shot, one of the ways into the vault was to go through a trapped hallway by way of stepping on floor tiles inscribed with the family names of the House Kundarak clans. Some of the names inscribed on the floor tiles were incorrect. If you can't recall them or deduce which ones are correct, it sucks to be you.

 

[Monayuris]

Nice. At least there is some acknowledgement in this thread about the shortcomings of goal and approach.

So can we make goal and approach (as meant here) work for knowledge checks.

I think it's possible to make anything have a meaningful consequence of failure so long as you aren't too picky about how that failure looks.

Consider an arcana check to learn how to shut off the magical portal. Perhaps a failed arcana check gives you the information but also has an enemy come through the portal or gives true info that the portal is (now) more difficult to shut off than it would have been if you succeeded.

In other words, if you don't maintain that the consequence of failure must directly follow from whatever your character is trying to do then you can have exactly what you are looking for. Personally I dislike that technique, though I still like having it in my toolbox just in case.

Goal and approach is a tool that can be used when it is needed. It doesn't work in every situation but it is still a useful mechanic.

I agree with you about the Arcana check. I'm not a fan of consequences that are 'out of scope' of the action taken. This is my biggest problem with Dungeon World games. A failed knowledge check shouldn't result in ogres busting through the door.

I know full well that in DW, that is just an abstraction that takes the place of the 'wandering monster' check. But in actual practice, it is just absolutely ludicrous to me.

The consequences to a check should be related to the actions taken. As iserith mentioned, if you can't think of a suitable consequence to failing a roll, you shouldn't ask for one in the first place.

 

[iserith]

Just a side comment:

The most common Intelligence checks in my game are related to figuring out how traps and secret doors work after they've been found. The meaningful consequence for failure is almost always wasted time which plays into wandering monster checks. And you need to do that before you can even attempt to disable them.

Want more opportunities for Intelligence-related tasks to come up in your game? Include more traps and secret doors. Make communicating wordlessly something valuable to do in a social interaction challenge. Have some exploration challenges involve appraising treasure to get the most value for the least encumbrance. Include situations where disguising oneself is a good idea (that seems to come up with hardly any prompting at all!) or where forging documents is needed. Or how about a some games of skill?

It's not all recalling lore.

 

[FrogReaver]

Goal and approach is a tool that can be used when it is needed. It doesn't work in every situation but it is still a useful mechanic.

I agree with you about the Arcana check. I'm not a fan of consequences that are 'out of scope' of the action taken. This is my biggest problem with Dungeon World games. A failed knowledge check shouldn't result in ogres busting through the door.

I know full well that in DW, that is just an abstraction that takes the place of the 'wandering monster' check. But in actual practice, it is just absolutely ludicrous to me.

The consequences to a check should be related to the actions taken. As iserith mentioned, if you can't think of a suitable consequence to failing a roll, you shouldn't ask for one in the first place.

I agree it's a tool and it's a tool I rather like the ideal of, at least for parts of the game.

I think it's a poor tool to use when it comes to more passive PC activities, such as lore recall or insight (at least for those groups that like to have the character knowledge vs player knowledge split to be decided in game).

I guess ultimately the point is, if you are playing pure goal and approach then you have 2 options, play with out of scope consequences or have nearly all lore recall abilities be decided by DM fiat and end up as auto pass or auto fail.

Neither of those are compatible with my playstyle and so even if I use goal and approach in other areas, I would personally not use them to resolve lore recollection.

 

[Monayuris]

The tricky thing here is (assuming you have open rolls) that the player know he/she failed the roll, so giving them false information isn't going to lead to a bad result, and therefore isn't really a penalty for failure. (Caveat: if your table enforces the sort of roleplaying where it is expected that the player will act on the knowledge anyway, because to do otherwise would be "metagaming", then this might work for you.)

I suppose...hearking back to @Charlaquin's comment about stealth...you make them roll at the critical moment. That is, when the character actually attempts to shut down the portal, and commits to it, that's when the roll is made.

And maybe that's the general case answer to these scenarios? (Not that you handle ALL knowledge tasks this way, but when the stars align and inspiration strikes.)

Let's try it out with monster abilities/features. As long as the DM is willing to be flexible, I could see something like this:
Player: "Thinking back to my course in Elemental Combat Fundamentals in Wizard School, I try to recall if these things have any special vulnerabilities."
DM: "Well, what do you remember?"
Player: "That they are especially vulnerable to sonic damage!"
DM: "Cool, try it out."
(Player casts Shatter)
DM: "Let's see an Intelligence check."
Player (using @iserith's method): "I'm going to apply Arcana, since this was something I learned in Wizard school....oh, sheet, I rolled a 2. So 7 total."
DM: "Well, lucky for you it wasn't a total fail* and you managed to not heal the thing, but you can tell that not only did it not do as much damage as you were expecting, but it barely seemed to affect it."

Two things about this scenario:
1) Whatever the stat block said, the DM was willing to switch it up on the fly. (Although from now on these creatures probably have resistance to sonic damage.)
2) The penalty for failure came in the form of an underutilized spell slot, and turn. (EDIT: In my book this qualifies for Ovinomancer's criterion, as the odds have just shifted in the monster's favor.)

And I'll point out that the above scenario, with higher stakes and more dramatic effect, could very well turn into the sort of story that gets told around that table for years to come. "Remember the time...?" Which is in some ways my ultimate test.

*By the way, I don't intend to keep promoting gradations of success. I tossed that one idea out there a while ago, and that seemed to have gotten interpreted as "Elfcrusher is arguing for degrees of success."

So the above conversation could have had this inserted:
"Sure. Tell me what you remember, and when you act on it you can roll Int with a DC of X. If you fail it will produce the opposite intended effect."

Personally, this is not my style. When I create a dungeon or lair or adventuring environment... I intend it to be a challenge. Its something the players have to overcome.

Metagaming changes in resistance or vulnerability in either direction, to me, subverts this. If I put a monster that is resistant to non magical damage in a dungeon, I expect that the players will figure that out at some point and take effort to bring alternate means of attacking. I don't allow for a player to change the creatures resistances based on an ability check. My world isn't fungible vis-a-vis character ability checks.

Instead the classic "what do I know about this creature?" question is applied the same as any other rule. There are three possibilities:
1. The info is common they know whatever they need to know.
2. They need to make a check and succeed.. they know whatever they need to know.
3. They need to make a check and fail.. they don't know anything at the moment they are in front of this thing, but can do more to gain this info through adventure and other activity.

 

[iserith]

Goal and approach is a tool that can be used when it is needed. It doesn't work in every situation but it is still a useful mechanic.

One issue is that "goal and approach" is conflated with needing a "meaningful consequence for failure." It does, of course, but not because I or others say so.

"Goal and approach" just means that the player is explicit with what he or she wants to achieve (goal) and how the character goes about that (approach) with reasonable specificity. This is as opposed to, say, the player asking to make an ability check and leaving us to guess or infer what the character is doing or forcing the DM to establish that in the narration phase of the play loop, effectively playing the character for the player.

The player saying what the character is doing and hoping to achieve makes it easier for the DM to determine whether there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure, the two rules-mandated criteria for whether there is an ability check. It also makes it easy to set a DC and choose which ability score applies to the ability check, plus which skill proficiency, if those criteria are met.

That's it. That's all it is. If people want to argue against players being more explicit about what their characters are doing and thereby making a larger contribution to the play experience, uhh, okay I guess? If they want to argue against meaningful consequence for failure being one of the prerequisites for ability checks, then they can just scream impotently at the rules books for a while. I didn't write the things. And of course they don't have to use those rules if they don't want to.