D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[FrogReaver]

I guess if all else fails, there's always the option of defining the rather ambiguous phrase "meaningful consequence of failure" to mean whetever the heck we want it to mean.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I guess if all else fails, there's always the option of defining the rather ambiguous phrase "meaningful consequence of failure" to mean whetever the heck we want it to mean.

Sure, we can all argue about how meaningful it has to be.

But I'll insist that being in the same non-optimal state you were in before you rolled the dice is, pretty much by definition, not a "consequence". (Not sure if you specifically are making that argument here, but some have been.)

 

[FrogReaver]

Sure, we can all argue about how meaningful it has to be.

But I'll insist that being in the same non-optimal state you were in before you rolled the dice is, pretty much by definition, not a "consequence". (Not sure if you specifically are making that argument here, but some have been.)

But you aren't in the same state anymore. If you were you could retry the lore check. I'm presuming that's disallowed. So then, your state now has one fewer option for you than it previously did. It's not a big failure but it is a meaningful consequence (no longer having a chance to get the lore you desire... or having to take the long route to get it)

I'm not saying that's the best interpretation of "meaningful consequence of failure", just that it's a valid one.

 

[Monayuris]

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.

I'm not arguing anything of that sort. I just think goal and approach is a tool that is best used with active player action in a known DM location.

Sometimes, ability checks can be used to establish a baseline.

For example, if a party wishes to move stealthily through an area. The act of moving stealthily pretty much warrants an ability check (if you are running a dungeon with wandering encounters, you can't always know if there is a creature to roll against). I guess the goal is to not be detected and the approach is to do that by moving very quietly. But in a situation where you have wandering monsters, even the DM doesn't know if there will be creatures to oppose such action.

I see two uses for ability (skill) checks. A baseline that is applied to situations outside of player control (which should be triggered by player choice to begin with) and the potential result of a 'goal and approach' interaction.

 

[iserith]

You can always go D&D 4e on it @Elfcrusher :

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

Yeah, my scenario with the monster ability is a little bit out there, at least for D&D. But I wonder how much mechanical impact it would actually have. Sure, "remembering" that this monster is vulnerable to your primary attack spell would be a huge bonus, but what if you fail and suddenly it's resistant or immune to it? So it's really a matter of where the DC lies.

Still, it's just not very D&D. I get that.

However, I think it would work well in the "closing the portal" scenario, provided the DM hadn't made closing the portal by some other specific means an integral part of the adventure. In other words, if the players are going off-script (as it were) just by trying to close it, the solution of making the Arcana check as you try to close it could be fun and memorable.

(And maybe even in some constrained or even unique circumstances it would work with monster abilities; I just wouldn't want it to be a regular thing.)

 

[Guest 6801328]

But you aren't in the same state anymore. If you were you could retry the lore check. I'm presuming that's disallowed. So then, your state now has one fewer option for you than it previously did. It's not a big failure but it is a meaningful consequence (no longer having a chance to get the lore you desire... or having to take the long route to get it)

I'm not saying that's the best interpretation of "meaningful consequence of failure", just that it's a valid one.

Oh, that's sneaky.

However, if you hadn't made the roll, the only option you would otherwise have is to...make the roll. So it's kind of a self-referential consequence, and therefore kind of meaningless.

Put another way, is there any reason the player wouldn't want to make the roll?

I suppose if the player knows, like Eminem, that he has just one shot, and the DC fluctuates up and down, but he can't be sure how far it will go up and down, there's an interesting gamble involved. "Will the DC go any lower than it is right now? Or will it never get this low again?" Now we've got a consequence.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'll just point out that now that the attacks have somewhat died out, this conversation is getting pretty interesting.

 

[iserith]

I'm not arguing anything of that sort. I just think goal and approach is a tool that is best used with active player action in a known DM location.

I used your quote to mostly point out that other people were arguing against the rules, not what is actually just a method for players to describe what they want to do. I advocate for both of those things together at the same time, but one of them is "mine" and one of them is "the rules." But people argue against them as if they are one thing that I or others made up. It wasn't necessarily directed at your argument. Sorry for any confusion there.

Sometimes, ability checks can be used to establish a baseline.

For example, if a party wishes to move stealthily through an area. The act of moving stealthily pretty much warrants an ability check (if you are running a dungeon with wandering encounters, you can't always know if there is a creature to roll against). I guess the goal is to not be detected and the approach is to do that by moving very quietly. But in a situation where you have wandering monsters, even the DM doesn't know if there will be creatures to oppose such action.

I see two uses for ability (skill) checks. A baseline that is applied to situations outside of player control (which should be triggered by player choice to begin with) and the potential result of a 'goal and approach' interaction.

I'm not sure what the distinction you're making is here. You laid out the goal and approach above (bolded). That's all good and more or less what I'd expect my players to establish for their characters. There's no need for a check right now though if nobody's listening. It gets resolved when it matters. If they asked to roll a Dexterity (Stealth) check, I'd tell them "no."

 

[FrogReaver]

Oh, that's sneaky.

However, if you hadn't made the roll, the only option you would otherwise have is to...make the roll. So it's kind of a self-referential consequence, and therefore kind of meaningless.

Put another way, is there any reason the player wouldn't want to make the roll?

I suppose if the player knows, like Eminem, that he has just one shot, and the DC fluctuates up and down, but he can't be sure how far it will go up and down, there's an interesting gamble involved. "Will the DC go any lower than it is right now? Or will it never get this low again?" Now we've got a consequence.

It might be meaningless kind of meaningless but it does technically meet the criteria of the term we are trying to play toward. Anyways, I don't think hammering away at that idea is the best use of time.

I like that idea of fluctuating DC's. I could see the DC getting lower the more you seen of the creature in the fight. Justification being the more you see of it's abilities and behavior the easier it is for you to place it. Maybe that's the way to handle knowledge checks in your style?