D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[FrogReaver]

Don't be silly. Of course my game can handle a "simple contest for 100g". It just wouldn't include BOTH of the following features at the same time:

• Zero risk to the player
• Outcome determined by random dice roll

By the way, to me a simple contest for 100gp would be one where there is zero risk to the player but that the outcome is determined by chance. By that definition, you admit that your game cannot handle such a simple contest for 100gp. Thank you.

 

[Guest 6801328]

By the way, to me a simple contest for 100gp would be one where there is zero risk to the player but that the outcome is determined by chance. By that definition, you admit that your game cannot handle such a simple contest for 100gp. Thank you.

Not at all. As with the medicine example earlier, if it's strictly an odds thing and has nothing to do with character ability then, sure, roll some dice. But that's different from saying it depends on the player succeeding at an ability check.

But that does illuminate a place (or another place?) that I've played too fast and loose with language. I keep saying "using dice" when really I specifically mean "having the player make an ability check". I should have been more precise in my word choice. So thank you for pointing that out.

And I think it's a really significant difference. We don't have ability checks because the results are random; it's because we don't know how to resolve the uncertainty of whether a character is able to achieve something. That is, we are using a metagame random number generator to determine a non-random in-game outcome.

But if the in-game fiction is also a truly random event, then rolling dice seems like a great way to simulate that.

P.S. It would also be easier to believe you are debating in good faith if instead of writing "you admit that" you posed an actual question that gave the appearance of genuine curiosity. E.g., "Would your version of the game be able to handle such an event?" Not that you asked for my opinion on forum etiquette. And certainly I've been guilty of the same sort of thing. Please feel free to call me out on it when I do.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Because dice inspire creativity and take the story in unexpected directions where you might never have thought to take it on your own.

I would say they can inspire creativity, but they can just as easily constrain it.

I'm open to persuasion that it's more of one than the other, though.

 

[FrogReaver]

Not at all. As with the medicine example earlier, if it's strictly an odds thing and has nothing to do with character ability then, sure, roll some dice. But that's different from saying it depends on the player succeeding at an ability check.

But that does illuminate a place (or another place?) that I've played too fast and loose with language. I keep saying "using dice" when really I specifically mean "having the player make an ability check". I should have been more precise in my word choice. So thank you for pointing that out.

And I think it's a really significant difference. We don't have ability checks because the results are random; it's because we don't know how to resolve the uncertainty of whether a character is able to achieve something. That is, we are using a metagame random number generator to determine a non-random in-game outcome.

But if the in-game fiction is also a truly random event, then rolling dice seems like a great way to simulate that.

In the100 gp contest example, maybe it's who does the most flips. It's definitely intended to be random (in football it would be the "any team can win on any given sunday" sentiment), but the weighting still depends on your characters abilities vs the NPC's abilities.

So whether you want to admit it or not, it's effectively the same thing - if you will use dice to instill randomness independently of character skills then using dice to instill randomness that depends on character skills isn't inherenttly different. I would call such random events that depend on character skill, skill checks. Do you have a different name?

P.S. It would also be easier to believe you are debating in good faith if instead of writing "you admit that" you posed an actual question that gave the appearance of genuine curiosity. E.g., "Would your version of the game be able to handle such an event?" Not that you asked for my opinion on forum etiquette. And certainly I've been guilty of the same sort of thing. Please feel free to call me out on it when I do.

P.S. I think it's long past time we have a debate about what good faith debate actually is, and how accusations that someone isn't debating in good faith is probably the most bad faith style comment that can be made.

 

[Charlaquin]

I would say they can inspire creativity, but they can just as easily constrain it.

I'm open to persuasion that it's more of one than the other, though.

Well, if you think about the way many DMs use ability checks, where the player either declares intent to make a check or asks permission to do so, and the outcome of the check is used to determine, retroactively, what the character did in the fiction to achieve the result... That’s definitely an exercise in creativity! You have to creatively interpret what may have happened to produce the outcome the dice dictate occurred. What I don’t like about that play style is that it puts success and failure in the hands of the dice. When you ask that the character’s action be specified first and use checks when necessary to resolve uncertainty in the outcome, your own decisions, rather than the dice are the primary factor in determining success and failure.

I think this is what people are trying to express distaste for when they bring up “player skill vs. character skill.” They don’t like that the player’s decisions are the primary factor. They would prefer that a combination of random chance and manipulation of probability based on character building decisions be the primary factors. Actually I would guess most of them would prefer that the order of importance in determining success be character building decisions > random chance > moment to moment decisions. Though I think the math of 5e results in greater importance on random chance in that style of play, unless you’re playing a rogue. Myself, I prefer the order be moment to moment decisions > character building decisions > random chance.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Actually I would guess most of them would prefer that the order of importance in determining success be character building decisions > random chance > moment to moment decisions. Though I think the math of 5e results in greater importance on random chance in that style of play, unless you’re playing a rogue. Myself, I prefer the order be moment to moment decisions > character building decisions > random chance.

That's a great way of summarizing the difference (in a formal inequality, no less!), and I agree with you. Both in the analysis and in the preference.

Using the forgery as an example, I just don't think it's "random" whether the PC does a good job or not. I'd like to assume that the hero of story (or one of them), who apparently is a skilled forger, is going to do a pretty darned good job most of the time if he/she has time and materials. That's my baseline, and I don't feel the need to roll an ability check to confirm that.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, if you think about the way many DMs use ability checks, where the player either declares intent to make a check or asks permission to do so, and the outcome of the check is used to determine, retroactively, what the character did in the fiction to achieve the result... That’s definitely an exercise in creativity! You have to creatively interpret what may have happened to produce the outcome the dice dictate occurred. What I don’t like about that play style is that it puts success and failure in the hands of the dice. When you ask that the character’s action be specified first and use checks when necessary to resolve uncertainty in the outcome, your own decisions, rather than the dice are the primary factor in determining success and failure.

Yep, but he is right. Once the dice have spoken, you must narrate to the outcome. I wouldn't classify that as more or less creativity, just different. All outcomes were on the table and depending on the dice you may have needed to narrate any outcome.

I think there's merit in limiting skill checks in most games without changing the overall style. Auto success and auto-fail definitely have a place.

I don't think the axiom of "meaningful failure" needs adopted to do that. Instead I'd replace that requirement with "meaningful uncertainty"

I think this is what people are trying to express distaste for when they bring up “player skill vs. character skill.” They don’t like that the player’s decisions are the primary factor. They would prefer that a combination of random chance and manipulation of probability based on character building decisions be the primary factors. Actually I would guess most of them would prefer that the order of importance in determining success be character building decisions > random chance > moment to moment decisions. Though I think the math of 5e results in greater importance on random chance in that style of play, unless you’re playing a rogue. Myself, I prefer the order be moment to moment decisions > character building decisions > random chance.

I think most of us prefer a mix of player skill and character skill. I like both involved. I think some of the advocates for goal-approach have taken to much of the character skill out of the game. Likewise some proponents for pure character skill approaches take too much player skill out of the game.

I prefer my character to be described by what he does in the game and not by anything written down on paper. My current character is an outright idiot, but it's not because I have a 6 written down for INT. It's because I play him like he's an outright idiot.

 

[Charlaquin]

Premature double-post

 

[Charlaquin]

Yep, but he is right. Once the dice have spoken, you must narrate to the outcome. I wouldn't classify that as more or less creativity, just different. All outcomes were on the table and depending on the dice you may have needed to narrate any outcome.

Yeah, I agree.

I think there's merit in limiting skill checks in most games without changing the overall style. Auto success and auto-fail definitely have a place.

I don't think the axiom of "meaningful failure" needs adopted to do that. Instead I'd replace that requirement with "meaningful uncertainty"

The “meaningful consequences” part is probably the most controversial part of the process, I think in part because there is no consensus on what constitutes meaningful consequence. What Oofta might consider an action without meaningful consequence for failure and still resolve with a check, Elfcrusher might agree has no meaningful consequence and decide to resolve narratively, and I might say does indeed have a meaningful consequence, though it might be a consequence I deem too artificial and would likewise resolve narratively.

Ultimately, I think the point of the meaningful consequence line is to avoid situations like I experienced in a recent game I was playing in: We were looking for a door with a particular symbol on it in a dark alley. DM asked for Perception checks, which we all failed. There was an awkward silence as the DM realized he had maneuvered himself into a corner. One of the other players jokingly said, “Can I try looking harder?” and the DM said, “I guess after enough time you would eventually find it anyway.” If he had thought about what the consequences of failing that Perception check would have been before he had asked for it, he might have just had us find the door we were looking for without a check. Or, he might have prepared an encounter with some street thugs who would come down the alley and harass us if we didn’t find the door quickly enough. Either way, we would have avoided that situation where everyone can clearly see the artifice of the check.

I think most of us prefer a mix of player skill and character skill. I like both involved. I think some of the advocates for goal-approach have taken to much of the character skill out of the game. Likewise some proponents for pure character skill approaches take too much player skill out of the game.

I prefer my character to be described by what he does in the game and not by anything written down on paper. My current character is an outright idiot, but it's not because I have a 6 written down for INT. It's because I play him like he's an outright idiot.

I prefer “character building decisions” and “moment to moment decisions” over “character skill” and “player skill”, respectively. But I agree that a mix of both having an impact on your chances of success is desirable. In my experience, most people prefer one have a greater influence on chances of success than the other, though it’s of course a spectrum. Personally I prefer moment to moment decisions be the primary factor, and character building decisions to be the “insurance against failure,” as Iserith puts it. The real question is, how much of role should the random element of the dice play? And here I think we get a lot more disagreement. Personally, I prefer their role be as minimal as possible, only coming into play when an outcome cannot easily be fairly determined without them. But many people really like the thrill that random element can introduce, and many like the creative exercise of interpreting the details of an action based on its randomly generated outcome.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeah, I agree.


The “meaningful consequences” part is probably the most controversial part of the process, I think in part because there is no consensus on what constitutes meaningful consequence. What Oofta might consider an action without meaningful consequence for failure and still resolve with a check, Elfcrusher might agree has no meaningful consequence and decide to resolve narratively, and I might say does indeed have a meaningful consequence, though it might be a consequence I deem too artificial and would likewise resolve narratively.

Ultimately, I think the point of the meaningful consequence line is to avoid situations like I experienced in a recent game I was playing in: We were looking for a door with a particular symbol on it in a dark alley. DM asked for Perception checks, which we all failed. There was an awkward silence as the DM realized he had maneuvered himself into a corner. One of the other players jokingly said, “Can I try looking harder?” and the DM said, “I guess after enough time you would eventually find it anyway.” If he had thought about what the consequences of failing that Perception check would have been before he had asked for it, he might have just had us find the door we were looking for without a check. Or, he might have prepared an encounter with some street thugs who would come down the alley and harass us if we didn’t find the door quickly enough. Either way, we would have avoided that situation where everyone can clearly see the artifice of the check.


I agree!

Yea, things like that happen far to often. It's because DMing is an ART. It's about applying the right technique at the right time. Better DM's are better because they have mastered that ART.

If it's something the PC's must find then don't have them check to find it, or if you do make failure be a success with a setback.