D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Guest 6801328]

This isn't directed just at you but, it seems people are saying stuff and then 1 post later forgetting what they said. That behavior isn't good for discussion.

Sounds like you talking about a player problem to me.

No, just a mismatch of preferred play styles.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yeah, that player would be me most of the time: do something just for the merry hell of it, and see what happens next.

Often when I do this my unspoken (and rather metagame, I'm sorry) goal is to get things focused back on the game because I'm bored with hearing other players discuss food recipes or politics or hockey or whatever.

Bookstores! I hate in-game bookstores. There's always a player who wants to spend half the session finding out what books are in the bookstore.

Oh, right, back on topic....

I think it's fine to do something "just for the merry hell of it", but if it's not going to effect the trajectory of the story in a meaningful way, I'm also fine with the DM just narrating the result.

 

[Hussar]

Been away from this party for a few days, so some catching up here...

@Hussar - there's always failure on a contested check, just like there's always success: the winner succeeds, and the loser fails.
/snip

The loser may fail the challenge, but, not the skill check. Did I not arm wrestle? Did I fail to stealth? Did I fail to try to persuade an NPC while another NPC was trying to persuade the same NPC? I succeeded. I did whatever it was that the skill check was saying that I did. I just didn't do it as well as the other guy did. The other guy won the contest, but, neither of us failed the ability check.

But, I do tend to agree with what I see as your main point - the point of an ability check is to determine the success condition.

 

[Coroc]

Although I'm a fervent convert to the goal-and-approach way, I'll admit that years of ingrained (calcified?) gaming habits sometimes makes it hard to implement in the heat of the moment. I still occasionally revert to my old DMing habits. "Um....gimme a Perception check?" I'm just the disciple, not the master, so I'm starting this discussion more to get advice than to impart wisdom. So for those who want to play this way, let's talk about how to do it, especially how to always incorporate a "meaningful consequence of failure."

For those who don't want to play this way, I'm really going to try to restrain from arguing with you about it in this thread, but derail away! I'm going to do my best to interpret any question as a genuine inquiry.

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.)

One question that might arise is whether failing a stealth check, and thus failing to hide, really counts as a consequence. Isn't that the same outcome as not rolling at all? It might be if you think of it as "failing a die roll" instead of "failing at a task." But if the player attempts something with consequence, and fails, they are worse off than if they hadn't attempted it. E.g., if the player takes a risk by trying to sneak past the dragon, then the failure state is alerting (or moving a step closer to alerting) the dragon. The player could have said, "$%@# the dragon! I'm not going in there!"

So I think a key feature is that the player has to actively / knowingly undertake a task with risk. If the party hears something coming and they say, "Let's all hide!" my instinct would be to say "Ok, let's have stealth checks." But in this case the failure state IS the same as not doing anything.

Maybe take an (approximate) average of "passive Stealth" in the party, and then compare to the monster's passive perception? (Or you could have the monster roll Perception...which raises the whole question of whether the "consequence of failure" principle applies to NPCs.)

Alternatively, does this need to be resolved by comparing die rolls or passives at all? What about simply choosing an outcome based on the story. E.g.:

• The monster comes close enough to give a scare, but sees nothing, however the party gains some clue/information relevant to the adventure.
• Make it clear the monster is ABOUT to discover them because there isn't really anything to hide behind, and give them a chance to think of a plan. E.g. trying to distract/mislead it. That plan might involve risk.

What would YOU do in this case?

I like the first part of your conclusion, that in some cases a botched roll equals inaction.

Now to your specific case

I do not like either of your offered solutions:

a: Either the mob beats the PCs stealth with its perception, no matter if it is individual stealth or group check, or it does not. So the come close and scare the party approach reminds me of four hobbits under the tree while the ringshadow and his nightmare horse hover above them and sniff around. But if you (mercifully?) allow the party to avoid a botched check they should not additionally be rewarded with clues.

b: That is better, but only on first glance. Not only has the party botched a check, they are also made aware of it due to some mysterious ways - and are allowed to form a plan B (jump/assault/misslead the mob as soon as it is in reach?). How would you communicate this? This would require some check on its own -like nature e.g. the party ranger suddenly remembers that it is close to impossible to hide from this type of monster or something else.

Both scenarios take the group engagement away but instead flip to a narrative DM. I would not like it , not as DM and absolutely not as a player.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I like the first part of your conclusion, that in some cases a botched roll equals inaction.

Now to your specific case

I do not like either of your offered solutions:

a: Either the mob beats the PCs stealth with its perception, no matter if it is individual stealth or group check, or it does not. So the come close and scare the party approach reminds me of four hobbits under the tree while the ringshadow and his nightmare horse hover above them and sniff around. But if you (mercifully?) allow the party to avoid a botched check they should not additionally be rewarded with clues.

b: That is better, but only on first glance. Not only has the party botched a check, they are also made aware of it due to some mysterious ways - and are allowed to form a plan B (jump/assault/misslead the mob as soon as it is in reach?). How would you communicate this? This would require some check on its own -like nature e.g. the party ranger suddenly remembers that it is close to impossible to hide from this type of monster or something else.

Both scenarios take the group engagement away but instead flip to a narrative DM. I would not like it , not as DM and absolutely not as a player.

To clarify, both of those examples were intended to be in the absence of any die rolls at all, not as the result of a “botched” check.

In the first example the DM rules that success is automatic because it’s easy to hide and the monsters have no reason to be suspicious, etc.

In the second example the DM rules that hiding is impossible (e.g. straight corridor with oncoming monsters) but gives the players an opportunity to propose an action.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

This isn't directed just at you but, it seems people are saying stuff and then 1 post later forgetting what they said. That behavior isn't good for discussion

You are not implying that someone isn't debating in good faith are you? Or would that be ok since it was more than 1 post ago that you said:

accusations that someone isn't debating in good faith is probably the most bad faith style comment that can be made.

Actually, I really don't think you are, I'm just having some fun to prove a point: interpretation is key.

Really, I think when playstyles are being discussed, we all bring our conscious and subconscious preconceived notions about how examples are being played out at a table as if the examples were being played out at our own table. So, at times we may completely misinterpret what someone else is saying and it seems like it contradicts something they've previously said. Tone and subtlety and the unspoken words of the playstyle all come into... um... play here in the debate. Gotta say, for example, I'm still scratching my head at @Hussar's insistence that one cannot fail in a contest. I'm sure there is an interpretation that makes sense there somehow, but it makes zero sense from the perspective of my own playstyle.

Hang in there, @FrogReaver, you've helped make this thread a more interesting one by drawing out many key points - made possible through not just approaching it as an "us" and "them" issue. There's more overlap in playstyles than certain posters are willing to admit. But, I digress, we're not really talking about playstyles, where talking about action resolution in the context of one playstyle...

EDIT: also, it appears @Elfcrusher already summed this up much more succinctly than I did a few posts ago...

 

[FrogReaver]

You are not implying that someone isn't debating in good faith are you? Or would that be ok since it was more than 1 post ago that you said:




Actually, I really don't think you are, I'm just having some fun to prove a point: interpretation is key.

LOL. I see what you are getting at. But there is a difference between behavior we find frustrating and frustrating behavior being done in "bad faith". It's possible to unintentionally frustrate people. I'm pretty sure I do so quite often - unintentionally. It's another thing entirely to be frustrated by someone arguing in bad faith.

Really, I think when playstyles are being discussed, we all bring our conscious and subconscious preconceived notions about how examples are being played out at a table as if the examples were being played out at our own table. So, at times we may completely misinterpret what someone else is saying and it seems like it contradicts something they've previously said.

Sure, misinterpretation is possible. So is mis-speaking. So is taking one explanation only to realize it's failing now and swap over to a different explanation. In any event, I think I cited the text that informed my belief. It's easy enough to say I misspoke or there's more nuance there than I realized and explained the nuance. Heck, it's even easy to say that can't mean what you think it means because xyz. In which case everything is great. Frustration over and thread continuing.

Tone and subtlety and the unspoken words of the playstyle all come into... um... play here in the debate. Gotta say, for example, I'm still scratching my head at @Hussar's insistence that one cannot fail in a contest. I'm sure there is an interpretation that makes sense there somehow, but it makes zero sense from the perspective of my own playstyle.

We all are scratching our head on that one LOL.

Maybe he's using the rather nuanced formulation for the meaning of failure that's been used in this thread for goal and approach, that failure must have a risk or some consequence and that the status quo cannot be maintained. In that sense, obviously the check is failed, but the status quo is the same and so no "failure" by that definition.

For example, if you and an orc are rushing for the magic ring. You roll an athletics check to see who gets it first. If you fail that check all it means is that you still don't have the magic ring. So in the context of "failure" on this thread, does that meet the criteria for a meaningful failure. If not, are we being told to never roll such opposed checks? But aren't nearly all opposed checks of the same structure?

That's what I think he is trying to say. But he's apparently rolled a 1 on his explanation check so I'm not sure we will ever know for sure.

]Hang in there, @FrogReaver, you've helped make this thread a more interesting one by drawing out many key points - made possible through not just approaching it as an "us" and "them" issue. There's more overlap in playstyles than certain posters are willing to admit. But, I digress, we're not really talking about playstyles, where talking about action resolution in the context of one playstyle...

EDIT: also, it appears @Elfcrusher already summed this up much more succinctly than I did a few posts ago...

Thank you.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, just a mismatch of preferred play styles.

Isn't a mismatch of preferred play styles a problem for a DM and a player that were playing at the same table?

 

[Maxperson]

The loser may fail the challenge, but, not the skill check. Did I not arm wrestle? Did I fail to stealth? Did I fail to try to persuade an NPC while another NPC was trying to persuade the same NPC? I succeeded. I did whatever it was that the skill check was saying that I did. I just didn't do it as well as the other guy did. The other guy won the contest, but, neither of us failed the ability check.

So you are incorrectly conflating an act, hiding, arm wrestling, etc, with the ability check. They are two different things. So yes, you can fail the challenge, and the ability check, but still engage in the act of say arm wrestling. Stealth can be failed in all three categories.

 

[FrogReaver]

Bookstores! I hate in-game bookstores. There's always a player who wants to spend half the session finding out what books are in the bookstore.

Oh, right, back on topic....

I think it's fine to do something "just for the merry hell of it", but if it's not going to effect the trajectory of the story in a meaningful way, I'm also fine with the DM just narrating the result.

But that's the rub. Let's say you go off and do something silly that shouldn't matter for the story. Let's say you go off and attempt to give random townsperson a wedgie.

I don't think I have an issue with you deciding I succeed with no roll. It's deciding that I fail without a dice roll that would be the issue. Is your actual playstyle, just let players succeed?

If so, then you miss the opportunity for the memorable moment when the would be wedgie giver gets his wedgie attempt botched and the old man he was trying to wedgie suddenly is behind him giving him a wedgie. - my table would likely roll on the ground laughing due to something like this.