D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[iserith]

This is an entirely fair point, both because it can't be adjudicated without knowing more, and because answering examples give fodder for people who just want to argue.

On the other hand, taking the scenario as a starting point and then filling in the prep details in order to illustrate different techniques (which is what I attempted to do) can stimulate conversation.

I'll leave that to others because down that road often lay quibbling over the added details which doesn't further the conversation.

 

[Charlaquin]

So in the scene I presented, the PC is examining the standing stone and gives some backstory to aid the DM in determining why she might be extra good at said task. In this way, perhaps it is not a strict “knowledge check”, but an Investigation with the player option to flavor it as History or Nature or Religion...

Sure, but it still seems like you’re operating with the assumption that a check will need to be made and working to find an in-fiction reason to justify it. I’m reminded of the Sherlock Holmes quote about theorizing without data “one inevitably begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts.” Only in this case, we’re twisting actions to suit checks instead of checks to suit actions.

One possible adjudication:
DM: I’m going to ask you for an Intelligence check here. What proficiency would you like to add?
Player: My PC will use her History proficiency because [reasons]
DM: sounds great. This will be a DC 17. If you succeed the task will not take much time and I’ll tell you what the stones say. If you fail, the task will take longer and I’ll tell you what the stones say as the grove reacts to your lingering presence.

That’s certainly possible, assuming the action that lead up to this check had a reasonable chance of revealing whatever information the player is looking for, and a reasonable chance of failing to. So far, we’ve been discussing this hypothetical under the assumption that the player’s goal is to identify a connection between these standing stones and the ones out back of his childhood family farm, and his approach is giving them a thorough visual examination. Personally, I don’t see much room for uncertainty there. If the stones do look like the ones back home, his goal doesn’t really have a chance of failure - he looks at them, sees that they look the same, goal accomplished. If they don’t, it likewise doesn’t really have a chance of success - he looks at them, sees that they don’t look the same, no connection identified, goal failed.

 

[iserith]

Certainly. I guess I was leaving the prep up to the imagination of the DMs here. That said, I bet I'm not the only one that would find it extremely valuable to see your prep notes! WWID

This is a screen cap of my notes for one area of the entrance to a dungeon. It's a little more verbose than I would normally just prepare for myself, but I expect other DMs that I hang out with to want to run it for other groups, so it's a bit more spelled out. For stuff that only I intend to run, I can be much more scant in my notes and improvise quite a bit more with descriptions.

Spoiler

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Sure, but it still seems like you’re operating with the assumption that a check will need to be made and working to find an in-fiction reason to justify it. I’m reminded of the Sherlock Holmes quote about theorizing without data “one inevitably begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts.” Only in this case, we’re twisting actions to suit checks instead of checks to suit actions.


That’s certainly possible, assuming the action that lead up to this check had a reasonable chance of revealing whatever information the player is looking for, and a reasonable chance of failing to. So far, we’ve been discussing this hypothetical under the assumption that the player’s goal is to identify a connection between these standing stones and the ones out back of his childhood family farm, and his approach is giving them a thorough visual examination. Personally, I don’t see much room for uncertainty there. If the stones do look like the ones back home, his goal doesn’t really have a chance of failure - he looks at them, sees that they look the same, goal accomplished. If they don’t, it likewise doesn’t really have a chance of success - he looks at them, sees that they don’t look the same, no connection identified, goal failed.

All good points. An example on the forum fails again! Well, not completely. I've been picking up bits of solid info for honing my DM skills. Thanks to you (and others) for that.

 

[Lanefan]

How is this different from not asking, though? That's my hangup -- if the consequence is "you don't know" then this is just furthering the status quo; it's not a consequential change to the fiction.

My point is that the result-of-failure 'consequential change in the fiction' doesn't have to happen right now or be immediately obvious to the PCs/players; it can manifest sometime down the road and still be every bit as consequential or even more so.

 

[Campbell]

I broadly dislike analyzing games in terms of being somewhere on a spectrum. It is true that many games defy easy categorization because they do not fit easily into broad categories. However what you get when you combine elements of play priorities and techniques of one type of game with elements of play priorities and techniques of another is not something that is between the two. What you get is something that is an alchemy of the two sets of play priorities and techniques. Something completely different from either.

 

[Lanefan]

There are a few reasons. One is that this is the kind of failure state that kills momentum. Like the example earlier in the thread where my friend who’s learning to DM called for a Perception check to find a location that we needed to find to progress. Being more experienced than my friend, I build my adventures in such a way that if one avenue gets cut off there are other ways to proceed, but these situations can still really take the wind out of the players’ sails.

Taking the wind out of their sails is not at all a bad thing, in that it's the sort of thing that'd happen now and then if these were real people doing these explorations in real life.

Not knowing something is also a dissatisfying end state, because it only maintains the status quo. It’s the same outcome as if you just hadn’t rolled, except that I guess now you know you don’t know.

And more importantly, you have to proceed under imcomplete (or wrong!) information, possibly leading to consequences downstream.

In my games, if a PC is literate with the script and fluent in the language it’s written in, they can read it with no uncertainty.

Ditto.

If they know the script but not the language (not typical, but can happen with exotic languages that use the same scripts as common languages, and when the writer intentionally used a different script to disguise their message), that can be translated with enough time, and a successful check if time is a limited resource. The translation will be imperfect, however - I’ll give the general meaning of the message, but not the specific phrasing.

You're nicer than I am if the writer used a different script, or a code. At best I'd give a check here, and depending on how disguised the message was that check might be very difficult indeed.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Beleriphon]

I haven't check the thread over a weekend and come back to 30+ pages of new content. Can somebody throw me a bone and let me know what we're talking about today?

 

[Charlaquin]

Taking the wind out of their sails is not at all a bad thing, in that it's the sort of thing that'd happen now and then if these were real people doing these explorations in real life.

Yeah, but it’s a game, so having the wind taken out of the sails is a bad thing, realistic or not.

And more importantly, you have to proceed under imcomplete (or wrong!) information, possibly leading to consequences downstream.

Sure, but you don’t need a check for that to be the case. If they know, they know, if they don’t, they don’t. I don’t see a check as necessary for that, and in fact asking for a check there could undermine the players’ understanding of what checks are for.

Ditto.

You're nicer than I am if the writer used a different script, or a code. At best I'd give a check here, and depending on how disguised the message was that check might be very difficult indeed.

A check would certainly be needed to decode the message if time was a limited resource, and in that case it might be a very difficult check, depending on the writer’s aptitude fod encoding. But this comes back to our differing opinions on how best to handle repeat checks. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I suspect if the player failed the check, you would say that the roll represents their best effort and they cannot “try again,” they’ve already tied the best they are able and under the current circumstances it is beyond their capabilities to decipher. Me, I can’t stand that kind of “Schrodinger’s difficulty.” To my mind, anything less than a natural 20 is less than the best that character was capable of. Therefore, assuming the DC is achievable for them, they will get it eventually given enough time. So, if time is not limited, we skip to the part where they eventually got it. If time is limited, each attempt will cost a certain amount of time. If you fail, you make no progress. You are welcome to try as many times as you like, but each attempt will use up precious time.