D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Guest 6801328]

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 isn’t 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.

I haven't always played like this, but these threads have convinced me it's the way to go.

Players, however, aren't always as convinced. They're fine with being told yes, but "No, you don't know." is often followed by "What? Can't I even roll?"

When you get used to playing a certain way, changes can seem...wrong.

 

[Lanefan]

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

I put gamist concerns a fair way down the list of things I care much about.

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.

Can't see why. Checks or rolls of any kind are for resolving uncertainty...and in the case of most knowledges, the uncertainty comes from not having played through every second of each PC's life before it started adventuring, and thus not being sure of what it might have learned ot not learned during that unplayed time.

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.

Absolutely.

Me, I can’t stand that kind of “Schrodinger’s difficulty.”

Where it's fine with me, as something that might be difficult for one person might be easy for another even with ALL other things being equal - one person just happens to 'get it'. Happens all the time in real life.

This falls apart when a DC (or equivalent) is hard-coded as a set target number.

To my mind, anything less than a natural 20 is less than the best that character was capable of.

Yeah, complete difference in philosophy - to me the actual roll represents the best that character is capable of in this particular situation...which means that yes, it's still possible to fail at something that would normally be pretty simple.

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 isn’t 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.

Yep - this sounds just like the justification for 3e's 'take-20' mechanic, which I've always detested.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Charlaquin]

I put gamist concerns a fair way down the list of things I care much about.

While my distaste for GSN terminology is fairly well documented, it is clear that you and I have different priorities regarding “realism.”

Can't see why. Checks or rolls of any kind are for resolving uncertainty...and in the case of most knowledges, the uncertainty comes from not having played through every second of each PC's life before it started adventuring, and thus not being sure of what it might have learned ot not learned during that unplayed time.

I just don’t see it as uncertain at all. Again, they know or they don’t, and sure we may not know every moment of the character’s life, but their Background and Proficiencies give me enough of an idea. Or you could take the Iserith route and have the player call out the backstory element that they think might be relevant to the situation as part of the action declaration.

Yeah, complete difference in philosophy - to me the actual roll represents the best that character is capable of in this particular situation...which means that yes, it's still possible to fail at something that would normally be pretty simple.

I find this leads to weird results, like the strong character of the group being capable of incredible feats of strength some 60-odd percent of the time and randomly incapable of opening a jammed door the rest of the time. And it still leads to the frustration of “what do you mean that was my best effort? There are 17 other numbers that would have been a better effort!” It’s almost like the d20 roll sets the actual difficulty, to which the DC is a modifier.. It’s weird.

Yep - this sounds just like the justification for 3e's 'take-20' mechanic, which I've always detested.

I think take 20 is pretty dumb too, but for different reasons. To me it comes across as an attempt to take solid DMing advice - don’t call for a roll when there aren’t consequences for failure - and attempts to turn it into a player-facing mechanic. And in doing so it produces a result that’s the worst of both worlds.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

Sure, and the check could be postponed to that point when it does matter.
So you don't lose the drama/uncertainty, and avoid the player drawing conclusions/taking precautions/whatever based on the roll being particularly good or bad.

 

[Charlaquin]

I haven't always played like this, but these threads have convinced me it's the way to go.

Players, however, aren't always as convinced. They're fine with being told yes, but "No, you don't know." is often followed by "What? Can't I even roll?"

When you get used to playing a certain way, changes can seem...wrong.

This is a real struggle, and it’s why I often prefer playing with new players than experienced ones. They don’t have preconceived ideas about how the game is “supposed” to work that you have to get them to unlearn.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This is a real struggle, and it’s why I often prefer playing with new players than experienced ones. They don’t have preconceived ideas about how the game is “supposed” to work that you have to get them to unlearn.

That's why I married somebody a lot younger than me.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's why I married somebody a lot younger than me.

That could have some unfortunate implications without more context...

 

[Guest 6801328]

That could have some unfortunate implications without more context...

Maybe I should have included the "...and richer..." part.

 

[Lanefan]

While my distaste for GSN terminology is fairly well documented, it is clear that you and I have different priorities regarding “realism.”

I've no use for 'GSN terminology' either, hence the small 'g' on gamist.

Put another way: I see the game as more of an exercise in trying to simulate* the game world and how these things would happen in it, rather than as a game for its own sake (as opposed to most games where the game for its own sake is the only reason you're playing it).

* - where reasonably possible, in full knowledge that no simulation can ever be anywhere near perfect.

I just don’t see it as uncertain at all. Again, they know or they don’t, and sure we may not know every moment of the character’s life, but their Background and Proficiencies give me enough of an idea. Or you could take the Iserith route and have the player call out the backstory element that they think might be relevant to the situation as part of the action declaration.

You could, but this very quickly (i.e. immediately!) runs into issues with players taking unfair advantage and always just happening to be able to justify having the required knowledge. No thanks.

I find this leads to weird results, like the strong character of the group being capable of incredible feats of strength some 60-odd percent of the time and randomly incapable of opening a jammed door the rest of the time. And it still leads to the frustration of “what do you mean that was my best effort? There are 17 other numbers that would have been a better effort!”

Yeah, to me this is a problem with 3e-and-forward's overly-elaborate skill system.

And yes, sometimes a strong person can fail on a relatively easy strength check just by bad luck or not getting the leverage right or whatever, and then have the not-so-strong person nail it in one and make the strong guy look like a fool. It happens - I mean, how many times have you struggled and failed to open a jar and then had someone who you know to be weaker than you come along and pop it on the first try?

It’s almost like the d20 roll sets the actual difficulty, to which the DC is a modifier.. It’s weird.

Not quite. The d20 roll sets the limit of how well your character can possibly do in this situation, against a set difficulty that just sits there.

The difficulty of a particular task doesn't change, but the PC's ability to overcome it isn't set in stone. (and yes this means PCs fail far more often than if take-20 was in effect, but I've no problem with that). Put another way, a PC might blow through some DC 17 task (e.g. opening a stuck door; roll adds to 23) and then two hours later completely fail on a very similar DC 17 task (roll adds to 10) and need to find a plan B.

Narratively, all this tells me is that whatever approach was used at the first door for some reason doesn't work here. Were the order of the rolls reversed it'd be even easier: lessons learned from the first door were successfully applied against the second.

I think take 20 is pretty dumb too, but for different reasons. To me it comes across as an attempt to take solid DMing advice - don’t call for a roll when there aren’t consequences for failure - and attempts to turn it into a player-facing mechanic. And in doing so it produces a result that’s the worst of both worlds.

That does match with general 3e design philosophy, though, in that they intentionally tried to turn more mechanics over to the player side. Not that edition's best selling feature, IMO.