D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[pemerton]

Actually, the two tasks you chose both have their own sub-systems within 5e, different sub-systems to be sure, but it's not altogether different.

The combat one likely involves a series of rounds of fighting to lead to a 0 hp dead result when a beheading results.

The befriending one likely involves a variety of "efforts" to find the traits that can help with changing the attitude - move from hostile or indifferent to friendly - see DMG.

I'm aware that the 5e DMG has a discrete subsystem for social resolution. But it is not found in the Basic PDF, which (i) purports to be sufficient to play 5e, and (ii) provides a mechanic for befriending an ogre with foodstuffs (ie CHA checks, perhaps influenced by a skill), while (iii) not providing any similar mechanical alternative to the combat subsystem.

And frequent posts/threads on these boards have established that many 5e tables don't use the social resolution subsystem. While most if not all seem to use the combat resolution subsystem.

 

[5ekyu]

I'm aware that the 5e DMG has a discrete subsystem for social resolution. But it is not found in the Basic PDF, which (i) purports to be sufficient to play 5e, and (ii) provides a mechanic for befriending an ogre with foodstuffs (ie CHA checks, perhaps influenced by a skill), while (iii) not providing any similar mechanical alternative to the combat subsystem.

And frequent posts/threads on these boards have established that many 5e tables don't use the social resolution subsystem. While most if not all seem to use the combat resolution subsystem.

And so...what?

That's an actual question since there wasnt actually a conclusion presented there. You seemed to be presenting evidence for something but did not actually present something.

I mean you basically state a couple observations and an assessment you made based on forum posts but no mention of an actual point.

Were you trying to dismiss the comparison of the two dub-systems by kinda sorta maybe ssying but not saying that the social one didn't count? Was that what those items of yours were meant to say without actually saying it?

In 5e and any RPG the FM and tables are free to use or not use any of the sub-systems or rules. Also many do not put all the rules in there free pdf "basic" if they even offer it.

Those aspects in no way mean the other rules and subsystems presented in the core rules are not somehow a part of the system or are to be ignored in discussions about that game.

I mean, really, if this were a thread about D&D 5e classes and sub-classes would you be here posting these same points about the sub-classes not listed in the basic set? Or if it were a comparison of monsters dismissing monsters in the monster manual because they were not in the basic set or PHB?

Or was there some other point to you list?

 

[pemerton]

@5ekyu - I contrasted two modes of adjudication, one involving a discrete mechanical subsystem (combat) and one not.

You pointed out that the other (befriending an ogre) might also be resolved via a discrete mechanical subsystem.

I replied that while this is true it is not uniform practice, not suggested at all in the Basic rules, and - as best I can judge from forum traffic - not especially common practice.

Hence I believe that the contrast I drew remains useful for making the point I was making.

 

[Charlaquin]

"I cast fireball" is the best approach to everything in the game, isn't it?

I think where some - including me - are getting hung up is on the questions of "in how much detail must the declaration be?" and "can mechanics be referenced within it?".

I think the amount of detail expected depends on the DM, but for me the answer is “enough detail that what you want to accomplish and what your character is doing to try and accomplish it can be discerned without having to make assumptions.” In the case of fireball, that’s not much detail. What you want to accomplish is burninating everything in a 20-foot radius of the point you specify, and what your character is doing to try and accomplish it is saying the magic words, waving your wand or fiddling with your component pouch, and pointing your finger at the specified point. In the case of the Attack action, a little bit more detail is required - you’ll have to tell me what creature or object you are attacking, and if your hope is to kill your target, incapacitate them without killing, intimidate them, or something else entirely. And you’ll also have to tell me what weapon (if any) your character is using to try to accomplish that. More than that might be entertaining but is not necessary for me to discern your goal and your approach. In the case of most non-combat actions, there is even less I can tell without making assumptions.

As for “can mechanics be referenced within it,” I’m pretty sure that’s a yes from everyone here.

I get the sense that for some "I cast fireball at the orc" is well within the bounds of GAA but for others it's not detailed enough (is the goal to burn that orc or to light the curtains on fire; is the fireball to be enhanced or metamagicked; etc.).

Why would it matter whether your goal is to harm the orc or burn the curtains when both things are going to happen either way?

I also get the sense that for some the same declaration is again fine but for others the fact it references "fireball" (i.e. the game's mechanical name for a specific spell) makes it too mechanics-facing.

I don’t get that sense at all. Let’s do an experiment. Everyone who thinks “I cast fireball” is too mechanics-facing, say aye. And tag me and Lanefan in the post, if you don’t mind.

Which, in any situation other than a single orc facing a single caster in open clear lifeless terrain, "I cast fireball at the orc" doesn't really do.

I disagree. The text of the spell specifically lays out in reasonable detail what a character does to cast it and what it’s effects are. No assumptions need to be made about the character’s actions or the player’s intended result need to be made to resolve that declaration, regardless of what creatures or scenery are present.

But most people are happy enough to let the DM make whatever corollary assumptions might be required in order for this declaration to serve its purpose; and if that means the curtains burn or the party Fighter gets crisped or the surrounding forest catches fire then so be it.

That’s... There’s no assumption that needs to be made to be made to determine if the curtains burn or the Fighter gets crisped or the surrounding forest catches on fire. Are those things within a 20 foot radius of the spell’s origin point? Then they do. Are they not? Then they don’t.

 

[Lanefan]

Why would it matter whether your goal is to harm the orc or burn the curtains when both things are going to happen either way?

Because either or both may not happen, depending on how their saving throws go. The orc might get lucky and survive. The curtains might get REALLY lucky and only smolder rather than burn up. So if my goal is to kill the orc and not burn the curtains but all I end up doing is burning the curtains, or if my goal is to burn the curtains but they survive and the orc doesn't, that outcome might affect what others do next and-or what I do in subsequent rounds/actions.

I don’t get that sense at all. Let’s do an experiment. Everyone who thinks “I cast fireball” is too mechanics-facing, say aye. And tag me and Lanefan in the post, if you don’t mind.

What I'm getting at here is that examples are being met with, in effect, "more non-mechanical detail (i.e. fluff) is needed"; but more detailed examples are being met with "that's more detail than is required". Make up yer minds.

I disagree. The text of the spell specifically lays out in reasonable detail what a character does to cast it and what it’s effects are. No assumptions need to be made about the character’s actions or the player’s intended result need to be made to resolve that declaration, regardless of what creatures or scenery are present.

So you're saying that the text of the spell represents, in essence, a SOP for casting that spell. OK, I can get behind that...but there's been on-principle objections to SOPs too, in other threads if not in this one.

Can't have it both ways.

That’s... There’s no assumption that needs to be made to be made to determine if the curtains burn or the Fighter gets crisped or the surrounding forest catches on fire. Are those things within a 20 foot radius of the spell’s origin point? Then they do. Are they not? Then they don’t.

When the player says "I cast fireball at the orc" is the DM supposed to ask about whether the player/PC cares what might happen to the forest, or the curtains, the Fighter, or anything else that's known to be in the area? Or is she instead supposed to just go with it and let things fall out as they may? Or, best of all, is the caster's player supposed to consider (or assumed to have considered) these things before making the declaration and include them in it?

This is relevant because you'll have some people howling that the caster shouldn't be allowed to hit the Fighter (that's PvP, after all); never mind the much more legitimate in-character complaints from the player of the Fighter.

 

[Charlaquin]

Because either or both may not happen, depending on how their saving throws go. The orc might get lucky and survive. The curtains might get REALLY lucky and only smolder rather than burn up. So if my goal is to kill the orc and not burn the curtains but all I end up doing is burning the curtains, or if my goal is to burn the curtains but they survive and the orc doesn't, that outcome might affect what others do next and-or what I do in subsequent rounds/actions.

If you want to kill the orc and not burn the curtains, don’t put the origin point of your fireball spell within 20 feet of the curtains. Cause otherwise, those curtains are getting burned whether you want them to or not, that’s just part of the effect of the spell. The orc, also as part of the effect of the spell, gets to make a saving throw to reduce the damage by half. But again, he’s getting burned either way, the only thing that’s uncertain is how bad. And that’s why he makes a save.

What I'm getting at here is that examples are being met with, in effect, "more non-mechanical detail (i.e. fluff) is needed"; but more detailed examples are being met with "that's more detail than is required". Make up yer minds.

If what you’re reading when people say “I can’t tell from this what your goal and approach are” is “more fluff is needed,” then I’m not surprised you’re struggling to understand the goal and approach methodology. Fluff is not the key. Detail is not the key. Clear communication of what you’re trying to accomplish and by what means is the key.

So you're saying that the text of the spell represents, in essence, a SOP for casting that spell. OK, I can get behind that...

If that’s the analogy that’s going to help you grokk it, then sure.

but there's been on-principle objections to SOPs too, in other threads if not in this one.

But those objections have never been on the basis of SOPs not clearly communicating goal and approach. SOPs certainly communicate enough information to adjudicate, they’re just boring. That’s an issue with the way you’re designing your adventures and/or adjudicating actions, not with the way players are declaring them.

When the player says "I cast fireball at the orc" is the DM supposed to ask about whether the player/PC cares what might happen to the forest, or the curtains, the Fighter, or anything else that's known to be in the area? Or is she instead supposed to just go with it and let things fall out as they may?

I don’t see why she would need to ask about those things. The results will be the same either way.

Or, best of all, is the caster's player supposed to consider (or assumed to have considered) these things before making the declaration and include them in it?

That’s up to the player.

This is relevant because you'll have some people howling that the caster shouldn't be allowed to hit the Fighter (that's PvP, after all); never mind the much more legitimate in-character complaints from the player of the Fighter.

This does raise an interesting point. I generally rule that the target of a PvP action is the one who determines if the action succeeds, fails, or has an uncertain outcome. But in the case that a PC happens to be in the AoE of a harmful spell cast by another PC? I generally would consider that “friendly fire” as opposed to “PvP.” But I suppose there is a strong argument to be made that this could be considered PvP. I don’t know, I’d have to noodle on that a bit.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Man you write long posts.

Ya, sorry about that. Personal flaw. I over write trying to be clear.

No, not trying to discourage unskilled attempts. Trying to avoid the situation where your choice is:
1. Let everybody roll (because there's no cost, so why not?) in which case statistically somebody is going to succeed. In which case why are you having a roll?
2. Rely on some artificial metagame mechanism (such as the tacit recognition that doing so is cheesy) to limit multiple rolls.

Really it's the same problem as re-rolls, except it's one roll per person rather than multiple rolls for one person.

Stealth generally does not allow for re-rolls from the same player or assistance from the party unless your doing group checks. So do individual checks and statistically somebody is going to fail adding consequence to stealth in the way of "if we all hide but one of us fails the enemy will focus fire on the one they can see". If your entire party is stealthy there is still a chance at some 1 rolls but you could also allow them to pass on passive stealth of the group based on the lowest member but just let them know its because they are all so stealth so they don't feel their investment is wasted.

My desire for consequences is, among other things, to provide an "organic", in-game, in-fiction mechanism for avoiding the situation where everybody keeps rolling dice until somebody beats a DC.

I can see that. I allow a hand wave on repeatable tasks with failing forward. In other words if I realize, they have unlimited attempts and other party members can help I hand wave because it doesn't add anything, the first role will succeed even on a failed roll, but the result might be a condition, or lose of a resource like HP or hit dice.

This comes from a post on this forum that came up in me talking with a fellow player/GM that I often play under but who has also played under me, on the same subject.

We had this conversation after a session where we tried to twice to open a door. The other GM was disappointed in himself because he felt he should not have called for a role because it was one of two ways forward and the time restraint and situation meant their was no reason for the party to continue trying until we opened the door. After reading the above post, we came to the conclusion that giving the character 1 level of exhaustion but letting the character get the door open would have solved that issue. Alternatively, for group checks anyone who fails the their roll loses a hit dice as a setback of their effort wearing on them mentally and/or physically. That adds consequences without bogging the game down or punishing them tactically. If they run out of hit dice they start taking levels of exhaustion. Why we like this is because we found it adds tension of limited resources and convinces players with low hit dice not join group tests unless they really feel like they will benefit more as a party if they do. You may consider this "Rely on some artificial metagame mechanism" however, to me hit dice and exhaustion are not meta, they are in game representations of a player characters constitution. Losing hit dice or gaining a exhaustion then seems like a natural result of failing to do something the easy way. The harder way the player was avoiding wears on them. Do it enough and the exhaustion of your mistakes wears you down making you mentally and physically less capable of future skill checks, then combat, etc...

I hope this helps. (again I sill use consequence tracking but to ensure I have meaningful content so I am not suggesting you trade one for another, just as an augement in situations like stealth where consequences might be hard to implement on the spot)

 

[FrogReaver]

It feels like there are several advocates for "Goal and Approach" that are each individually moving goalposts when it comes to replying to anyone else's comments on the system. If A makes a statement that B disagrees with, C will come along and say that B is wrong because that's not how it works. If B then replies to C, A comes along and makes another statement that changes the meaning again, without acknowledging that change.

Yep. That's happened far to often here.

 

[FrogReaver]

If "I cast fireball" cannot be part of an approach to harming an orc, then nothing really can be.

So you would be good with "I use my abilities to read others" as an approach for determining if an NPC can be trusted?

 

[Ovinomancer]

So you would be good with "I use my abilities to read others" as an approach for determining if an NPC can be trusted?

No.