D&D 5E 5e consequence-resolution

[Oofta]

Why is "you just fail and literally nothing else happens" the only form failure can take?

I never said it was. But sometimes it's the only logical consequence. I don't want to play the game with unrealistic safety bumpers. I don't make adventures success or failure rely on a check (or even a multiple checks), just that there will be other costs. Miss the secret door? You have to fight to get past the guards or find some other way to get in.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Because then the character just shrugs, gives up and goes home? No. they try something else. Perhaps not regarding that particular obstacle, but the larger situation at hand.

What "something else"? How do they know? What gives them the impulse to try? Why didn't they try those other things first, rather than the thing that failed? Why is it that their failure didn't change ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about the situation--unless it did, in fact, change the situation somehow?

The answers to these questions are the very process of making it NOT "you literally just fail and nothing else happens." If the situation legitimately changed, it's not zero consequence failure. If there is time pressure, it's more than literally exclusively "you just fail and nothing happens."

Also, don't build adventures so that there is some specific thing that must happen "in order to proceed."

Evidence suggests this advice, while good, is significantly harder to actually employ than you're accounting for.

I mean, in the very simple case, what if you prepare four methods of solving the problem, but the players completely don't even notice the first method, accidentally lock themselves out of the second method, and then roll poorly on both of the other two? This is hardly an unlikely sequence of events, especially for any game that runs long enough. This is why "fail forward" exists. It emphasizes that failure still happens and can still be costly, without permitting dead end situations whether through DM error by making a single point of failure, or by bad luck resulting in all roads being closed off or failing to pay off.

It's not the only form the failure can take. It is a form failure can sometimes take.

Oofta replied by saying he likes failure to happen sometimes ("I don't want to always succeed"); this statement is only meaningful if it is understood to be rebutting a claim that tasks should always succeed. But since I was responding to your claim that bare, unadorned, doesn't-change-the-situation failure is useful, and NOT saying that all possible forms of failure are a problem, the only possible way one could get my argument to mean "players should not fail" is to presume that bare, unadorned, doesn't-change-the-situation failure is the ONLY form of failure.

Hence my question: why is that the only form failure is permitted to take? I did not, in any way, at any point, imply or even vaguely suggest that players should always succeed at everything forever. I am solely taking aim at doesn't-change-the-situation failure.

I never said it was. But sometimes it's the only logical consequence. I don't want to play the game with unrealistic safety bumpers. I don't make adventures success or failure rely on a check (or even a multiple checks), just that there will be other costs. Miss the secret door? You have to fight to get past the guards or find some other way to get in.

Nothing whatsoever in my post indicated any of this, so I am deeply confused why you would respond as though it did if you were not, as noted above, assuming this. What gave you even the slightest hint of "unrealistic safety bumpers"?

Bare, unadorned, doesn't-change-the-situation failure IS boring. Period. Even in your own example you have given dramatically more than this: failure has the cost of fighting, or delaying, which may be a serious cost indeed.

 

[Oofta]

What "something else"? How do they know? What gives them the impulse to try? Why didn't they try those other things first, rather than the thing that failed? Why is it that their failure didn't change ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about the situation--unless it did, in fact, change the situation somehow?

The answers to these questions are the very process of making it NOT "you literally just fail and nothing else happens." If the situation legitimately changed, it's not zero consequence failure. If there is time pressure, it's more than literally exclusively "you just fail and nothing happens."


Evidence suggests this advice, while good, is significantly harder to actually employ than you're accounting for.

I mean, in the very simple case, what if you prepare four methods of solving the problem, but the players completely don't even notice the first method, accidentally lock themselves out of the second method, and then roll poorly on both of the other two? This is hardly an unlikely sequence of events, especially for any game that runs long enough. This is why "fail forward" exists. It emphasizes that failure still happens and can still be costly, without permitting dead end situations whether through DM error by making a single point of failure, or by bad luck resulting in all roads being closed off or failing to pay off.

That's why we have DMs who can adjust plans if they really want and creative players that think of solutions the DM did not. Or they just fail. Sometimes failure happens, and yeah, it can suck. It can also lead to even more interesting consequences as now you have a nemesis that you should have caught. Maybe you're forced to try to claw back something you lost, whether that's reputation or a city that was lost to the horde.

Oofta replied by saying he likes failure to happen sometimes ("I don't want to always succeed"); this statement is only meaningful if it is understood to be rebutting a claim that tasks should always succeed. But since I was responding to your claim that bare, unadorned, doesn't-change-the-situation failure is useful, and NOT saying that all possible forms of failure are a problem, the only possible way one could get my argument to mean "players should not fail" is to presume that bare, unadorned, doesn't-change-the-situation failure is the ONLY form of failure.

Sometimes nothing happens on a failure. You just fail and don't make any progress or lose progress. I thought it was clear.

Hence my question: why is that the only form failure is permitted to take? I did not, in any way, at any point, imply or even vaguely suggest that players should always succeed at everything forever. I am solely taking aim at doesn't-change-the-situation failure.

Nothing happening is not the only option. Not sure why you're ignoring our responses.

Nothing whatsoever in my post indicated any of this, so I am deeply confused why you would respond as though it did if you were not, as noted above, assuming this. What gave you even the slightest hint of "unrealistic safety bumpers"?

Bare, unadorned, doesn't-change-the-situation failure IS boring. Period. Even in your own example you have given dramatically more than this: failure has the cost of fighting, or delaying, which may be a serious cost indeed.

It may be boring for you. But it does change the situation, Plan A didn't work you have to go to Plan B. Or maybe you just have to accept defeat. If you never have "oh crap we utterly failed" moments, the "awesome it worked!" moments mean less.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What "something else"? How do they know? What gives them the impulse to try? Why didn't they try those other things first, rather than the thing that failed? Why is it that their failure didn't change ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about the situation--unless it did, in fact, change the situation somehow?

Presumably they assumed this thing was the easiest, but it didn't work, so now they need to try something else. What is changed is that they now know what doesn't work.

I mean, in the very simple case, what if you prepare four methods of solving the problem, but the players completely don't even notice the first method, accidentally lock themselves out of the second method, and then roll poorly on both of the other two? This is hardly an unlikely sequence of events, especially for any game that runs long enough. This is why "fail forward" exists. It emphasizes that failure still happens and can still be costly, without permitting dead end situations whether through DM error by making a single point of failure, or by bad luck resulting in all roads being closed off or failing to pay off.

Why is there some one specific thing that must happen in the first place? Sure, you can do this, but is seems rather linear and railroady. Success and failure doesn't actually alter the course of the path, they merely affect how bumpy the ride is.

 

[Laurefindel]

I guess the thing that I've never understood about the "don't roll" is what it adds to the game. For me, if I'm rolling to open that empty safe and I fail that sense of mystery is still there. I'd hate to lose that because the DM knows something my PC never could. I also prefer not to play "try to convince the DM" because I want character builds to matter, not the fluency and persuasiveness of the player.

There are of course times when clever play can bypass difficulties. In a recent game the druid wildshaped into a giant spider, we tied my PC to the spider and then the spider just walked along the wall and avoided obvious trapped floor. But that wasn't "I cleverly describe how I open a lock" so it automatically succeeds, it was just the smart play.

So to me, trying to avoid rolling can be quite detrimental to the fun. First it takes away the mystery and immersion, second it favors players who are convincing or know the DM well while ignoring decisions and potential sacrifices I made for my PC to be effective.

Sounds to me that failing at a task, keeping the suspense, following the rational people don’t succeed at anything, keeping in the immersion, are all meaningful consequences for you and your group.

It was said before that what is meaningful is both subjective and circumstantial. Your definition might be different than mine or any other but in essence, it all comes down to the same basic principal IMHO.

 

[Oofta]

Sounds to me that failing at a task, keeping the suspense, following the rational people don’t succeed at anything, keeping in the immersion, are all meaningful consequences for you and your group.

It was said before that what is meaningful is both subjective and circumstantial. Your definition might be different than mine or any other but in essence, it all comes down to the same basic principal IMHO.

Did you mean to type "following the rational people don’t succeed at anything" or "following the rational people don’t succeed at everything"? Big difference. I'm going to assume the latter.

For a subject like this we can only discuss our personal experiences and preferences. If I played in a game where the DM told me "don't bother trying to open the safe, it's empty", it would feel weird. Not only would it break my immersion, I now know 100% that if I try to open a safe and fail, there's something in the safe.

That doesn't mean that we have to roll everything until people are exhausted. If we're searching a room and find nothing on the first roll, the DM may ask how much time we want to spend searching and how careful we want to be. At that point we may decide to spend several hours searching we totally trash the place. If there's still nothing found, that's fine, it only took a minute of game time but my PC did what I envisioned happening in the context of what they knew.

But as I said up above, I don't think it's RAW, or even though I usually don't try to intuit what it could be, RAI. I think it's something each group should decide for themselves. For me? Sometimes you attempt something that (unknown to your PC) is not possible, sometimes you fail but still make progress, sometimes you fail and nothing changes, sometimes you fail and it blows up in your face. I want all those options on the table.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Also, don't build adventures so that there is some specific thing that must happen "in order to proceed."

Now THAT we can agree on.

 

[iserith]

Sorry, you're right. I personally see knowledge checks as something entirely different, and in fact I sorta wish knowledge skills were in a completely different category. I think I've seen @iserith say that they want players to describe how they try to recall some information....goal and approach and all...but I've never found that satisfying. I don't really see that kind of knowledge check as an attempt at anything; it's just asking if your character happens to know something, and it's randomly determined (or not, if the DM chooses.)

Yeah, sure, roll the dice and if you succeed the DM gives you the info, and if you fail the DM doesn't.

In my games, you say what you're trying to recall with reasonable specificity and make the case for why the character might have access to that information. The player is thus giving meaning to not recalling since, presumably, they want access to the information for a good reason. Usually they need the information to have sufficient context to make a decision to do something they want to do (or to do something well). Then I just have to evaluate the case they made to determine uncertainty. If there is a roll and they fail it, it means they don't get that information, which is a meaningful consequence that they themselves established. However, often, I will at least give them some information, usually something interesting but not exactly what they want. Something akin to progress combined with a setback.

A side effect of this interaction is that they get to reveal some backstory on their character to everyone as they make their case. Over time, this builds upon itself, adding more details about the characters even as I'm building on the setting lore.

 

[Maxperson]

Consider the order of operations.

Step 1: PC attempts an action.
Step 2: DM determines if the outcome is in doubt. If no, he narrates success or failure and what comes from that. If yes, go to step 3.
Step 3: DM determines if there is a meaningful consequence for failure. If no, the DM narrates success or failure and what comes from that. If yes, go to step 4.
Step 4: DM calls for an ability check and narrates the success or failure and what comes from that.

 

[Maxperson]

When must we know the meaningful consequences? Going in, because we use them to judge if we will roll.

Only the DM has to know, though. He's the only one that gets to decide if there is going to be a roll or not.