D&D 5E (2014) Consequences of Failure

[Guest 6801328]

I'd suggest to note if the players find the roll as uninteresting as you do -- if they do, then all good. If not, I'm fine with (in the specific instance mentioned) leaving it as is in the PH, namely either stealth vs. NPC passive perception, or group check and go with majority result. I always try to put the onus of the die roll on the players, because in my experience, the players are more invested in the moment when their die roll directly affects the outcome.

I'll note that although the PHB suggests stealth vs. passive perception, it does not specify that you should roll when the player declares that he is being stealthy.

Which really gets more to the point of the debate here (I mean, until we derailed into realism). Not what ability score to roll or what the DC is, but how/when/why do you actually use ability checks.

As for consequences of failure, I've also liked experimenting with so-called "failing forward" if they fail, the consequence is that a level of complexity just got added. Failed stealth? perhaps they still do go uncaught, but now alert status is heightened, meaning their target has, or was, moved for better safety, or a timetable they were hoping to beat has been ramped up, rather than "all stealth is blown, roll for init." Depending on circumstance, I try to think of inventive consequences for failure that don't involve, well, outright failure.

Oh, yes! I'm all for complications as a consequence of "failing" the action.

 

[Charlaquin]

Realism is a holdover from the hobby's wargame origins, when historical accuracy was highly-prized.

Garry must have missed that memo.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Probably been said, but the thing to do when you can't immediately think of some consequence of failure is /just narrate success/. One of the big plusses of Goal + Approach is that it conditions players to think about their declarations in ways that will get them success narrated instead of the risk of rolling. So every time you 'just give it to them' is a win, and every time there's a failed check it should /really/ feel like a loss. You want them to /want/ to avoid rolling as much as possible. Part of the point is to get away from the desire of players to roll checks in search of the thrill of random success.

The platonic idea Goal + Approach session would have no checks.

 

[robus]

We all have our pet peeves about realism. Some people really do care, deeply and passionately, about historically accurate armor. But I roll my eyes at "logic puzzle" traps in dungeons. Why would a mighty wizard protect his sanctum with a lock that can be figured out?

Bloody hell, I just spent a weekend doing precisely that! (Well 8 puzzle locks because 8 schools ) Fortunately, my players love figuring out puzzles, which is why I did it. And in this case, the wizard is known to be an arrogant type that thinks he's, oh so, clever. So it'll be fun when the PCs gain access.

 

[Charlaquin]

The platonic idea Goal + Approach session would have no checks.

I disagree. In order for such a session to occur under G&A, you would need there to have been no uncertainty in the outcomes of any of the actions declared all session, which to me means the DM was not presenting enough challenge for the PCs to overcome.

 

[iserith]

I disagree. In order for such a session to occur under G&A, you would need there to have been no uncertainty in the outcomes of any of the actions declared all session, which to me means the DM was not presenting enough challenge for the PCs to overcome.

See also "The Middle Path," wherein the goal is balance between ruling automatic success and calls for ability checks in order to encourage players to strike a balance between relying upon their bonuses and abilities and paying attention to and immersing themselves in the setting.

 

[Charlaquin]

See also "The Middle Path," wherein the goal is balance between ruling automatic success and calls for ability checks in order to encourage players to strike a balance between relying upon their bonuses and abilities and paying attention to and immersing themselves in the setting.

Yeah, while setting expectation that actions be declared in a G&A framework may lead to fewer rolls than you tend to see in games where players declare or ask for checks with the action left abstract, that impact is potentially not as significant as the DM’s approach to the Role of the Dice.

 

[Oofta]

Can some of this debate be simplified into direct impact on the game outcome and impact on the players?

A check doesn't have any impact on the game until it's needed. Whether that's somebody looking to see how good your forgery is or looking for you as you're trying to hide in the shadows. The result of a check is not necessary until needed.

If a check is going to be needed at some point, it doesn't matter when it is done as long as it's done before it is needed.

However, it does have an impact on the player.

• They know when they roll if they have a good or bad result.
• If there is no roll, they know no roll was needed. If there's no insight check when the player believes they should get one they know there's no attempt at deception or their check automatically fails which is unlikely in most games.

I think whether or not the player experience matters for a check is a personal choice. I think it does.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Charlaquin]

Can some of this debate be simplified into direct impact on the game outcome and impact on the players?

A check doesn't have any impact on the game until it's needed. Whether that's somebody looking to see how good your forgery is or looking for you as you're trying to hide in the shadows. The result of a check is not necessary until needed.

If a check is going to be needed at some point, it doesn't matter when it is done as long as it's done before it is needed.

This is the kind of logic that leads to DMs asking for the players to pre-roll a certain number of d20s and record the results to be used during the session. I mostly see this done with Initiative, but I have read online of people doing it for all checks. I’m not a fan. Rolling dice has its own dramatic tension curve, and I want that happening when there’s actual dramatic tension in the narrative, not before.

However, it does have an impact on the player.

• They know when they roll if they have a good or bad result.

This is a good point, and one of the reasons I prefer to call for checks when there will be immediate consequences rather than before. Rolling Stealth when you first decide to sneak down the hall or whatever opens the possibility of the player knowing they got a bad result and either asking to try again or changing tactics. And if they’re not allowed to do either of those things, it can lead to resentment.

• If there is no roll, they know no roll was needed. If there's no insight check when the player believes they should get one they know there's no attempt at deception or their check automatically fails which is unlikely in most games.

They only know their action didn’t need a roll to be resolved. That could mean there was no attempt at deception, but it could also mean that their action didn’t have a reasonable chance of detecting it.

I think whether or not the player experience matters for a check is a personal choice. I think it does.

I agree with the core of what you’re saying here, that a DM’s adjudication style has an impact on the player experience, and the player experience should be taken into consideration when deciding how to adjudicate actions. But I disagree with your conclusions about what player experience G&A with the Middle Path produces.