D&D 5E (2014) Consequences of Failure

[Guest 6801328]

Or, similarly, call for the check only when the consequence is on the line. You create a forgery, later you hand it over, it's examined, then you roll vs the 'passive insight' or whatever of the NPC perusing your handiwork.

Heck, the action can be retro-active (flashback), as well as the roll.

DM: The Fiendish Dire Fascist says "Your paperz, pleeze…"
Player: Oh! flashback! I spent hours last night meticulously forging these, hope he likes them...
DM: Roll manipulation + calligraphy, er, I mean, roll, uh, DEX, Deception applies.
Player: What about Tool Use: Quill Pen?
DM: You /have/ that? Sure, why not...

...now there's some tension to that check... well, as much as my ludicrous set-up allows. ;P

Yeah, we talked about this earlier in the thread and, unless I'm misremembering/misinterpreting, some people felt this was basically pointless.

I can see why both approaches have pros and cons, but to say they're identical, for all practical purposes? I don't get it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I can see why both approaches have pros and cons, but to say they're identical, for all practical purposes? I don't get it.

You could break the attempt down into two possible checks with consequences, on the theory that you could double-check your work: Forgery attempt, and /checking/ the forgery to make sure it's adequate.
Success on both, you're confident you have a good forgery.
Success on the first, failure on the second? False positive, you second-guess yourself & think it's bad when it's probably OK, and try again.
Failure on both? You're confident you have a good forgery.
Failure followed by success? Good thing you checked, try again.

But, what does that get you? More dice rolling. You still end up with a forgery that may or may not get spotted, and, the player, aware of which rolls were good or bad, still has 'player knowledge' that might not match up with 'character knowledge.'

Putting the roll where the drama is - whether by cutting forward or flashing back - seems to make sense, that way, and eliminates the player knowledge issue (if it is an issue for you).

 

[5ekyu]

Um, great?

Except that there are times when there is a divide between player knowledge and PC knowledge, based upon the die roll.

For example, if you roll a 1, and the DM says, "Yeah, you just nailed that orc," there will be an issue.

Weirdly, this comes up in various other situations more commonly than in combat.

But perhaps you have solved all of the problems by narrating around it. I lack that skill.

Ok, so, I honestly am confused...

If my PC makes an attack roll and the descriptions is of a hit, that seems to be an error in description since a 1 misses.

I mean, if there was some curse thing going on where all attscks hut even on a 1, then I would narrate that as " your shot went wide, but somehow, some way the shot was drawn into hit" (attractor curse) or "somehow the shot hit that column, ricochet twice and still hits " (freaky unlucky curse).

The description of thecredulting outcome csn provide the character clues just like the die roll can the PC.

And, yes, for non-combat, this is gonna make the narrative important- to convey the results in a way that avoids the schism and also when possible to illustrate causes or options.

If a schism occurs, its due to the lack of that. So it's pretty much GM choices that create a schism.

 

[Oofta]

You could break the attempt down into two possible checks with consequences, on the theory that you could double-check your work: Forgery attempt, and /checking/ the forgery to make sure it's adequate.
Success on both, you're confident you have a good forgery.
Success on the first, failure on the second? False positive, you second-guess yourself & think it's bad when it's probably OK, and try again.
Failure on both? You're confident you have a good forgery.
Failure followed by success? Good thing you checked, try again.

But, what does that get you? More dice rolling. You still end up with a forgery that may or may not get spotted, and, the player, aware of which rolls were good or bad, still has 'player knowledge' that might not match up with 'character knowledge.'

Putting the roll where the drama is - whether by cutting forward or flashing back - seems to make sense, that way, and eliminates the player knowledge issue (if it is an issue for you).

If I think the result of the forgery is uncertain and there's someone that can assist I just give advantage. If you still get a low number, it's just beyond your capability to forge at the moment.

Perfect solution? Nope. Fast, easy and done by the rules? I think so. Sometimes that's the best you can do.

 

[Scott Christian]

I think it's important to note it's not the "skill check that can alter an important scene," but rather actions or tasks that can do that. The ability check just resolves any uncertainty as to the outcome when there's a meaningful consequence for failure. This is an important distinction that some folks do not understand and bears repeating in my view.

In general, I think it's okay for DMs to sketch this out in their prep, that specific tasks which may commonly be declared in the context of the situation are uncertain and carry a meaningful consequence for failure. It's rife with opportunity for that prep to be wasted by virtue of being a contingency the players never actually choose but if it helps the DM, then it's fine as I see it. It's the DM's time to "waste," after all.

However, it's good in my view that, in the doing, to take care not to preordain certain solutions as being the only viable ones. As the DMG says in the context of a broader discussion of the role of the dice (p. 236), "this approach can also slow the game if the DM focuses on one 'correct' action that the characters must describe to overcome an obstacle." The same holds even for tasks the DM predetermines has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure while putting together his or her game prep.

I agree and thank you for clarifying. I still like to think of the "skill challenge altering the scene, but the character's actions planning or prepping for the skill challenge, alter the skill challenge." But, I believe it is semantics. We both feel the challenge or actions can alter the scene, which was my initial point. Skill challenges should be worth something. Thanks iserith for the better language, it is appreciated.

 

[Scott Christian]

I’m not a fan of planning checks ahead of time. I find this practice contributes to the conflation of action and check. I much prefer to plan challenges ahead of time, and leave it up to the players to decide how they try to overcome them. This is also why I’ve stopped assigning minimum passive scores to my additional narration based on knowledge skills and perception.

I agree with you. I just write in as many ways for them to succeed as I can. If they come up with a new way to tackle the challenge, great. But, given that any ruleset (especially 5e) has limited options, and the fact that DM's know their players, it's pretty easy to determine the options. Am I wrong on this point?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I agree with you. I just write in as many ways for them to succeed as I can. If they come up with a new way to tackle the challenge, great. But, given that any ruleset (especially 5e) has limited options, and the fact that DM's know their players, it's pretty easy to determine the options. Am I wrong on this point?

With Goal and Approach, the options are not limited by what you see on your character sheet, if that’s what you mean.

 

[Scott Christian]

With Goal and Approach, the options are not limited by what you see on your character sheet, if that’s what you mean.

But with a ruleset, a distinct and clear set of rules, what you mean translated through your character sheet. Therefore, your character sheet has a viable set of options that are limited, one the DM can predict. Correct, no?

 

[Campbell]

But with a ruleset, a distinct and clear set of rules, what you mean translated through your character sheet. Therefore, your character sheet has a viable set of options that are limited, one the DM can predict. Correct, no?

At least in the case of ability checks the game is largely fiction first, meaning we must first look at what is happening in the fiction before we can choose which mechanisms apply. There is no way to use the rules without reference to what is going on in the fiction.

Combat rules, limited use abilities, and spell use is mainly mechanics first in that we choose the mechanics we utilize and then they impact the fiction.

Some games like Blades in the Dark and Apocalypse World are entirely fiction first in that there is no way to use any of the mechanics of the game without reference to what is going on in the fiction.

 

[Scott Christian]

At least in the case of ability checks the game is largely fiction first, meaning we must first look at what is happening in the fiction before we can choose which mechanisms apply. There is no way to use the rules without reference to what is going on in the fiction.

Fiction first, but even fiction follows rules. And in most cases, a predictable ruleset follows predictable patterns. Hence, you can pre-write the character's DC's or challenges prior to them starting. As stated earlier, if they come up with something you didn't think of - great. That's part of the fun of DM'ing. But, for most obstacles, they are confined within the ruleset, and therefore, at the most, modifications (bonuses or negatives) are all that are needed.