D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, let's get back to it:

During wilderness exploration, the party stumbles upon a grove of standing stones with weathered runes upon them, the caretakers having long abandoned the site. No one knows who they were, or what they were doing. But now one of the PCs harkens back to wandering the woods behind the family farm... "I approach one of the standing stones to examine, visually at first, the runes and compare them against what I remember of the stones behind our family farm where the green robed humanoids chanted but always kept their distance when we wandered nearby."

An INT ability check seems appropriate for a DM to call, assuming a meaningful consequence of failure might follow.

I like this example.

So, assuming this backstory element about the standing stones and green robed humanoids on the family farm was something the player and I established ahead of time, I would probably know if there is any connection between these runes and the ones in the present fiction and this action might accordingly succeed or fail without a check. If this is something the player is establishing in the moment... I’m less keen on that kind of retroactive world building... But anyway, let’s proceed assuming that this action is valid and has an uncertain outcome. Perhaps the background element was already established and I decided that there is a connection between the two sets of runes, but that the nature of the connection would be difficult to
ascertain for someone unfamiliar with Druidic practices or something.

Which of the 5 INT skills (or even other skills, if you allow variant Skills with Different Abilities) might you let a player invoke in response to being asked to roll?

History would probably be applicable, as might some Languages. Probably Druidic, maybe Primordial, depends on the nature of the runes. I’d probably allow Investigation here as well if the player asked.

What might be a meaningful consequence of failure here?

Honestly, given the action described, I don’t really see one, other than not recognizing the runes, which isn’t really a meaningful consequence in my evaluation. As mentioned before, I think this action would probably succeed or fail without a check. I suppose, if there is time pressure - maybe there is an upcoming great conjunction and the PCs need to perform a special ritual at these standing stones at the appropriate time to prevent Cthulhu from waking up or whatever - then the time it takes to study theses runes in the way described might be a sufficient cost for the attempt, and the consequence for failure would be spending that resource without making progress.

 

[iserith]

Hold up. Wisdom (Insight) check is not a “move” in 5e, at least not the way I run it. A Wisdom check is a tool for resolving uncertainty in the outcomes of actions that involve attunement to the world around one’s self, perceptiveness, and intuition. The Insight skill is a modifier you can apply to Wisdom checks (or any checks if the DM is using the Skills With Other Abilities optional rule) that involve gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms to determine the true intentions of a creature. In AW terms, a Wisdom (Insight) check is not the equivalent of read a charged situation, it’s the equivalent of roll +sharp. Moves don’t really have a clear analogue in 5e. I guess they’re kind of like actions, but it’s a bit more nuanced than that. It’s like if the rules described certain specific actions and instructed the DM to call for a check any time a player describes their character performing that action.

It could also be argued that, based on the rules of D&D 5e, if there is a Wisdom (Insight) check, then there must necessarily be an action with an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure since those are the prerequisites for the ability check. The situation will determine if there is a meaningful consequence for failure (depending on the DM's read of it). This is not unlike, say, reading a sitch in Apocalypse World since reading a sitch has requires the situation to be charged i.e. filled with tension. You can't read a sitch in Apocalypse World if the situation isn't charged and you can't call for a Wisdom (Insight) check if there is no meaningful consequence for failure. Or rather, you can, but that's not how the game is meant to work and strange outcomes can occur if you do.

So, I haven’t played or run Apocalypse World, though I have read it, and it looks pretty cool. But are you saying that during a typical game of apocalypse world, there are no situations that could not be described as “charged” played out at the table? If so, first of all that sounds like very poor pacing to me. Good narrative pacing has highs and lows of tension. If it’s all high all the time, it would get exhausting quickly. Second of all, I don’t see anything about 5e that would stop someone from framing their scenes that way if that’s what they wanted. I certainly endeavor to keep my games focused on challenging situations for the PCs to overcome. I’m also still not seeing how that is in any way in conflict with describing the environment, and including in that description indications of hidden danger.

I have played and run Apocalypse world and there are situations that aren't charged that play out at the table. I don't see how any game is playable without at least some of that. But these aren't the intended "focus" of play in Apocalypse World, just like they probably aren't a "focus" of play in your D&D 5e game. Other DMs, however, might just love to spend the whole session with the PCs running mundane errands. Not me, but to each their own.

 

[Charlaquin]

It could also be argued that, based on the rules of D&D 5e, if there is a Wisdom (Insight) check, then there must necessarily be an action with an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure since those are the prerequisites for the ability check. The situation will determine if there is a meaningful consequence for failure (depending on the DM's read of it). This is not unlike, say, reading a sitch in Apocalypse World since reading a sitch has requires the situation to be charged i.e. filled with tension. You can't read a sitch in Apocalypse World if the situation isn't charged and you can't call for a Wisdom (Insight) check if there is no meaningful consequence for failure. Or rather, you can, but that's not how the game is meant to work and strange outcomes can occur if you do.

I see what you’re saying here, but as still think that a Wisdom check is best defined as a mechanical process, analogous to rolling +sharp. What Apocalypse World and the various PbtA games do, which I find very interesting, is prescribes certain actions that are to be resolved with a roll and defines consequences for the possible roll results. Where 5e asks the DM to assess the possibility of success, failure, consequences, and appropriate mechanical process on the fly, AW codifies those things into set “moves,” which include a sort of catch-all for actions with appropriate dramatic stakes that don’t easily fall under any of the other moves, in the form of act under pressure. In that sense, 5e could kind of be compared to a hypothetical PbtA game where the only Basic Move is act under pressure, and the GM decides what to add to the roll instead of it always being +cool.

I have played and run Apocalypse world and there are situations that aren't charged that play out at the table. I don't see how any game is playable without at least some of that. But these aren't the intended "focus" of play in Apocalypse World, just like they probably aren't a "focus" of play in your D&D 5e game. Other DMs, however, might just love to spend the whole session with the PCs running mundane errands. Not me, but to each their own.

Yeah, that makes sense to me. But it does lead me back to the question of how this is supposed to conflict with “exploratory play” in any way.

 

[iserith]

I see what you’re saying here, but as still think that a Wisdom check is best defined as a mechanical process, analogous to rolling +sharp.

Yes, I agree with that.

What Apocalypse World and the various PbtA games do, which I find very interesting, is prescribes certain actions that are to be resolved with a roll and defines consequences for the possible roll results. Where 5e asks the DM to assess the possibility of success, failure, consequences, and appropriate mechanical process on the fly, AW codifies those things into set “moves,” which include a sort of catch-all for actions with appropriate dramatic stakes that don’t easily fall under any of the other moves, in the form of act under pressure. In that sense, 5e could kind of be compared to a hypothetical PbtA game where the only Basic Move is act under pressure, and the GM decides what to add to the roll instead of it always being +cool.

Yes, and in Apocalypse World, the rule is "to do it, do it" or "if you do it, you do it." The players and MC are always looking for when someone is attempting to do a move or when the player says a thing that requires a move. There's no overriding it when it happens - you must resolve the move. In D&D 5e, DM says what and when.

Yeah, that makes sense to me. But it does lead me back to the question of how this is supposed to conflict with “exploratory play” in any way.

I imagine if you can jump into a time machine, go back to 2004, and ask Ron Edwards, you'll get a 15-page response full of jargon that won't answer your question.

 

[Xetheral]

As @Campbell has said, maintaining consistency of the fiction is pretty much GMing 101. It's not a distinctive technique or particularly well-adapted to one rather than another sort of play experience.

But being relaxed about times and distances isn't about inconsistency. It's about not being needlessly specific. In the particular bit of play that I described, it was established that the castle was an easy ride from the coastal village in the night-time. This certainly does not preclude it being a comfortable walking distance from the coastal village by daylight. Are we talking 2 miles? 5 miles? Even a little further than that? It doesn't matter.

The events that took place while the characters went to the lighthouse included some parleying, a joust with 3 lances but resting between each lance, and then a pitched battle between 100+ soldiers that ended with one side fleeing. How long exactly did all that take? Again, it doesn't matter.

No one at the table had any sense of inconsistency or spoiled verisimilitude.

I don't see consistency as binary. Rather, I see it as a sliding scale. Sure, all playstyles value consistency, but I would argue that exploratory play places a much higher premium on consistency than a heightened-drama playstyle. In exploratory play it's not enough to avoid outright inconsistency, instead a goal of play is to demonstrate the consistency of the setting. This is commonly done by accurate adhereance to a pre-written setting if the exploratory playstyle is accompanied by a DM-as-referee DMing style, but as I described in a previous post I think the requisite heightened awareness of the consistency of the setting can be achieved through other DMing styles as well.

Does this mean that you disagree with @Ovinomancer's suggestion that 5e wouldn't support the sort of play that I described?

I'm not trying to engender fights here, just trying to get a sense of the analytical and dialetical terrain, and the place of various posters on it.

I haven't seen anyone report experience with running 5e with a playstyle of a DMing style similar to PBtA (admittedly, the distinction between playstyle and DMing style appears to matter less in PBtA where they are so closely intertwined). My experience with PBtA is limited to a single campaign of Urban Shadows, so I don't feel qualified to opine on whether 5e is flexible enough to accommodate that style. (Please also see my response to @Ovinomancer below.)

5e doesn't support a wide range of playstyles, though. It supports a narrow range of playstyles strongly constrained by "GM adjudicates." It's further constrained under this by quite a lot of "GM says." The rules are open to GM ruling, by design, meaning quite a bit of a game is, mechanically, what the GM says it is.

Really, what we've been arguing here are small differences -- essentially hiw players are expected to interact with GM provided fuction so that the GM can adjudicate according to GM preferences. Yes, it seems big, but if you compare it to other ganes where player have direct control over adding fictional elements in play and limited GM fiat, then, no, it's really not a broad range of play supported by 5e.

And, that's actually really good! You don't want such a malleable game -- it would suck. 5e is good at being D&D, and that's awesome.

Two tables of 5e can have entirely different playstyles and DMing styles and still be successful. For example, my 5e games emphasize player-driven exploratory play where combat difficulty depends mostly on the strategic choices the PCs and their opponents make prior to rolling initiative. At the same time, I run the game in a DM-as-Entertainer style where accurate refereeing with reference to pre-written material has no intrinsic value. I will modify the (unseen parts of the) game world on the fly to control pacing, drama, and increase enjoyability, but my framing and telegraphing of that content is always a neutral adjudication that avoids deliberate stake-setting.

By contrast, assuming I am understanding correctly, many of the posters in this thread DM in a style that values accurately adhering to their pre-written material, but will consciously frame and telepgraph that content as a tool to control pacing, drama, and enjoyability and promote deliberate stake-setting. There has been less discussion of playstyles than DMing styles, but I get the impression that many of those posters favor DM-driven, drama-focused styles where players are tactically reacting to the material as it is being presented (with some difference of opinion on how immediate those reactions and their consequences should be).

So we've already got two almost-inverted combinations of playstyles and DMing styles that 5e apparently works for. Then we've also had a couple posters in this thread who fully support an exploratory playstyle with a classic DM-as-referee DMing style, and 5e works for them too.

These three entirely-different combinations are sufficient variety for me to stand by my assertion that 5e supports a wide variety of playstyles and DMing styles. Sure, as I said to @pemerton above, I don't know if 5e would support a PBtA play/DM style, and I also don't know how well it would work in playstyles that permit the players to add fictional elements of the game world. But even if 5e won't support those styles, I still feel justified that it supports enough disperate styles to qualify as supporting a wide range.

 

[Charlaquin]

How are we defining support for a playing style? If it’s simply that you can tailor the game to suit the playing style and still have a good time, then I would argue that any game “supports” any playing style if the GM is committed enough. I do think that some games lend themselves more to certain playing styles than to others.

I’m also still highly suspicious of these categories of “exploratory vs. heightened drama” or “DM as referee vs. DM as entertainer.” They seem like arbitrary waffle on the order of GNS theory to me.

 

[Ratskinner]

Yeah, that makes sense to me. But it does lead me back to the question of how this is supposed to conflict with “exploratory play” in any way.

That's because the example hides where the difference is. (IMO, as I see it, etc.)

So, in standard exploratory play (i.e. most D&D, etc.):

• if there is a connection between the stones, the DM already knows it
• the PC's history with another group of stones must have already been established, either in character creation/backstory or in play. (Some DMs can even introduce it at the moment: "You recognize these symbols from another stone circle near the village where you grew up....")
• its actually questionable (IME) that a player could introduce such a history or the existence of another stone circle without prior consent of the DM, especially before the roll is made or the check is called for by the DM. ("Critical Success! I remember runes like these from the stone circle near my village!")

In non-exploratory play (most Fate games, Apocalypse Games, etc.):

• the players are "free" to introduce such elements of their history (sometimes by spending a mechanical resource...so maybe not "free" free.)
• the results of the roll may tell you, not just whether the PC can recognize any connection, but even if it is there at all (varies from game to game.) This might include whether or not this information is important to any ongoing plot, or instantiates a new plotline.
• whatever the outcome is, it is likely related to some facet of the characters' already. (an aspect on a
  Fate character, or a quirk in some other systems, etc.)
• someone (either GM or player) is likely quite capable of introducing whatever they want at this point, and in fact, may be required to inject new fiction into the game by the mechanics. (This is one reason many of these games have either very light or entirely player-facing mechanics. Injecting a new plotline on a roll would crash the game if the GM had to go look up a spelllist, generate relevant NPCs, etc.)

One important note that I have is that the narrative (i.e. the movie you would see if you were watching the PCs) can be exactly the same for either method. The only differences will be in the mechanical processes (including DM prep) that lead to narrative, either at table or beforehand.

Obviously, exploratory play is possible in 5e. I suspect that you can lean towards non-exploratory play, but the system will punish you if you push it too hard. So, even if the DM leans that way, they would consciously restrict themselves to introducing elements that either a) can be returned to at a later time, when they have had time to prep. or b) present no great "homework" burdens on their part if the Party goes off on a new tangent.


Just my $0.02

 

[Bawylie]

How are we defining support for a playing style? If it’s simply that you can tailor the game to suit the playing style and still have a good time, then I would argue that any game “supports” any playing style if the GM is committed enough. I do think that some games lend themselves more to certain playing styles than to others.

I’m also still highly suspicious of these categories of “exploratory vs. heightened drama” or “DM as referee vs. DM as entertainer.” They seem to me like arbitrary waffle on the order of GNS theory to me.

What even is “playstyle?” Are there categories? If so, what are the categories? If not, is it some indovidualized preference? If it is down to individual preference, is it reasonable to expect a game system to account for each potential player’s preferences? Or is it strategic? Tactical? Dwarves favor a running game while elves like passing and goblins just rely on sneaky fouls?

 

[Xetheral]

How are we defining support for a playing style? If it’s simply that you can tailor the game to suit the playing style and still have a good time, then I would argue that any game “supports” any playing style if the GM is committed enough. I do think that some games lend themselves more to certain playing styles than to others.

I’m also still highly suspicious of these categories of “exploratory vs. heightened drama” or “DM as referee vs. DM as entertainer.” They seem to me like arbitrary waffle on the order of GNS theory to me.

Personally I would say a system supports a particular combination of playstyle and DMing style if that combination works without needing to houserule any of the system's core mechanics. For example, the three combinations I expressed as being supported by 5e all work with 5e's core ability check mechanic (and also with all of its major susbsystems). All three combinations work with goal-and-approach too, at least when that term is defined broadly.

As for the DMing styles, I'm using those terms as shorthand for a dominant DMing priority. For DM-as-Referee, I understand that the primary priority is accuracy to the pre-established content without any agenda other than neutral adjudication. For DM-as-entertainer I'm using the term to refer to styles where the primary priority is the players' and DM's fun. I'm definitely open to changing terminology if you have something in mind that promotes clearer communication.

 

[iserith]

I haven't seen anyone report experience with running 5e with a playstyle of a DMing style similar to PBtA (admittedly, the distinction between playstyle and DMing style appears to matter less in PBtA where they are so closely intertwined). My experience with PBtA is limited to a single campaign of Urban Shadows, so I don't feel qualified to opine on whether 5e is flexible enough to accommodate that style. (Please also see my response to @Ovinomancer below.

Here's how I would break this down based on my experience with both games:

Compatible with D&D 5e
Agenda: Make Apocalypse World seem real.
Agenda: Make the players' characters' lives not boring.
Agenda: Play to find out what happens.

Principles: Barf forth apocalyptica.
Principles: Look through crosshairs.
Principles: Name everyone, make everyone human.
Principles: Be a fan of the players' characters.
Principles: Think offscreen too.

Iffy, in My Opinion (Depends on Application)
Principles: Address yourself to the characters, not the players.
Principles: Make your move, but misdirect.
Principles: Make your move, but never speak its name.
Principles: Ask provocative questions and build on the answers.
Principles: Respond with ****ery and intermittent rewards.
Principles: Sometimes, disclaim decision-making.

One big difference between the games is that the Agenda and Principles are rules that the MC must follow. In D&D 5e, the rules serve the DM and not the other way around. In this way, the MC is much more constrained than a DM is, even if it may look much the same in actual play.