D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[pemerton]

Isn't a GM-requested WIS/Perception check to notice the gargoyles before they start dropping rocks really* a form of saving throw?

* As in, its real function in play.

 

[Guest 6801328]

But, whether or not this rises to your own personal value of significance of consequence is to me meaningless.

I totally agree that we each bring our own values, and each of our thresholds for what counts as interesting or meaningful can vary. I feel like I sprinkle that caveat into many of my posts.

And maybe you could have expressed that sentiment less dismissively?

 

[Guest 6801328]

I believe that this is a guiding principle of Elfcrusher’s, in the same way that “never tell the players what their characters do” is one of mine. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with everyone in the group wanting a try at a check, but it’s something Elfcrusher finds undesirable at their table, and so they (he?) tailor the way they adjudicate actions to avoid it happening.

@Elfcrusher: If I’ve correctly identified your reason for not wanting to call for checks that don’t have outcomes worse than not attempting, have you considered adjusting the way you handle teamwork? Personally, I think the Group Check rules are kind of rubbish. What I do is, when there’s an action that the party is working on together as a group, I determine if the action would succeed if any individual succeeds (for example, when sweeping an area for a hidden enemy) or if it would fail if any individual fails (for example, when trying to travel stealthily as a group). In the former case, I ask that the character with the highest modifier make the check, and grant them advantage if anyone in the group would have advantage. In the latter case, I ask that the character with the lowest modifier make the check, and impose disadvantage if anyone in the group would have disadvantage. I find this covers most situations where everyone would want a go at something.

Hmm...it seems once again I have partially miscommunicated my intent.

It's not that I don't want characters using teamwork to solve problems. I was just trying to use it as a kind of rule-of-thumb of whether consequences of a potential ability check are meaningful. If an Arcana check has a consequence of failure explained, and the fighter with Int 8 and no proficiency says, "Can I roll, too?" then I know my risk:reward balance is off. (As often happens with zero-consequence knowledge checks, or lock picking, or trap detection, etc., unless there is unspoken agreement not to do that Because Reasons.)

If the consequence is appropriate ("Sure, but if you get the ritual wrong the portal will summon demons..."), the Wizard with proficiency will pause and weigh whether it's worth taking the risk, and the Fighter will take a pass.

 

[Guest 6801328]

And no matter how they get across it, they've now put themselves in a position where they've cut off their own escape route...

Or they have all just successfully used the escape route.

Once again, the problem with examples, right?

Why? If the goal of the pit is nothing more than some potential resource attrition (where resources can be anything from time to hit points to stealth) then making them work to get across it is the whole point.

Because resource attrition gated behind ability checks where the players don't actually make any decisions are boring to me. In my view it's a test of how players happened to have built their characters, not how they are engaging with the story.

And, as I just said above, the presence of the pit behind the PCs once they do get across it makes escape a no-longer-straightforward prospect.

And as I just said, or maybe they all just escaped. Examples are examples.

 

[Ratskinner]

Isn't a GM-requested WIS/Perception check to notice the gargoyles before they start dropping rocks really* a form of saving throw?

* As in, its real function in play.

Interesting thought, perhaps harkening back to "check for surprise". Some of this conversation has me thinking that a necessary part of making D&D more like PbtA/BitD is changing when we require the roll (and the attendant expectations of how play unfolds). Adopting the "to do a thing, do it" approach. So, you want to sneak up on the guard...you do. The only mechanical question to answer is "do you surprise him? (enough to have advantage or whatever)" You don't roll until it is critical/consequential for some reason. Climb the wall? Sure, no check. Climb the wall in time to meet your contact?...make a check.

Of course, the combat system is where it all falls apart. Too many interlocking mechanics to juggle, I would think. Not that you couldn't run combat more this way...but there's a lot of things you'd have to sidestep.

 

[pemerton]

Interesting thought, perhaps harkening back to "check for surprise".

Right, I nearly put that in my post - if Gygax had added a "Surprise" column to the saving throw table nothing too fundamental about classic D&D would be different, and maybe the game would still be using a save for this purpose, and at least that particular bit of the discussion would not be so contentious.

I don't really see how saving throws fit with "goal and approach" at all. Or maybe it would be better to say that they look like a fairly uncontroversial exception, and then whether a particular table uses a more expansive approach to saves (including these sorts of Perception checks, or even knowledge checks as "save vs ignorance") seems more a matter of taste than a fundamental cleavage in resolution methodologies.

 

[iserith]

Because the 'fix' only serves to create bigger problems: loss of mystery from the player side, player knowledge put at variance with character knowledge (leading to either players having to self-police or to metagaming, neither of which is desireable), and loss of realism are but a few.

It doesn't though. Remember, my inquiry started when you said that you use a technique that has the DM call for a Perception check when the players haven't actually described what they want to do. Moving the roll to after the players' action declarations (where the rules say it should be), only asking for a check when there's a meaningful consequence for failure (which is when the rules say there should be a check, if there's an uncertain outcome), and then narrating the result of the adventurers action after the check (again, that's what we're supposed to do) prevents all of your concerns above from happening.

 

[iserith]

I don't really see how saving throws fit with "goal and approach" at all. Or maybe it would be better to say that they look like a fairly uncontroversial exception, and then whether a particular table uses a more expansive approach to saves (including these sorts of Perception checks, or even knowledge checks as "save vs ignorance") seems more a matter of taste than a fundamental cleavage in resolution methodologies.

I don't like saving throws at all and would prefer it if D&D 5e handled it more like Dungeon World's Defy Danger where at least the player has the opportunity to decide how he or she wants the character to defend against the attack. I get that we're stuck with saving throws though mostly due to legacy design. And to some extent I also justify it with the idea that some proposed defenses against an attack by the player would just be silly attempts to use their best stat and just shouldn't work, so the game just chooses the most appropriate one for you. But at least in some cases, there's definitely some reasonable wiggle room on how one might defend against an attack (e.g. quick thinking to avoid some of a fireball blast instead of it always being a matter of reflexes).

 

[Ratskinner]

Right, I nearly put that in my post - if Gygax had added a "Surprise" column to the saving throw table nothing too fundamental about classic D&D would be different, and maybe the game would still be using a save for this purpose, and at least that particular bit of the discussion would not be so contentious.

Makes total sense to me. Of course, AD&D isn't exactly known for its streamlined, unified mechanics...ahem.

The idea does remind me of BitD "Resistance" rolls.* The GM says something happens, and you say "nope". The interesting thing is that doing so always costs 6-1d6 Stress on the character (possibly inducing longer-term consequences). So, mechanically "The fireball burns you to a crisp", "The guard skewers you with his spear", "Without warning, Gargoyles start dropping rocks from the sky.", "The princess orders you beheaded", could all be handled with the same type of roll.

I don't really see how saving throws fit with "goal and approach" at all. Or maybe it would be better to say that they look like a fairly uncontroversial exception, and then whether a particular table uses a more expansive approach to saves (including these sorts of Perception checks, or even knowledge checks as "save vs ignorance") seems more a matter of taste than a fundamental cleavage in resolution methodologies.

I'm not sure about "save vs. Ignorance". It seems awkward to me, at least WRT cryptic runes on standing stones or "is this monster vulnerable to fire?". You'd need to rework things a bit, I think. Its like a saving throw for your own actions...which isn't to crazy.

I think the general question about saves WRT "Goal and Approach" is more dependent on what those results mean in the narrative, and player choices. D&D has tended to stay very close to a simple interpretation. (I've always wondered how those WotC thieves "evade"d a fireball, and yet remained in the dead center of the explosion. Once you've left the Old School, you could theoretically let the players choose their saves, and change the narrative accordingly. The fighter chooses to tough-out the fireball with Fort, the thief dodges with Ref, and the mage quickly puts up a minor magical defense with WIL.



*
Insight: Consequences from deception or understanding.
Prowess: Consequences from physical strain or injury.
Resolve: Consequences from mental strain or willpower.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't like saving throws at all and would prefer it if D&D 5e handled it more like Dungeon World's Defy Danger where at least the player has the opportunity to decide how he or she wants the character to defend against the attack. I get that we're stuck with saving throws though mostly due to legacy design. And to some extent I also justify it with the idea that some proposed defenses against an attack by the player would just be silly attempts to use their best stat and just shouldn't work, so the game just chooses the most appropriate one for you. But at least in some cases, there's definitely some reasonable wiggle room on how one might defend against an attack (e.g. quick thinking to avoid some of a fireball blast instead of it always being a matter of reflexes).

This is probably because saving throws change the resolution from fortune at the end to fortune in the middle. The difference being that dice are used normally after all the lead in fiction is set to determine outcome while a saving throw is made and then the lead in fiction is crafted to match the outcome. They are, fundamentally, different mechanical approaches.