D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[FrogReaver]

Largely, as has been explained ad nauseum, because GAA doesn't work for situations set up for a different approach. This seems obvious, but here we are.

Well, to be honest it's not like we had to strain to find such situations. For example, Determining what your character knows is a pretty universal situation. It's a big deal that GAA (as a philosophy) doesn't have a mechanic to do that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't understand what any of this means.

It seems to me that it was suggested that it's not clear what is a saving throw and what is an ability check in D&D 5e. I quoted the rules. I broke down the examples based on those rules. If you were not suggesting that, then please disregard.

Stripped of the fancy language, what @pemerton is saying that that, yes, a grapple contest is called out as an ability check in the rules, but it's functioning like a saving throw. The orc tries to grapple me, I don't have to take a concrete action, I just make a STR or DEX check to prevent it. Smells like a saving throw, even if the rules call it an ability check.

 

[iserith]

Largely, as has been explained ad nauseum, because GAA doesn't work for situations set up for a different approach. This seems obvious, but here we are.

For example, coming at the game with the assumption that you have to figure out what a character knows as what is essentially an ask for additional information because the DM has failed to adequately describe the situation or provide enough context for the players to take meaningful action. Instead of fixing the DM's description, you try to correct it by "making knowledge checks."

 

[iserith]

Stripped of the fancy language, what @pemerton is saying that that, yes, a grapple contest is called out as an ability check in the rules, but it's functioning like a saving throw. The orc tries to grapple me, I don't have to take a concrete action, I just make a STR or DEX check to prevent it. Smells like a saving throw, even if the rules call it an ability check.

I know it may not be your position and you're just helpfully explaining someone else's position, so this is really not specifically directed at you: That there is an ability check necessarily means the player has decided on an action which has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. It's functioning as a contest, "a special form of ability check." If someone is treating it like a saving throw, well, that's on them.

 

[FrogReaver]

For example, coming at the game with the assumption that you have to figure out what a character knows as what is essentially an ask for additional information because the DM has failed to adequately describe the situation or provide enough context for the players to take meaningful action. Instead of fixing the DM's description, you try to correct it by "making knowledge checks."

Or, an actual good game world is so complex and the prior lives of the PC's are so nuanced that no amount of scene framing can answer all possible, "do I know X" questions. The DM could have framed the scene perfectly while a player still wants their character to try to remember something important about something in the scene.

 

[FrogReaver]

I know it may not be your position and you're just helpfully explaining someone else's position, so this is really not specifically directed at you: That there is an ability check necessarily means the player has decided on an action which has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. It's functioning as a contest, "a special form of ability check." If someone is treating it like a saving throw, well, that's on them.

And this explanation falls apart because when a monster attempts to grapple a player the player gets not active declaration about whether they try to get away. The player automatically with no additional description or action makes an athletics or acrobatics check to avoid the grapple. That's not a player action with a meaningful consequence of failure. There was no player action at all in this scene.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Frankly, contested checks aren't consistent with 5e BA nor with it's Play Loop.
I'd be inclined to re-cast any contested check as an action resolution initiated by one party or the other (preferably the player, on philosophical grounds).

 

[FrogReaver]

Frankly, contested checks aren't consistent with 5e BA nor with it's Play Loop.
I'd be inclined to re-cast any contested check as an action resolution initiated by one party or the other (preferably the player, on philosophical grounds).

So what do you do with initiative?

 

[Tony Vargas]

So what do you do with initiative?

Didn't really think of that as a contested check, actually. It's a lot more like the partial success, you're sorted by initiative order.

Though, initiative vs a DC based on the opposition, with PCs who succeed going before the enemy, those how fail after, might be a viable simplification....
...hmm, wait, I /have/ done something like that, to deal with a very large group (12 players).
Huh, weird.

 

[FrogReaver]

Didn't really think of that as a contested check, actually. It's a lot more like the partial success, you're sorted by initiative order.

Though, initiative vs a DC based on the opposition, with PCs who succeed going before the enemy, those how fail after, might be a viable simplification....
...hmm, wait, I /have/ done something like that, to deal with a very large group (12 players).
Huh, weird.

It’s still a contested check IMO. It’s just a 1 vs many contested check. You go before those you win in the contest you go after those you lose to in the contest. It sorts itself out