D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[ClaytonCross]

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.

I get that your using this of a guideline to discourage unskilled attempts... my question is why? What does this bring to your table that makes this a good guidelines. (not a criticism, just trying to gain insight)

Am I correct in saying its a pet peeves of yours that a wizard who has placed resources into intelligence and a skill proficiency rolls and gets a total less than DC15 then a fighter with a -1 rolls and gets a 16+ and achieves the goal takes a spot light from the wizard?

My question is a fighter is asking to roll arcana but not proficient in arcana actually rolling arcana even if you allow the roll? An intellect ability check without a proficiency bonus form a skill, is an ability check not a skill check. As such its a different test with a different DC and a different outcome on success. I don't allow a non-proficient player make an skill test or aid a player with advantage on a skill test if they lack that skill. In my opinion, a player calling themselves making a skill check they are not proficient in does not make it a skill check, it just shows intent within common knowledge and ability.

Example 1. with your arcana check above, the fighter making an unskilled "arcana" check aka an intellect ability check, even with a natural 20 and an outcome of 19 will basically know about the subject as much as any common person might. Identifying a glyph for example, they would not know that glyph means only that yes it is a magical glyph, some of them hold spell effect they can release. That's it. A proficient character knows arcane symbols and understands what type it is, is it storing a spell, what the trigger is, and possibly the type of spell it has stored.

Example 2. with stealth from the original post. Anyone can stand behind a tree, but not everyone know when their toes are sticking out, how to restrain there breathing, when to shift slowly forward to avoid them seeing your butt from a different angle as they pass. As such, you can't help someone if you don't know what they are doing wrong all you can do is pass your test, however someone who understands your not hidden and why could move beside you and push/pull you and cover your mouth, and pull a branch a little lower to help you disappear.... but only because they are proficient. While a player not proficient with stealth can attempt to hide behind a tree, only a character who is proficient with stealth is truly stealthy.

Example 3. with slight of hand, you can't for example take and pass an item unnoticed unless the receiver is also able to use slight of hand to keep the act hidden. If your sliding it into your partners bag while they are walking by on que they would be doing dexterity check to move on que in a window for your slight of hand not slight of hand at the same time and that is a very different level of skill in an assistant even if the partner is perfectly on que, they don't have the ability to pull this trick off with someone else.

So am curious why all checks needing consequence is your answer to that problem. Though I should note, I am a fan of asking "does this check have consequence?" but my reason is very different and I except the lose of the advantage of success is a sufficient reason because of mine. My reason is to remined me not to boar players with many unnecessary tests if the result will not impact the game. For example, a PC is in bar washout any other PCs because they went to sleep and decides to hit on an NPC character. Do I give them a role? Well If it doesn't mater the result because I can't think of an impact, I hand wave it. If I decide to make the NPC impact the story beyond this roll, for example being offended and kicking the party out of their rooms, hassling them, or embarrassing them in front of the rest of the party for flavor on failure.... or if they might succeed get a discount or lower the parties costs there... sure … lets role. But the question of "does this check have consequence?" serves as guide to keep me creative or move along the story if I am not feeling it. If me and the players want to get to the next chapter I am likely moving it along with a hand wave, but if I needed a story hook to push a the party along or establish a new favorite base of operations for a while... here is chance to do that.

What's the value of punishing players out of wanting to be involved in checks out of their niche? There could be one I don't see. I currently take it as a less strict rule to keep me on task so I don't have this problem with your stealth example you do. I am just curious what drives that approach vs the players and if its a better approach then my guideline of "its not a skill check if you don't have the skill".

 

[Charlaquin]

OK, I'm going to go into something that may or may not relate to how this discussion is progressing, but it was sparked by @Charlaquin's post a couple pages ago, as it reminded me of a YouTube video I watched a few days ago (the video in question, in case you're interested). Anyway, I'm going to ramble a bit, because I'm not entirely sure this is relevant, or how things connect together. It's just been bubbling around in my head, and I wanted to post it for evaluation.

The video was an examination of the differences between eastern and western storytelling. It covers lots of ground, and is a fascinating watch, but one of the primary conclusions was in the difference between the western focus on external conflict, and the eastern focus on internal struggle.

And that made me think that, while this discussion is partly about the approach to mechanical resolution of action in an RPG, it is, in a sense, also an expression of storytelling methodology. That is, "What mechanisms do I have to make the story work the way I want it to work?" The goal-and-approach model is almost intrinsically a "resolve active conflict" mechanism. There must be an action, and there must be a "failure state" that you are attempting to guard against. That is, it's expressly about direct conflict, which means it's very much related to western storytelling methodologies.

While some have criticized some of how I've described dealing with events, implying that I'm "wrong" in how I play because I'm less interested in the direct conflict than in the story and the characters' interactions with the world, looking back at how I myself describe things, I feel like I'm approaching the storytelling side of things from more of an eastern perspective than a western one. The "Revelatory" style I described is more like answering the question, "What does it mean to fail?", rather than the question of, "What are the consequences of failure?" Consequences are intrinsically an external conflict mechanism, whereas "What does it mean to fail?" is much more open-ended. There may or may not be consequences, but the lack of consequences doesn't change the fact that there's meaning in the act itself.

The goal-and-approach method fails with things like knowledge or perception checks because it implicitly assumes that there must be an external goal that must be resolved, and if there is no such resolution necessary, the roll must be irrelevant. It is fundamentally bound to the external conflict of western storytelling, and attempts to force the story to remain within that domain.

The revelatory side of things (which isn't the alternate to goal-and-approach, but I don't have another term to use here) does not assume that there must be a conflict to be resolved. Rather, it allows there to be questions asked and answered that may not connect to a direct conflict. There may not be a consequence for failure; it isn't a required component of the story. It's more suited to exploring the internal struggles or personality quirks of the characters by creating an opening that allows them to become part of the story in an organic way.

The GAA approach would handle the situation of needing to jump a chasm by asking, "Are there any consequences for failing the jump? Is there a risk in failure?" The revelatory approach would ask, "Is there any meaning to be found in failing the jump? Is there any story in failure?" In both cases, if the answer is no, you wouldn't bother rolling. But the types of questions you ask frame the type of story you create. In the case of knowledge checks, while there is often no risk in failing to remember, there could be meaning in failing to remember.

That's not to say either approach is "the one true way". There are plenty of reasons to shift between the different approaches. However the push for goal-and-approach seems to be an attempt to use the resolution rules to enforce a very strict approach to storytelling that matches the more dominant conflict methods seen in western stories, and dismiss the validity of other ways of framing stories.

~~~

Caveat: Musings are not peer-reviewed. I may be making invalid assumptions. Some may think that the thread arguments are purely an issue of resolution mechanics, and nothing to do with storytelling. However my impression of the arguments in this thread seems to closely match these divergent methods of storytelling, and I feel there may be an underlying conflict in play.

This analysis seems to assume that because something is not rolled for in G&A, it is not relevant. This is not the case. The point of not rolling isn’t to diminish an action that doesn’t have consequences, it’s to get the mechanics out of the way and focus on resolving it narratively.

 

[Campbell]

The decision whether to roll the dice or not does not speak to relevance. In some methods of play you roll the dice because there is narrative uncertainty, meaning there is doubt how things will go in the fiction. In a television show this is where we would pan out or focus in, the tempo of the background music would increase. There is meaningful tension to resolve in the fiction.

When you roll a knowledge check you are not resolving tension or uncertainty in the narrative. You are resolving it in the players. That character knows what he knows. He knew before the dice roll. He knew it after. The fiction does not change. We just didn't know it as players. So it's basically just a chance to define up some new fiction. What do I know about trolls? You're trained in Arcana so you know blah blah. Where did you learn it? Blah blah.

I mean there are modes of play where I would roll the dice for this stuff, but not one based on dramatic tension.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I largely agree that Goal and Approach as described here mostly only works for noncombat activities and obviously does not apply to things like spell casting (no roll, goal does not matter, directly invokes a mechanic). Procedural elements like initiative, action economy, spells, saving throws, combat rules with defined effects for actions pretty much mess with the fiction first (starts with a description of what a character does instead of invoking a mechanic) nature of goal and approach. Attack rolls do not care about goals. The other games I know of that approach the game in the same way do away with things like initiative and creature stats.

Disagree. There is a meaningful consequence to failure for all those things (although I don’t see how “action economy” fits in the list - maybe you can say more there.)

Initiative: Rolling lower than your opponent gives them the jump on you in combat - which could mean the difference in which side wins or loses in a tightly matched contest
Spells: Missing on a spell attack roll means you wasted your action and perhaps have wasted a spell slot, too
Saving Throws: Rolling lower than the DC results in the worst effect on you
Combat: Rolling lower than AC means you missed and have wasted an action

Saying "goal does not matter" for spell casting is a bit of a head-scratcher. Why is the PC casting the spell? Because the player has a goal in mind with the approach of casting said spell. If there is no roll called for by the DM, that does not contradict Goal and Approach. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying there.

Of course "rolls" do not care about anything, but to imply there is no goal and approach in combat is incorrect. True, often the goal in combat is simply implied but it doesn't mean it is not there: "Rhogar strikes at the orc with his greatsword!" Why? The goal is to harm, perhaps kill, the orc. Unclear goal? DM asks player to clarify.

 

[Oofta]

This analysis seems to assume that because something is not rolled for in G&A, it is not relevant. This is not the case. The point of not rolling isn’t to diminish an action that doesn’t have consequences, it’s to get the mechanics out of the way and focus on resolving it narratively.

At which point it's no longer discussing an approach IMHO, it's the Role of the Dice. Some people use dice to resolve most scenarios with uncertain outcome with dice, others minimize use of dice. Most people use a mixed approach.

 

[iserith]

Goal: What you hope to achieve. Approach: How you set about trying to achieve it.

That applies for any action declaration which includes attacks, casting spells, trying to hide, trying to smooth talk an NPC, the lot. Reasonable specificity allows the DM to better decide whether there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure and whether a roll applies (and which kind of roll).

 

[Oofta]

Goal: What you hope to achieve. Approach: How you set about trying to achieve it.

That applies for any action declaration which includes attacks, casting spells, trying to hide, trying to smooth talk an NPC, the lot. Reasonable specificity allows the DM to better decide whether there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure and whether a roll applies (and which kind of roll).

Nice succinct definition.

Does it work for contests such as being grappled? Goal: don't be grappled. Hmm. I would just assume that's the goal virtually every time. Approach: oh wait. Here the rules tell me to choose strength (athletics) or dexterity (acrobatics), except we've been told players aren't supposed to use game terms for some reason.
So knowledge checks. Goal: remember some historical fact that might aid us in achieving our goal. Check. Approach. Umm ... I think about it? What else am I going to do? How do you get specific about a thought process unless you're reminding the DM about some bit of PC background? What's a simple and easy way to tell the DM that I'm proficient in religion but not history?

What about traps? Goal: don't set off a trap. Approach: well, one option is to just use passive perception according to the book. Except passive checks seem to be bad as well, although that may be shifting for some people. I can't tell.

It works for some things, I just don't see much reason to not allow shortcuts (i.e. "I make a stealth check to get around the guards") when your goal is obvious and the player is just telling the DM how they're achieving the goal.

Then we throw in a bunch of other things like Role of the Dice and add in "there must be a cost of failure" other than not making progress which is contradicted by the PHB entry and we're into the thousands of posts on this topic.

Because I think much of this discussion is about the Role of the Dice and when to use a narrative approach versus letting the dice determine uncertainty. Which is just discussing two legitimate styles of play on a spectrum of gaming approaches.

 

[Umbran]

Nice succinct definition.

Does it work for contests such as being grappled? Goal: don't be grappled. Hmm. I would just assume that's the goal virtually every time. Approach: oh wait. Here the rules tell me to choose strength (athletics) or dexterity (acrobatics), except we've been told players aren't supposed to use game terms for some reason.

"I want to get out of the grapple using brute force" or "I want to get out of the grapple by lithely squirming out of their grasp."

I understand that, once one has their head in the rulebook, it can be difficult to break out of it - and referring to it as "Goal and Approach", and formalizing it again makes one think like a rules-person.

Step back. Think of it like a fiction author. Every novelist manages to describe approaches without reference to game rules. You can too.

What's a simple and easy way to tell the DM that I'm proficient in religion but not history?

You don't. You tell the GM your character hearkens back to what they remember from their academic pursuits. The GM says, "Roll Religion or History. Tell me which one you are using."

 

[Campbell]

Goal: What you hope to achieve. Approach: How you set about trying to achieve it.

That applies for any action declaration which includes attacks, casting spells, trying to hide, trying to smooth talk an NPC, the lot. Reasonable specificity allows the DM to better decide whether there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure and whether a roll applies (and which kind of roll).

When you make an attack or cast a spell though you are not describing what your character does and hopes to achieve in the fiction though. You are directly invoking a mechanic. The DM is not deciding if it is uncertain or what the consequences are for failure or if a roll is needed and what kind of roll. The mechanisms directly tell us these things. They are mechanics first. The impact on the fiction is specifically detailed and is not dependent on what you hope to achieve.

Does that make any sense?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

When you make an attack or cast a spell though you are not describing what your character does and hopes to achieve in the fiction though. You are directly invoking a mechanic. The DM is not deciding if it is uncertain or what the consequences are for failure or if a roll is needed and what kind of roll. The mechanisms directly tell us these things. They are mechanics first. The impact on the fiction is specifically detailed and is not dependent on what you hope to achieve.

Does that make any sense?

Question for you: How is "I attack the orc with my greatsword" not describing what your character does? It follows that the goal is implicit: to hurt or kill the orc.

It is then well within the power of the DM to say "make an attack roll" OR it can remain unspoken since combat is usually straight forward and the player just rolls OR for the DM to say "the orc cowers as you raise your sword to strike - what do you do next?" OR...

I don't see it as mechanics first at all.