D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Guest 6801328]

Man you write long posts.

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)

No, not trying to discourage unskilled attempts. Trying to avoid the situation where your choice is:
1. Let everybody roll (because there's no cost, so why not?) in which case statistically somebody is going to succeed. In which case why are you having a roll?
2. Rely on some artificial metagame mechanism (such as the tacit recognition that doing so is cheesy) to limit multiple rolls.

Really it's the same problem as re-rolls, except it's one roll per person rather than multiple rolls for one person.

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?

Nope. See above.

My desire for consequences is, among other things, to provide an "organic", in-game, in-fiction mechanism for avoiding the situation where everybody keeps rolling dice until somebody beats a DC.

It appears the rest of your post is largely based on the same misunderstanding, so I won't address it point by point because my response to each would just be "Nope, that's not what I'm trying to say/do."

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".

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

This is a fair point. I roll dice for wandering monsters, so why not for player knowledge?

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

I think of it as somewhat like using your turn signal even when it's obvious there's nobody around to even see your turn signal: you do it so that it reinforces the habit.

And just as this is especially important for novice drivers, for long-time RPGers who are trying to shift from another playstyle to Goal-and-Approach it's just great practice to try to frame everything this way.

 

[Umbran]

I think of it as somewhat like using your turn signal even when it's obvious there's nobody around to even see your turn signal: you do it so that it reinforces the habit.

And just as this is especially important for novice drivers, for long-time RPGers who are trying to shift from another playstyle to Goal-and-Approach it's just great practice to try to frame everything this way.

Agreed. Of course, in D&D we end up with the point that it kind of falls apart in combat, where the system is built around the idea that the player makes rules-based action declarations. It isn't, "I want to kill the enemy by drawing upon my arcane knowledge and the contained power of the Amulet of Yendor to spew flames at them!" It is, "I step forward 15 feet, so I am just in range, and then cast fireball, using a 4th level slot, centered exactly here on the battlemap."

If there's an argument against strict goal and approach for D&D, it is in how awkward it is for combat, and how swapping back and forth between styles is a kind of style discontinuity that can be confusing or frustrating.

 

[Oofta]

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.

I would also say that "I make a stealth roll" with an implied "to get past the guards" usually tells the DM everything they need to know as well in the context of the game.

I don't see it as mechanics first either. If there's ever any doubt I'll ask for clarification.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Guest 6801328]

I would also say that "I make a stealth roll" with an implied "to get past the guards" usually tells the DM everything they need to know as well in the context of the game.

I don't see it as mechanics first either. If there's ever any doubt I'll ask for clarification.

Yes, we know. You've told us at least 100 times in various threads that you scoff at trying to apply Goal and Approach in situations where you think "shorthand" is just as good. We gotcha.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Agreed. Of course, in D&D we end up with the point that it kind of falls apart in combat, where the system is built around the idea that the player makes rules-based action declarations. It isn't, "I want to kill the enemy by drawing upon my arcane knowledge and the contained power of the Amulet of Yendor to spew flames at them!" It is, "I step forward 15 feet, so I am just in range, and then cast fireball, using a 4th level slot, centered exactly here on the battlemap."

If there's an argument against strict goal and approach for D&D, it is in how awkward it is for combat, and how swapping back and forth between styles is a kind of style discontinuity that can be confusing or frustrating.

Goal (implicit): to roast all those clustered baddies
Approach: "I step forward 15 feet, so I am just in range, and then cast fireball, using a 4th level slot, centered exactly here on the battlemap."

The player's statement certainly has reasonable specificity. How is GaA falling apart here and why is it deemed awkward?

 

[Campbell]

Mechanics First is not meant as a slight. The combat system and defined abilities of Fifth Edition are significant of the fun it brings to the table. The B/X style exploration mechanics in Pathfinder 2 that I love dearly are also mechanics first. It is meant as a description of what we are actually doing at the table.

All Fiction First means is that we need to know what is happening in the fiction before we know how or if to invoke mechanics. Combat in Fifth Edition is not like this. We have mechanically discrete turns with a mechanically discrete action economy (move, action, bonus action) which we spend to take mechanically discrete actions that have defined mechanical impacts. This all models the fiction and is informed by it.

Contrast this to a game like Blades in the Dark where violent conflicts are handled in exactly the same way we handle ability checks in Fifth Edition. There are no turns, damage rolls, or mechanically defined enemies. Everything is handled solely in reference to the ongoing fiction.

 

[Oofta]

Yes, we know. You've told us at least 100 times in various threads that you scoff at trying to apply Goal and Approach in situations where you think "shorthand" is just as good. We gotcha.

And you've stated a hundred times your preference. So?