D&D 5E (2014) Consequences of Failure

[Oofta]

oh I hope I wasn't a part of the attack... lol.

Nah. He was talking about me. Because I've read the rules and I disagree that there must be a meaningful cost to every failure. As it says in the PHB, sometimes when you miss the target DC, you just don't make any progress and the section they quote on cost is specifically talking about activities like ordering a drink.

If you don't allow a retry of knowledge related checks, no progress is bad enough. If you could try forever without using up any resource or risk then don't bother for a call.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

But you aren't in the same state anymore. If you were you could retry the lore check. I'm presuming that's disallowed. So then, your state now has one fewer option for you than it previously did. It's not a big failure but it is a meaningful consequence (no longer having a chance to get the lore you desire... or having to take the long route to get it)

I'm not saying that's the best interpretation of "meaningful consequence of failure", just that it's a valid one.

Regarding the bold: I’d rather have an in-fiction reason for the players to not ask to try the check again (i.e. more meaningful consequences for failure) than it be a DM fiat ruling (i.e. “no, you’ve already tried that and failed, you can’t do it again”). Something has just felt off to me when I’ve tried the latter in the past. The former puts it back on the player to make the choice.

This goes back to @Ovinomancer’s point that a check should always change the fiction one way or another. In fact, one could argue that retries on a failed check cease to be a thing b/c the fiction has changed and so the stakes for any particular approach/goal have changed as well. The action the player proposes might be exactly the same but the scene is different in some way and so we start a new adjudication cycle - now auto-fail and auto-success are back on the table or a new ability check might be called for with new/enhanced consequences for failure. If a new ability check is called for, it might be for a different ability and/or have a different DC and/or have (dis)advantage depending on the new fictional state of the scene.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I see that as a big problem, in that it's giving the players info their characters don't know and then expecting them to play as if they don't know it.

I agree with that part.

But none of the rest:

Any time they say they're being stealthy, get 'em to roll - if the roll isn't needed right then, either take it under advisement for later if-when it is or tell them that the first bit of sneaking has gone [badly-normal-well] based on the roll.

In general, meaningless rolls are important because they help disguise the rolls that actually matter, and thus prevent (or greatly mitigate) any metagaming.

Also - and not related specifically to the above quote or to you @iserith - I have to say I really do fail to see a problem with, when someone tries a knowledge check and blows it, simply saying "Nope, nothing" and moving on with the game.

Put another way and applied more generally, a continuation of the status quo is often* a valid outcome. You try to climb a wall and fail - you're still (or back) at the bottom. You try to make friends with the guard and fail - you're still not friends with the guard.

* - sometimes a continuation of the status quo is impossble e.g. trying to jump across a chasm.

I used to play that way. I think a lot of us did. And you're welcome to hang out in this thread saying, "You all are doing it wrong; you should play my way." But, really, the purpose of the thread is something else.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Nah. He was talking about me. Because I've read the rules and I disagree that there must be a meaningful cost to every failure. As it says in the PHB, sometimes when you miss the target DC, you just don't make any progress and the section they quote on cost is specifically talking about activities like ordering a drink.

I am explicitly not making a claim about what the rules say we must do. In the very first post I say "for those who want to play this way."

If you don't allow a retry of knowledge related checks, no progress is bad enough. If you could try forever without using up any resource or risk then don't bother for a call.

Thank you again for your opinion on the subject.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Regarding the bold: I’d rather have an in-fiction reason for the players to not ask to try the check again (i.e. more meaningful consequences for failure) than it be a DM fiat ruling (i.e. “no, you’ve already tried that and failed, you can’t do it again”). Something has just felt off to me when I’ve tried the latter in the past. The former puts it back on the player to make the choice.

This goes back to @Ovinomancer’s point that a check should always change the fiction one way or another. In fact, one could argue that retries on a failed check cease to be a thing b/c the fiction has changed and so the stakes for any particular approach/goal have changed as well. The action the player proposes might be exactly the same but the scene is different in some way and so we start a new adjudication cycle - now auto-fail and auto-success are back on the table or a new ability check might be called for with new/enhanced consequences for failure. If a new ability check is called for, it might be for a different ability and/or have a different DC and/or have (dis)advantage depending on the new fictional state of the scene.

Yes, very much this. "Now you don't get to try again" is a change in the game state, not in the fiction. I'd much rather there be a clear cost to trying (whatever it is), and let the player decide whether it's worth the risk. A well-designed cost makes it a hard, non-obvious choice.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes, very much this. "Now you don't get to try again" is a change in the game state, not in the fiction. I'd much rather there be a clear cost to trying (whatever it is), and let the player decide whether it's worth the risk. A well-designed cost makes it a hard, non-obvious choice.

It’s also a change on the fiction...

 

[Guest 6801328]

It’s also a change on the fiction...

Can you say more on that? Because that doesn't seem to be the case to me.

EDIT: Actually, never mind. I don't think this is a fruitful avenue of debate. Let it be recorded that FrogReaver thinks that allowing only one attempt makes using that attempt a reasonable cost to trying, and that the fiction is thereby modified.

 

[S'mon]

So, one thing I’ve noticed about Stealth is that most DMs handle it in a way they don’t handle any other action - they have the player make the check long before any potential consequences are in play. Usually, what do you do when a player says they’re scouting ahead stealthily? I’d wager most folks would answer that they have the player make a Stealth check then and there, and the result becomes the DC for any Perception checks (rolled or passive) that hostile creatures make to find them.

Yes, isn't that what the book says to do? Roll check then hold it?

 

[FrogReaver]

Can you say more on that? Because that doesn't seem to be the case to me.

EDIT: Actually, never mind. I don't think this is a fruitful avenue of debate. Let it be recorded that FrogReaver thinks that allowing only one attempt makes using that attempt a reasonable cost to trying, and that the fiction is thereby modified.

#stop the passive agressiveness

I couldn’t respond with my full thoughts at that moment. So here goes - if you try recall more and fail then doing so has already changed the fictional state to you don’t recall. The reason you auto fail the next check is because in such a fictional state it’s highly unlikely you will recall the 2nd attempt. Thus the DM listens to your goal and approach and determines the 2nd attempt is an auto failure due to the fiction leading him to believe the chance of success is so low that it shouldn’t even be rolled, just determined to be a failure

I think it is a fruitful topic because you keep bringing things up about that solution that just aren’t true.

What is apparent is that you want a fair cost associated with skill use and not just a change in fictional state.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yes, isn't that what the book says to do? Roll check then hold it?

Even if it does, I vastly prefer the idea of waiting until there is a critical moment, and then letting the player(s) make a more informed risk:reward trade-off.

But maybe if the DM wants some way to adjudicate things before then, passive scores could be relied up? E.g., take the median "passive Stealth" of the party, and compare to the passive Perception of the NPCs. If the party wins they just auto-succeed. If the NPCs win, the party has to make a decision just before they are discovered: either switch from passives to actives (that is, dice rolls) or come up with a different plan.