D&D 5E (2014) Consequences of Failure

[iserith]

@iserith Unfortunately, that clarified nothing. I'm not sure you attempted to answer any of my questions.

Many of your questions appeared directed implicitly at @Elfcrusher so I didn't answer them because I can't speak for that person, even if you did quote me.

I don't know who these handful of folks are, but generally I find that there are differences in play styles based on proposition filters. That is, I know for a fact that some tables would validate propositions like:

"I try to persuade the Baron to lend us troops." or "I try to use my diplomacy to persuade the Baron to lend us troops."

But it is not at all clear to me that the difference in processes of play between the two tables comes down to failing to understand that actions and checks are not the same thing. On the contrary, these posters prefer to validate those sort of propositions because they suggest that to not do so would risk suggesting a that an uncharismatic player could not play a charismatic character. And in any event, given how rigorously my proposition filter excludes check declaration as a valid proposition, that can't be the source of my confusion.

It strikes me as part of the difference, but likely not all of it. Rarely does a difference come down to just one thing in my experience. But it's there and noteworthy as it keeps coming up in similar discussions.

It doesn't seem that problematic to me. For example, I've raised a very simple question which has repeatedly been ignored. I will now phrase that question in the terms of a very simple example that harkens back to the OP's first post.

Suppose we have a sleeping orc guarding a pie, and a single adventurer. The adventurer's player proposes the action, "I quietly sneak over to the orc, so that I can kill the orc in its sleep." This to me represents a valid proposition. The exact resolution method - how the check works - isn't relevant to the point. The point is that the player has proposed something in the fiction which it is believable for the character to attempt. However, suppose now that the GM determines that the orc is a light sleeper or that otherwise, there is a chance of failure. The GM then calls for a fortune test (the details of which don't matter) to arbitrate between what the GM seems as two possible outcomes to the risky proposition.

A: The player successfully sneaks up to the orc and finishes him off in his sleep.
B: The player makes some noise that wakes the orc, and a difficult and noisy fight ensues.

Several posters in the thread, including myself, have argued that outcome B represents sufficient consequence of failure because outcome A is far more desirable.

But @Elfcrusher in his original post makes the objection that if the player didn't attempt stealth at all, that option B would happen anyway, and as such seems to imply in the post that since the failure mode of the check is the same as no check that there is some more desirable way where there is some unknown option C that is worse than not attempting stealth at all. He wants to know what that more desirable way is.

But again, it seems clear to me that option B is much less preferable to option A, nor are there grounds for punishing a player for attempting to be stealthy compared to not attempting to be stealthy. Even if we advance the argument that option B maintains the status quo and as such there is "no consequences to failure", the fact is that option A does not maintain the status quo. As such, there is a meaningful consequence to success that would be forgone under failure. Not attempting stealth is in this situation in some sense like choosing to fail (perhaps the plate clad warrior knows he's not good enough at stealth to bother), but we don't in the general case say that there is no consequence to failure just because theoretically a character could choose to fail.

I appreciate the good faith effort, but you'll have to take that up with Elfcrusher as it was his objection not mine.

Wait? What?? Are you suggesting that it's entirely subjective what constitutes a meaningful consequence of failure? And you are suggesting this in the context of a proposition filter that requires the player to state a goal? I don't think that's a sustainable position at all. If the player has stated a goal, it's darn tooting obvious what a meaningful consequence of failure is, and not at all subjective.

Now, in theory the player could state an action which though risky (or doubtful?) does not advance the players larger scenario goal in anyway - investigating a dead end of some sort, either literally or figuratively - and as such even if the player obtains the goal it ultimately doesn't matter in the long run, but that's not quite the same thing and in any event as it pertains to this particular proposition it is still objectively clear what meaningful failure looks like.

The DM decides if there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. It is completely up to him or her. That DMs disagree on whether a fictional action has a meaningful consequence for failure is in evidence in this discussion and I would suggest that nobody's "wrong." Their conclusions, of course, may be biased due to other approaches they use as I mentioned already upthread.

 

[billd91]

I would be too, in part because the rules say so little about Stealth at all. I think the big about the result of your check being used to contest Wisdom (Perception) checks until you stop hiding or are detected, and the later bit about how Stealth interacts with passive Perception are where people get the idea from that they should just make the check right away and keep the result for when it becomes relevant.

Ultimately, what's the difference? You can roll right away when the PC tries to hide or wait until it's actually opposed. One DM may find it makes sense to make the roll when the PC hides, others to defer it until when when the success of hiding is tested.
One advantage when rolling it at the start, as I see it, is it doesn't get you thinking that you have to reroll that check every time you encounter another enemy who may spot you. It puts you in the mindframe to roll it and let it ride (until discovered or the PC stops hiding). If rolling right away helps you keep in that mindframe, I'd encourage it.

 

[iserith]

I'm personally interested in consequences that might cause the player to weigh whether or not they really want to take the proposed action. And "well you won't get to do it again" doesn't trigger that consideration, at least not without further conditions (such as the fluctuating DC mentioned above). Unless I'm missing something.

Probably a good way to refocus the conversation then is to take away the apparently controversial language of the rules (i.e. "meaningful consequence for failure") and instead just talk about potential risks and trade-offs. Upthread, I posted an example from D&D 4e wherein a character could use a character theme feature to make a hard DC skill check to gain a bonus to attack and damage against a given monster in a combat at the significant risk of only doing half damage against it until the end of the character's next turn. Something like that could be imported to D&D 4e, though it's use is fairly niche in that it's relevance is really only combat related. I imagine you'd need to figure out something that works for the exploration and social interaction pillars if possible.

 

[Xetheral]

Yeah, I used to feel this way too. Then I read some very good DMing advice and decided to try just not worrying about metagaming. And not only did it not ruin the game, it actually improved it quite a bit, because we were no longer wasting time on meaningless rolls made only to disguise which rolls were important. Players acted with more confidence because they were empowered to make informed decisions. I was able to stop fretting over when it was or wasn’t appropriate to tell a player that their character believed something spurious or didn’t know something that’s common player knowledge. Now I look back and I can’t figure out what I was afraid would happen if players acted on out of character knowledge. Literally only good things came from letting it go.

I think it's worth pointing out that knowledge checks aren't only useful for avoiding metagaming. They're also useful when deciding how much additional setting knowledge to convey to a curious player.

For example, as a DM I'll already have conveyed to the player any background knowledge I consider essential to the situation and will have conveyed non-essential information I consider to be relevant to those players whose characters have appropriate proficiencies, backgrounds, or character histories. But players often surprise me, and they may be considering a plan I haven't thought of for which additional background information would be relevant. In such a case, it's perfectly reasonable for a player to inquire "What does my character know about [topic]?" in order to get more setting information. It is quite common for a DM to either gate or scale the answer to that question behind some kind of knowledge check.

So when considering whether/what "meaningful consequences" should attach to knowledge checks, it's worth considering the impact on these types of setting background questions. If the DM is fine with just always making a judgment call, there is no issue. If the DM wants to retain the idea of using dice, that gets trickier since it's hard to have an IC consequence for something that isn't a character action, but instead a player request for more background information.

 

[iserith]

Ultimately, what's the difference? You can roll right away when the PC tries to hide or wait until it's actually opposed. One DM may find it makes sense to make the roll when the PC hides, others to defer it until when when the success of hiding is tested.
One advantage when rolling it at the start, as I see it, is it doesn't get you thinking that you have to reroll that check every time you encounter another enemy who may spot you. It puts you in the mindframe to roll it and let it ride (until discovered or the PC stops hiding). If rolling right away helps you keep in that mindframe, I'd encourage it.

I rolled a 3 on my Stealth, so I want to try again until I get a natty 20. Then I'll let it ride. Cool?

 

[Celebrim]

Many of your questions appeared directed implicitly at @Elfcrusher so I didn't answer them because I can't speak for that person, even if you did quote me.

My apologies. My point in addressing you is that you seemed to understand Elfcrusher's point of view and based on recent exchanges seemed to be in agreement. If that isn't the case then I apologize.

It strikes me as part of the difference, but likely not all of it. Rarely does a difference come down to just one thing in my experience. But it's there and noteworthy as it keeps coming up in similar discussions.

There are so many pronouns here that it went over my head what you were trying to say.

The DM decides if there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. It is completely up to him or her.

Ok, that at least makes a bit more sense, albeit it would seem like you have only said if something cannot be failed than there is no meaningful consequence of failure. That is, as was implied by my discussion of the sleeping orc, the DM could have ruled that the orc was such a deep sleeper that regardless of what the player attempted, the orc would stay asleep and thus there was no meaningful consequence of failure because there was no way to fail. However, I don't think that is a particular helpful insight. My point specifically was that once we decide something is doubtful, if we are using a goal and approach methodology for proposition filtering, whether there is a reasonable consequence of failure is objective - namely, the player does not achieve their goal. Whether their goal is important might be said to be something that is subjective - in as much as you might not like pie and so getting it from the orc doesn't strike you as important, or that orcs are little threat to your melee focused juggernaut so it doesn't matter much whether the orc wakes up or not, or it might turn out the pie is an illusion and there is no pie and we must seek or pie in another dungeon - but presumably at the time that they declared the risky action, the goal was important to the player, and thus not achieving the goal is failure objectively.

 

[billd91]

I rolled a 3 on my Stealth, so I want to try again until I get a natty 20. Then I'll let it ride. Cool?

Nope. Not cool. You rolled it, it rides.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think it's worth pointing out that knowledge checks aren't only useful for avoiding metagaming. They're also useful when deciding how much additional setting knowledge to convey to a curious player.

For example, as a DM I'll already have conveyed to the player any background knowledge I consider essential to the situation and will have conveyed non-essential information I consider to be relevant to those players whose characters have appropriate proficiencies, backgrounds, or character histories. But players often surprise me, and they may be considering a plan I haven't thought of for which additional background information would be relevant. In such a case, it's perfectly reasonable for a player to inquire "What does my character know about [topic]?" in order to get more setting information. It is quite common for a DM to either gate or scale the answer to that question behind some kind of knowledge check.

So when considering whether/what "meaningful consequences" should attach to knowledge checks, it's worth considering the impact on these types of setting background questions. If the DM is fine with just always making a judgment call, there is no issue. If the DM wants to retain the idea of using dice, that gets trickier since it's hard to have an IC consequence for something that isn't a character action, but instead a player request for more background information.

Yeah, for sure. Knowledge checks are still a thing in my game, they’re just not typically used to figure out monster weaknesses/resistances/etc.

 

[iserith]

Ok, that at least makes a bit more sense, albeit it would seem like you have only said if something cannot be failed than there is no meaningful consequence of failure. That is, as was implied by my discussion of the sleeping orc, the DM could have ruled that the orc was such a deep sleeper that regardless of what the player attempted, the orc would stay asleep and thus there was no meaningful consequence of failure because there was no way to fail. However, I don't think that is a particular helpful insight. My point specifically was that once we decide something is doubtful, if we are using a goal and approach methodology for proposition filtering, whether there is a reasonable consequence of failure is objective - namely, the player does not achieve their goal. Whether their goal is important might be said to be something that is subjective - in as much as you might not like pie and so getting it from the orc doesn't strike you as important, or that orcs are little threat to your melee focused juggernaut so it doesn't matter much whether the orc wakes up or not, or it might turn out the pie is an illusion and there is no pie and we must seek or pie in another dungeon - but presumably at the time that they declared the risky action, the goal was important to the player, and thus not achieving the goal is failure objectively.

Here my response is going to depend on what you mean exactly by "goal and approach methodology." I have attempted to clear up any confusion as to what that actually means in this thread more than once, since many people lump that together with other things, and my read on it is that people are still conflating it. I can't be sure you're aware of or in agreement with my understanding of that term. Would you mind telling me what you think it means then I can respond on that basis?

I don't want to be a stickler here, but experience has shown that now I have to be.

 

[iserith]

Nope. Not cool. You rolled it, it rides.

I would consider that a ruling made unnecessary by just following the rules of the game and only rolling when there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. If there's nothing to hide from right now, there's no need to roll. We can do that later when there is something to hide from.