D&D 5E (2014) Consequences of Failure

[Charlaquin]

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.

It’s functionally quite similar, but there are some differences like the one you identify here. The converse of that is, when you ask for the check in advance, you set the player up to see a low result, and either have to accept that’s their lot and they’ll probably be spotted, or ask to try again, and neither is an outcome I particularly want to deal with. I also find that asking for the check when it’s relevant brings Stealth more in line with other skills in terms of resolution process.

 

[iserith]

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.

It seems to me you're pointing at the complicating factor here for these DMs: "the idea of using dice." It is worth examining where that idea comes from and whether it can be done away with in my view. After all, it's not like a D&D game full of bold adventurers confronting deadly perils is going to lack for dice rolls, generally speaking. Is anyone really going to notice a steep falloff in dice interactions because the DM frequently rules success or failure on an attempt to recall lore?

 

[Celebrim]

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.

A knowledge check is a "call" rather than a "proposition". That is, the player is asking for permission to assert something about the environment, namely, that his character knows some piece of information - often information which is also not known to the player. (Of course, there are tables that require players to not act on metagame knowledge, but I'm not one of those tables and I don't want to derail an already difficult discussion by commenting too much on that.)

However, despite being a "call" and not a "proposition", for the terms of this debate they fit into the same category of propositions causing issues for the OP.

Specifically, we know that there are actions where success or failure on the roll will change the status quo. We all agree that's good and cool. We know that there are actions where success or failure will not change the status quo. We all agree that those really don't need a die roll because there is no meaningful consequences. It's the other two categories that are causing problems, and in particular the category of actions that change the status quo on success but do not change it on failure that is causing problems for the OP.

Knowledge checks change the status quo on success and do not change it on failure. However, they are far from the only checks that do this, and as we've seen they share that quality with some actions. In fact, even if we transformed all Knowledge checks into actions, by making them require some sort of research action before they were treated as valid propositions, they would still have this feature and we'd still be arguing about lost opportunity costs and whether time investment in and of itself represented a reasonable consequence of failure.

So I don't think that the fact that they don't have an action associated with them is really the heart of the problem, or the OP wouldn't be focused on how difficult Stealth was.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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

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 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.

Yup, we're on the same page so far.

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.

Wait...what?!?!?! Did anybody else in this thread infer that from my first post? If so, then I rolled a 1 on my Wisdom (Communication) check. (See what I did thar?)

 

[Guest 6801328]

In the sense that you brought it up in the OP as the thing to be discussed. You set up the initial parameters - you proposed people could talk about this thing. Yeah, in the history of the universe, you didn't come up with it, but in the history of this thread, it comes form you.

Maybe I misread "proposed" but if his intended meaning was as you suggest I would have thought he would have said, "You proposed talking about..." not "you proposed a methodology."

You've noted several times things to the effect of "that's not what this thread is about."

You do realize... you don't really get editorial control over conversation in that way, right? We don't support thread ownership in that sense. You write a thing, and folks are welcome to discuss whatever aspect of it they want.

If your approach didn't specifically inspire them to discuss in the direction you wanted... that's not anyone else's fault. I would suggest, in the future, a far shorter and tighter declaration of intent at the start if you have specific desires.

Maybe you haven't been reading along, but when @Charlaquin suggested I should have made this a "+" thread I said, "No, I don't want to tell people they can't participate." But I should at least have the ability to clarify why I started the thread, and use that as a basis for demurring from going down what I think is a rathole.

Perhaps my choice of words weren't entirely clear, but you seem to be giving Celebrim a lot of leeway for unclear language, so maybe toss some of that my way. Thanks.

 

[Celebrim]

Would you mind telling me what you think it means then I can respond on that basis?

As a technical definition, I mean a process of play where there is a proposition filter in place that invalidates a proposition unless it is stated in a manner that gives a clear in character action that the character is performing along with a goal that they are trying to obtain.

As a less technical definition, tell the GM what your character is trying to achieve and how they are going about it.

I traditionally understand the goal of this approach is to force the player to engage with the fiction rather than the rules by removing ambiguity in process resolution that results from stating your approach in terms of the desired check or mechanic you wish to use. I imagine that in play, there are different levels of strictness applied by DMs to the proposition filter, but that they all generally would fall under the heading of "goal and approach".

 

[Xetheral]

It seems to me you're pointing at the complicating factor here for these DMs: "the idea of using dice." It is worth examining where that idea comes from and whether it can be done away with in my view. After all, it's not like a D&D game full of bold adventurers confronting deadly perils is going to lack for dice rolls, generally speaking. Is anyone really going to notice a steep falloff in dice interactions because the DM frequently rules success or failure on an attempt to recall lore?

To clarify, I wasn't trying to suggest rolling dice is important for its own sake. Rather, the chance introduced by the dice may useful as a tool. For example, rolling a die introduces a degree of impartiality to the knowledge check, and at some tables that emphasize the "DM as referee" style that impartiality maybe inherently valued. As another example, if the DM hadn't actually created the setting information requested, a check can be useful to determine whether the DM needs to improvise on the spot (or how much they need to improvise at tables that allow non-binary check results). Finally, the DM may simply think that it is uncertain whether the character would know the requested information, and want to use a check to resolve that uncertainty. (Depending on the player's intended use for the information, the DM might consider not knowing the info to be a meaningful consequence because it constrains future options, in which case the rules suggest that an ability check would indeed be appropriate.)

 

[Guest 6801328]

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

Then I'm going to stop stealthing.

And try again.

I'm being facetious, of course, but do you see how it requires a metagame construct to disallow this? It seems to me that just allowing the person to "stealth" and then waiting until it matters to make a roll solves that paradox.

 

[Xetheral]

Then I'm going to stop stealthing.

And try again.

I'm being facetious, of course, but do you see how it requires a metagame construct to disallow this? It seems to me that just allowing the person to "stealth" and then waiting until it matters to make a roll solves that paradox.

Of course, that solution introduces the new metagame issue that if you only call for a roll when there is a potential observer, any time you call for a roll you reveal the presence of a potential observer.

Either approach creates a metagame issue, and I think people just disagree as to which one they feel is more problematic.

 

[Guest 6801328]

To clarify, I wasn't trying to suggest rolling dice is important for it's own sake. Rather, the chance introduced by the dice may useful as a tool. For example, rolling a die introduces a degree of impartiality to the knowledge check, and at some tables that emphasize the "DM as referee" style that impartiality maybe inherently valued. As another example, if the DM hadn't actually created the setting information requested, a check can be useful to determine whether the DM needs to improvise on the spot (or how much they need to improvise at tables that allow non-binary check results). Finally, the DM may simply think that it is uncertain whether the character would know the requested information, and want to use a check to resolve that uncertainty. (Depending on the player's intended use for the information, the DM might consider not knowing the info to be a meaningful consequence because it constrains future options, in which case the rules suggest that an ability check would indeed be appropriate.)

I understand and have some sympathy for this argument. Sometimes as a DM I like to have impartial rules, because I don't want to bias toward either the PCs or their adversaries.

But I've been slowly swinging around to the belief that DM editorial control is better than random chance in a wide variety of circumstances.

The obvious follow-up question then is: so why not let the DM adjudicate combats without dice?

I haven't entirely worked through that, but I think it comes down to (drumroll!) the risk:reward (a.k.a. consequences of success/failure) thing. Each combat roll is a risk:reward event (in the sense that you have limited turns and choices on how to utilize them) so it's more fun, IMO, to leave that choice up to the players.

When there's no risk:reward at play, maybe it's "better" (subjectively) to just trust the DM to adjudicate?