D&D 5E (2014) Consequences of Failure

[Guest 6801328]

As a DM there are a lot of things I just don't allow rerolls on. Forgery would be one of those, it represented your best attempt unless something changes.

Does the character/player recognize their own success or failure?

 

[Hussar]

Concrete answers have been given several times over. Perhaps you missed it, so I'll summarize for you.

The player describes what he or she wants to do, being reasonably specific as to what the character hopes to achieve and how he or she goes about it. The DM then calls for an ability check only if there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure then narrates the result of the adventurer's action.

Easy.

I finally made a breakthrough this morning. That bit I bolded? It's wrong.

And I can prove it.

There is never a fail condition on any opposed check, only success conditions. Opposed checks, like a stealth check, cannot be failed. I don't stop hiding because someone rolled a higher perception, I'm still hiding. They just succeeded on their perception check. Or, put it another way, if two characters are arm wrestling, one character does not stop arm wrestling because the other character rolled a higher Athletics check.

So, no, there are conditions where ability checks are called for even if there is no meaningful consequence of failure. Simply put, in any opposed check, like stealth, there is no fail condition, only a success condition. This is why the stealth example doesn't really work with goal and approach methods. Opposed checks can't work like that because the check determines the actions, not the other way around. I cannot narrate any arm wrestling action, other than I push really hard, and the roll represents my best effort at that time.

There are many checks in 5e D&D where the consequence of failure isn't meaningful - it only preserves the status quo or there are no fail conditions at all.

 

[Hussar]

Does the character/player recognize their own success or failure?

No, because there is no fail condition. This is another perfect example of an opposed check. The ability to recognize the forgery depends on the observer's skills, not only the forger's skills. IOW, you ALWAYS succeed on your check. But, your check sets the DC for the opposed check. Which means that goal and approach methodology won't work here.

 

[Oofta]

Does the character/player recognize their own success or failure?

Generally, no. The PC did their best, I assume people don't fail on purpose.

However, they may have an idea of how difficult a forgery would be to pass off. That's ... well it's extremely situational. Is the document going to be closely examined or is it just going to be a quick glance. Is it a simple signature forgery or a more complex document.

The reason I mention that is that there may be ways to lower the target DC in my games. For example, you've just forged papers to cross the border. You know that it will be more difficult to get past an alert guard so you go towards the end of the shift change. Maybe you bring a drink to "warm up" or try to distract the guard some way.

But without trying to pass off the forgery? Nope. If someone else is familiar with forgery techniques or are particularly familiar with the document (another PC with a guard background for example) they can help of course.

 

[Guest 6801328]

No, because there is no fail condition. This is another perfect example of an opposed check. The ability to recognize the forgery depends on the observer's skills, not only the forger's skills. IOW, you ALWAYS succeed on your check. But, your check sets the DC for the opposed check.

Huh. Do you allow the player to change their plan, now that they know their attempt at forgery is probably not going to work?

Which means that goal and approach methodology won't work here.

By "here" do you mean in this narrative situation, or in conjunction with your preferred resolution mechanics? I assume not the former, because that is obviously false. And I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that different approaches to resolving challenges won't always mix well, so I'll agree with you on that one.

 

[Campbell]

In general I am not in favor of opposed rolls, especially when separated by time and space. I would much rather have the active party roll the dice against a DC like Passive Perception for things like Stealth. If someone if actively looking for a hidden character they can roll Perception against 10 + Stealth modifier (So like Passive Stealth as it were).

Involving multiple rolls only serves to cut down the tension of the moment, especially if there is a delay between rolls. Not to mention that it is a book keeping nightmare trying to remember how well you rolled on your check to forge a document 3 sessions ago. Bleh!

 

[5ekyu]

Oh, I see.

Earlier in this thread somebody else said that "I should know if I'm being stealthy", or something to that effect, implying that if a character rolls low they would know it.

So I can see both sides of that coin.

A. Yes, the character should know if they are in general being stealthy, and presumably make sure they are.
B. No, the do not know if they are being stealthy enough to evade whoever might be looking for them.

Or, in the case of my forgery, what looks good to me (or my character) might not be good enough for the person who is going to inspect it. But presumably I would keep trying until it meets the first criterion, so what's the purpose of rolling at the point?

Which is another persuasive argument (or a reconfiguration of the same argument) about why it's just better to wait until the critical moment and then roll.

"Sure, it takes a few tries but you eventually produce a document that looks good to your experienced eye." No roll needed.

In the stealth case, exactly, you know in my gsmes how stealthy you seem to be but only find out if its though ewhen it hits chsllenge. Before then you can change things.

For the forgery, sure if you rolled low you see a mediocre copy and can try to risk it or try again taking more time and more materials- costly in both cases.

 

[5ekyu]

As a DM there are a lot of things I just don't allow rerolls on. Forgery would be one of those, it represented your best attempt unless something changes.

So, nobody ever foes z forgery looks st it, sees its mediocre and does another one?

What if they show it to another PC? Csn that PC say "this looks like crap?"

 

[FrogReaver]

Sorry, Max, took me a while to get back to this.

We've gone through this a bunch already in this thread, but I'll summarize my position:

First, a consequence can be good or bad, but it has to be something that is the result of something else. So if the game state is the same after a failed attempt, there is nothing that resulted from the failed attempt, so pretty much by definition there is no consequence.

But terminology and definitions aside, let's talk about impact on gameplay.

Upthread FrogReaver proposed that if you can't try again, the game state has changed because now you don't have that option. And I agree, that is a consequence.* But not really a useful one, because the purpose (or my purpose) of having a consequence is to give the player a risk:reward calculation to make. And (assuming the odds aren't going to change in the future, which was also discussed) it's not really a "risk" to use your one shot, because not trying has the same value as not being able to try.

(I'm sorta wishing I remembered more from symbolic logic, because I'm betting this could all be expressed really elegantly.)

*It's also, to me, an unsatisfying consequence, because it relies on metagame mechanics divorced from the fiction. I'd much rather have an in-game consequence.

What's the risk of using medicine to try and heal someone of a disease?

 

[Ovinomancer]

What's the risk of using medicine to try and heal someone of a disease?

Depends on the situation. Maybe it makes it worse. Maybe you kill the patient. Maybe you expend too much of the medicine and you can't treat the other sick anymore. I dunno, need more context.