D&D 5E (2014) Consequences of Failure

[Maxperson]

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

That you'll make things worse. "Whoops! Maybe I shouldn't have given you that sedative right after I had you drink a bottle of whisky to help with the pain."

Or that things will remain the same and the disease will progress, further hurting or killing the patient.

 

[Guest 6801328]

No worries!!



See, I disagree. In another thread I just gave an example to @Oofta. If you are attempting to build a wall to keep out a barbarian horde and you fail the roll, no progress has very significant consequences. The horde is going to ride in now and chop you up. There is no setback there as the wall didn't become worse. The wall just failed to move forward.

There are many, many situations where a failure to move forward will have meaningful consequence. The circumstances around the attempt will determine that, not the failed roll itself.

Interesting example, and you resolve this apparent paradox in your next paragraph:

This is tied into my above example. The game circumstances will determine when you are unable to try again. Going back to the wall and the incoming barbarian horde, you would be unable to try again as the horde would be riding over your face during the second attempt.

Yeah, we've talked about the time pressure factor a number of times. And I don't think anybody has disagreed that squandered time...whether it's your turn in combat or the 1 minute the DM said you have until the monster catches you...counts as a consequence. Or can count, if there's time pressure.

"No progress, but squandered resources" is really negative progress; calling it merely "no progress" leaves off an important qualifier. If meeting the goal has become harder, then the game (or world) state has not remained unchanged, and the PCs are in a worse position.

Again, the critical factor (for me, anyway) is whether the supposed consequence creates a disincentive to try the action. The archetypical example would be, "Anybody else want to roll History?" I mean, why wouldn't you roll the d20, even if you have a -1 modifier?

We can argue about the definition of 'consequence', but what I really mean is that I think (or, at least, I'm still experimenting with thinking) that dice shouldn't be rolled unless the player would, upon failing a roll, regret having rolled. (Or, more precisely, would regret having chosen to take that action.)

P.S. Just as a reminder, I (for one) am not trying to argue that any of this is defined by the rules. Or I don't care whether or not it is. I just think it's more fun to play with consequences for dice rolls, and am interested in exploring what that looks like in non-obvious situations.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

If you framed the action that the check was being used to resolve in terms of a goal and an approach, then yes, there is a fail condition. Your approach failed to achieve your goal. Moving quietly past the guard failed to achieve the goal of getting into the Princess’s chambers unnoticed. Arm wrestling with the barkeep failed to achieve the goal of impressing the other patrons.

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.

The nature of a contest is that two or more participants have opposed and mutually exclusive goals. One will succeed, and the other will necessarily fail, and comparing the results of the participants’ skill checks is how we determine which one wins.

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.

Stealth works just fine with goal and approach, and the actions still very much determine the check. To be honest, it looks like you’re grasping at straws here.

I cannot narrate any arm wrestling action, other than I push really hard, and the roll represents my best effort at that time.

Arm wrestling is your approach. Presumably you are participating in this arm wrestling contest for a reason - perhaps to impress someone who is watching, or humiliate your opponent, or win a prize. What ever that reason is, that’s your goal. If your check is higher than your opponents, you succeed at that goal. If it’s lower, you fail. There are some cases where you might succeed or fail without a check, for example if you bribed your opponent to throw the match ahead of 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.

There are many actions where that is the case, yes. And in those cases, you succeed without having to make a check.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Or, you know, call for the check when you have the forged document over to the Duke. If you succeed, he believes it’s real. If you fail, he doesn’t, which is a meaningful consequence.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This is really illustrative.

I think Hussar is saying, "My goal is to win the arm wrestling match, and my approach is to...well, arm wrestle."

Charlaquin says, "My goal is to impress the onlookers, and my approach is to engage in an arm wrestling match."

That dichotomy says WORLDS about the underlying difference between the two approaches.

 

[Charlaquin]

So in case anyone cares to actually deal with the medicine question.

Suppose you are in a game with a diseased ally. You want to use medicine to heal him. I guess I also need to add, Suppose that the only thing the DM determines is uncertain about your approach is whether you will heal him.

How is that situation handled?

You’re still not giving enough information here. I’m hearing that your goal is to heal your diseased ally and that you think your proficiency in Medicine will help you achieve that goal. I’m not sure what your character is doing to try to heal him. Can you be more specific?

 

[Charlaquin]

I apply some medicine to him that I once read cured half the people in the town from a similar ailment but did nothing for the other half.

Ahh, sorry, I’m a bit behind and didn’t see this before I wrote my response. Are we assuming this medicine is something I as DM have established exists and you have access to, or are you as a player making this world building detail up yourself?

 

[Charlaquin]

This is really illustrative.

I think Hussar is saying, "My goal is to win the arm wrestling match, and my approach is to...well, arm wrestle."

Charlaquin says, "My goal is to impress the onlookers, and my approach is to engage in an arm wrestling match."

That dichotomy says WORLDS about the underlying difference between the two approaches.

Even if you just want to win the arm wrestling match for your own sense of accomplishment, then that’s your goal.

EDIT: Also, in the case that impressing onlookers is the goal, I’d still call for a Strength check, but I’d totally say yes if the player suggested Performance proficiency.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, we've talked about the time pressure factor a number of times. And I don't think anybody has disagreed that squandered time...whether it's your turn in combat or the 1 minute the DM said you have until the monster catches you...counts as a consequence. Or can count, if there's time pressure.

"No progress, but squandered resources" is really negative progress; calling it merely "no progress" leaves off an important qualifier. If meeting the goal has become harder, then the game (or world) state has not remained unchanged, and the PCs are in a worse position.

That time pressure will be present in some form with every roll of the die, though. If there is no limiting factor to the number of attempts you can make, and it's possible to succeed, then even if failure would have a meaningful consequence, ultimately failure cannot happen and no roll is made. Unless you can end the situation in a state of failure, the meaning never appears.

Again, the critical factor (for me, anyway) is whether the supposed consequence creates a disincentive to try the action. The archetypical example would be, "Anybody else want to roll History?" I mean, why wouldn't you roll the d20, even if you have a -1 modifier?

We can argue about the definition of 'consequence', but what I really mean is that I think (or, at least, I'm still experimenting with thinking) that dice shouldn't be rolled unless the player would, upon failing a roll, regret having rolled. (Or, more precisely, would regret having chosen to take that action.)

Not surprisingly, I don't agree. Let me give you another example.

The PCs arrive in town and learn that there is a festival today. At the festival they come across a shot put contest where the winner gets 100 gold pieces. Each contestant gets three attempts and the best one is counted.

What we have there is a non-opposed ability check that is 1) not limited to 1 attempt only, 2) does not result in the player regretting having taken the action, 3) has a meaningful consequence for failure(lack of 100g), and 4) does not result in the PC being in a worse position. Assuming he doesn't owe Guido and is about to be kneecapped if he doesn't come up with 100g.

P.S. Just as a reminder, I (for one) am not trying to argue that any of this is defined by the rules. Or I don't care whether or not it is. I just think it's more fun to play with consequences for dice rolls, and am interested in exploring what that looks like in non-obvious situations.

Which is very reasonable. Everyone will have a different view of what a meaningful consequence is.

 

[FrogReaver]

Ahh, sorry, I’m a bit behind and didn’t see this before I wrote my response. Are we assuming this medicine is something I as DM have established exists and you have access to, or are you as a player making this world building detail up yourself?

To answer your question the detail I provided was a detail provided about the world by the hypothetical DM in the hypothetical scenario.

By the way, isn't this step a tad unnecessary? Why can't you just assume that if we are talking a hypothetical example that it's from established fiction in the world the example is from?