D&D 5E (2014) Consequences of Failure

[Oofta]

When it comes to medicine, in the real world there are many times there are no retries because the treatment doesn't work. Or maybe you can try a second time but it's a higher DC.

Isn't a limited number of tries (potentially 1) try a "cost"? I view it as trying to treat an infection with the equivalent of antibiotics, but if that doesn't work you have to try something else, or a stronger antibiotic. Maybe you failed the first time but since that treatment didn't work you have to fine some rare herb which fires off a side quest.

If you can do multiple tries and will eventually succeed then I agree there is no need for a check. That's why I'll either just allow success or limit retries.

 

[FrogReaver]

Of course it’s a meaningful cost, if you run out you can’t use it to cure your friend.

Then it's also a meaningful cost if a failed lore check doesn't allow you to remember the weaknesses of the enemy you are fighting, as long as failing that check means your next attempt would be an automatic failure. Do you agree?

 

[Charlaquin]

When it comes to medicine, in the real world there are many times there are no retries because the treatment doesn't work. Or maybe you can try a second time but it's a higher DC.

Isn't a limited number of tries (potentially 1) try a "cost"?

Absolutely! I just don’t like limiting the number of tries without an in-fiction justification, and I don’t care for the go-to “you already retried, and that roll represented your best attempt” because to me anything less than a natural 20 was clearly not your best attempt. That’s a personal preference, if you and your players are cool with the “one roll represents your best attempt” rule, then yeah, that’s very much a meaningful cost.

I view it as trying to treat an infection with the equivalent of antibiotics, but if that doesn't work you have to try something else, or a stronger antibiotic. Maybe you failed the first time but since that treatment didn't work you have to fine some rare herb which fires off a side quest.

I feel like this is a weird example because if you have a medicine with which to treat the patient, the medicine should have its own mechanical effect, yeah? I wouldn’t feel the need to call for a Medicine check to see if you administer the medicine correctly, I’d just let you do so without a roll and then resolve the curing of the disease as per the rules for the medicine.

If you can do multiple tries and will eventually succeed then I agree there is no need for a check. That's why I'll either just allow success or limit retries.

Yeah, I agree. I just don’t like limiting retries.

 

[Charlaquin]

Then it's also a meaningful cost if a failed lore check doesn't allow you to remember the weaknesses of the enemy you are fighting, as long as failing that check means your next attempt would be an automatic failure. Do you agree?

Umm... I guess, but why would failing that check mean your next attempt would be an automatic failure?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Of course it’s a meaningful cost, if you run out you can’t use it to cure your friend.

And that becomes a particularly interesting trade-off if the players think there is a chance they might contract the disease in the future.

/twothumbsup

 

[FrogReaver]

Umm... I guess, but why would failing that check mean your next attempt would be an automatic failure?

Because it establishes in the fiction that you couldn’t recall in that second. It’s extremely unlikely you would remember a few seconds later, this on the 2nd attempt I rule auto failure

 

[Guest 6801328]

Then it's also a meaningful cost if a failed lore check doesn't allow you to remember the weaknesses of the enemy you are fighting, as long as failing that check means your next attempt would be an automatic failure. Do you agree?

Again, I think the test is "how significant, if at all, is the disincentive to try". If there's no disincentive to try, there's no meaningful cost.

 

[Charlaquin]

Because it establishes in the fiction that you couldn’t recall in that second. It’s extremely unlikely you would remember a few seconds later, this on the 2nd attempt I rule auto failure

That’s fine if that’s how you like to do it. That kind of ruling feels artificial to me, so I don’t like to do that. But plenty of DMs do it that way, and that’s fine.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I want to expand on my "possibility of memorable event" thing, because I think it's been misunderstood, and that I haven't explained it well.

It's not that I think any event should have the possibility of being memorable, it's that an event that meets a given pattern should have the possibility of being memorable.

So looking at the festival contest, is it possible that an event of the pattern "Players make 3 ability rolls of type X, and if they succeed on all 3 they earn Y gold, but if they fail there is no cost, not even in terms of time or resources."

So let's take an exaggerated version: if the PC(s) can succeed at three ability checks, they will get one million gold. If they fail there's no cost, although they don't get to try again.

Can you imagine this being a memorable...or even an enjoyable...part of an adventure?

(I guess I'd think it was memorable in the sense of "one of the least satisfying moments I've ever experienced playing D&D")

So if for some reason I actually wanted to include the 100g version in an adventure, I'd let the players narrate how they go about it, and then probably just give them an autosuccess because it would be a nice development in the story. But make them roll dice? Why? What does that actually do to make the game better? Maybe some people think it would, but I don't. Difference of opinion.

So here's another example (I know, foolish me for offering examples): a player wants to leap from a shed onto a horse that's riding by. DM rules that if he fails, he's going to fall and probably take some damage. Especially memorable? Probably not, unless the resulting narration is particularly good.

What about the pattern: "Player leaps from object onto creature passing by. On success can ride away, on failure takes damage."? Can THAT be a truly memorable moment?

How about if the player wants to leap from an airship onto a passing dragon. DM assigns a really high DC, but with the caveat that failure is death. If the player actually goes for it, do you think that might be a little bit exciting and memorable? I do, and that's whether he succeeds or fails.

So, yeah, all of the sudden I'm thinking, "This has to be dice. I'm not going to just issue a ruling."

Going back to the shed and the horse, the same principle applies. No, it's unlikely to be a climactic moment, but it's at least a dramatic moment in its own small way.

 

[FrogReaver]

I want to expand on my "possibility of memorable event" thing, because I think it's been misunderstood, and that I haven't explained it well.

It's not that I think any event should have the possibility of being memorable, it's that an event that meets a given pattern should have the possibility of being memorable.

So looking at the festival contest, is it possible that an event of the pattern "Players make 3 ability rolls of type X, and if they succeed on all 3 they earn Y gold, but if they fail there is no cost, not even in terms of time or resources."

So let's take an exaggerated version: if the PC(s) can succeed at three ability checks, they will get one million gold. If they fail there's no cost, although they don't get to try again.

Can you imagine this being a memorable...or even an enjoyable...part of an adventure?

(I guess I'd think it was memorable in the sense of "one of the least satisfying moments I've ever experienced playing D&D")

So if for some reason I actually wanted to include the 100g version in an adventure, I'd let the players narrate how they go about it, and then probably just give them an autosuccess because it would be a nice development in the story. But make them roll dice? Why? What does that actually do to make the game better? Maybe some people think it would, but I don't. Difference of opinion.

So here's another example (I know, foolish me for offering examples): a player wants to leap from a shed onto a horse that's riding by. DM rules that if he fails, he's going to fall and probably take some damage. Especially memorable? Probably not, unless the resulting narration is particularly good.

What about the pattern: "Player leaps from object onto creature passing by. On success can ride away, on failure takes damage."? Can THAT be a truly memorable moment?

How about if the player wants to leap from an airship onto a passing dragon. DM assigns a really high DC, but with the caveat that failure is death. If the player actually goes for it, do you think that might be a little bit exciting and memorable? I do, and that's whether he succeeds or fails.

So, yeah, all of the sudden I'm thinking, "This has to be dice. I'm not going to just issue a ruling."

Going back to the shed and the horse, the same principle applies. No, it's unlikely to be a climactic moment, but it's at least a dramatic moment in its own small way.

I don't think you are going to win many of us over by essentially saying, just don't include 100gp contests in your game. That seems rather limiting even if 1 particular example may not have been capable of producing a memorable experience. It's often the context and feel of the world that such details provide that are beneficial and make other interactions in that world more memorable.

With that said, in most of our games there is always a chance for a memorable experience, rolling a 1 or a 20 tends to amplify the failure or success into an "oh crap" or "oh yes" moment, because we don't typically just have binary outcomes tied to the contest. This alone allows the chance for memorable moments in more mundane checks.

Just as an example. PC got passed out drunk at the bar. They wanted to carry him up the stairs to his room. First attempt the party member failed horribly, very funny narration. Then he talked the stronger party member into helping, also a fail. Finally he talked a bunch of people from the bar into helping. They also horribly failed. The poor pc and all the things that happened to him due to their attempts was fun and memorable. I wouldn't equate any of the narrative flourish that was given there with a real tangible consequence of failure and yet there we were, with a memorable moment that didn't rely on a meaningful consequence of failure.