D&D 5E (2014) Consequences of Failure

[Guest 6801328]

Even a game wherein player decisions influence whether or not dice are employed to resolve the outcome will not lack for dice rolls. If the players are portraying adventurers boldly confronting deadly perils, some rolls will be unavoidable, particularly attack rolls and saving throws. Some ability checks might be able to be obviated by smart play, but not all, since removing the uncertainty as to the outcome and/or the meaningful consequence for failure (the prerequisites of a check) may not be within the character's control. Plus, there are also cases when a player will choose to take the risk for a dramatic payoff rather than work to remove the risk and a resulting "cool" moment.

So if the argument against employing the rules related to only calling for a check when there's a meaningful consequence for failure is "That means I won't have dice rolls in my game..." or that they will somehow will drastically reduced, that's a bad argument because it's simply not true in any meaningful way.

Very much this. My goal isn't to remove dice rolling from the game. I love rolling dice when there's something on the line. My goal is to make dice rolling more exciting, and I suspect the whole game thereby becomes more exciting, too. Sometimes that means framing the challenge differently, and...yes...sometimes that might mean not rolling any dice.

Some of the ways that come to mind are:

1. Shift ability checks to occur at the critical moment
2. Eliminate "what the heck, why not" rolls (e.g. "Anybody who wants to roll for History go ahead.")
3. Don't gate information behind RNG. E.g., secret doors with Perception requirements but no telegraphing.
4. Attach meaningful consequences to failure.
5. Try to avoid making ability checks in situations where there's no logical, in-game reason that multiple checks couldn't be made.
6. Just narrate through scenes that fail on #4 and #5

 

[iserith]

If you want dice rolling to be more exciting, set them on fire.

 

[Guest 6801328]

DMing is as much of an ART as being a player, though. This is an empty statement that tries to put on the cloak of ineffable mystery to obfuscate that there are quite a lot of systemizable approaches that do a very good job of presenting a good game. Is everyone Shakespeare? No, but you don't have to be to entertain your friends.

I'm with you on this one.

Sure, DMing is an art, but just about everything interesting is. My only concern about labeling it such is that it can easily carry a connotation of "Well, you either get it or you don't." It seems to me it's not a good idea to make it seem like DMing is something you're either good at or not.

I was taking a class in, well, an art about a year ago. And the instructor, who I thought was terrible at explaining anything, said at one point how newcomers either "get" this one machine we were using, or they don't. Of course, the first time I tried that machine I was not very good at it, and immediately thought, "Oh no...maybe I'm one of the ones who doesn't get it."

A year later I'm getting more comfortable/confident with it. It's just about practice. But I wonder how many people give up because instructors like him convince them they're not cut out for it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Oh, engineering and coding are absolutely arts! There’s a reason there’s been a big push to change from STEM to STEAM. Race car driving I’m less sold on. Car maintenance, absolutely, but driving? Eh, I’d call that a sport more than an art.

Yes, I mentioned you can make this argument for just about anything (and there's artistry in driving). Hence, making the argument obfuscates that there are useful heuristics and techniques, and ways to practice and self-critique that lead to better games in a number of different styles. It's just not at all a helpful thing to say when talking about how to DM.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm with you on this one.

Sure, DMing is an art, but just about everything interesting is. My only concern about labeling it such is that it can easily carry a connotation of "Well, you either get it or you don't." It seems to me it's not a good idea to make it seem like DMing is something you're either good at or not.

I was taking a class in, well, an art about a year ago. And the instructor, who I thought was terrible at explaining anything, said at one point how newcomers either "get" this one machine we were using, or they don't. Of course, the first time I tried that machine I was not very good at it, and immediately thought, "Oh no...maybe I'm one of the ones who doesn't get it."

A year later I'm getting more comfortable/confident with it. It's just about practice. But I wonder how many people give up because instructors like him convince them they're not cut out for it.

This gets at my point in a better way. Thanks.

 

[Hussar]

Even a game wherein player decisions influence whether or not dice are employed to resolve the outcome will not lack for dice rolls. If the players are portraying adventurers boldly confronting deadly perils, some rolls will be unavoidable, particularly attack rolls and saving throws. Some ability checks might be able to be obviated by smart play, but not all, since removing the uncertainty as to the outcome and/or the meaningful consequence for failure (the prerequisites of a check) may not be within the character's control. Plus, there are also cases when a player will choose to take the risk for a dramatic payoff rather than work to remove the risk and a resulting "cool" moment.

So if the argument against employing the rules related to only calling for a check when there's a meaningful consequence for failure is "That means I won't have dice rolls in my game..." or that they will somehow will drastically reduced, that's a bad argument because it's simply not true in any meaningful way. For anyone making that argument: You may want to come up with something else.

See also "The Middle Path" in the DMG, p. 236-237.

No, that's not really the issue to be honest. Like I said, I find that, in the skill system specifically, if you remove the dice element and simply go with player/DM narration, then the game, for me (and, yes, I'm meaning that this is for me and not a broader judgement in other people's games, specifically for me ) the game becomes ... I'm struggling to find the right word here. "Predictable" is not the right word, but, it's the closest I can come to. As a DM, if I'm narrating instead of relying on the dice, then the story becomes my story. I'm telling the players what happens. There's no surprise for me. I find that the randomization of the dice adds in that element of the unknown. "What happened?" "Well, let's roll the dice and use that to guide the answer." becomes my default approach.

Now, thinking about it a bit more, I wasn't trying to prove people wrong with my little epiphany back there, but, I worded it entirely wrong. So, let me try again.

The base definition we're working from is that all skill checks must have a fail condition or we don't bother making the check, right? Is that a fair way of phrasing it? But, my issue is, not all checks need a fail condition. Like I said, any contest, which is a skill check, does not have a fail condition, only a win condition. You don't stop hiding because someone spotted you, you don't stop arm wrestling because someone is stronger than you and so on.

Which is why some of these examples become somewhat problematic. If there is no fail condition, then relying on a definition which requires fail conditions becomes a problem. I frankly don't see why the forgery example isn't a contest between someone's Forgery Kit Proficiency check and another character's Insight check. There is no fail condition there. You ALWAYS create a forgery. You succeeded. You made a forgery. The quality of that forgery isn't actually set in stone either. Just because you rolled poorly doesn't make it a bad forgery. After all, the other character could roll poorly as well, meaning that the forgery passed inspection.

All that means is that the forgery was good enough at this point in time. It doesn't actually tell us anything about the quality of the forgery. Just that the forgery was good enough to fool that character at that point in time. The forgery doesn't change if a second character looks at it and rolls higher and sees the forgery. Just like if two characters are observing a character using Stealth. If one character fails, and the other succeeds at their Perception check, does that mean that the Stealthing character failed or succeeded on their check? Well, the question is really nonsensical. You cannot fail a Stealth check. Your Stealth check is always a contest between your Stealth check and the other characters' Perception check(s).

((Note, it was mentioned about a character stealthing in a brightly lit empty room. That's not possible since you cannot use Stealth without something to break line of sight. It's not that the character failed a Stealth check, but rather, the character could not have made a Stealth check at all under those conditions))

Anyway, all this is rather rambling. But, my basic point is, there are multiple tools in the DM's belt for adjudicating skill checks. There is not a one size fits all interpretation. "Checks require fail conditions" (or however you want to phrase it) is not always accurate. There are a number of checks that have no fail condition at all (opposed checks) and a number of checks where failure really doesn't have a "setback" condition (Intelligence checks to recall knowledge for example) but probably shouldn't allow for rerolls unless the in game fictional situation changes (the party finds new information, for example, resulting in addition Intelligence checks).

Use the one that best fits the situation that you are in. Dogmatic adherence to any one method will result in problems.

 

[Guest 6801328]

No, that's not really the issue to be honest. Like I said, I find that, in the skill system specifically, if you remove the dice element and simply go with player/DM narration, then the game, for me (and, yes, I'm meaning that this is for me and not a broader judgement in other people's games, specifically for me ) the game becomes ... I'm struggling to find the right word here. "Predictable" is not the right word, but, it's the closest I can come to. As a DM, if I'm narrating instead of relying on the dice, then the story becomes my story. I'm telling the players what happens. There's no surprise for me. I find that the randomization of the dice adds in that element of the unknown. "What happened?" "Well, let's roll the dice and use that to guide the answer." becomes my default approach.

Now, thinking about it a bit more, I wasn't trying to prove people wrong with my little epiphany back there, but, I worded it entirely wrong. So, let me try again.

The base definition we're working from is that all skill checks must have a fail condition or we don't bother making the check, right? Is that a fair way of phrasing it? But, my issue is, not all checks need a fail condition. Like I said, any contest, which is a skill check, does not have a fail condition, only a win condition. You don't stop hiding because someone spotted you, you don't stop arm wrestling because someone is stronger than you and so on.

Which is why some of these examples become somewhat problematic. If there is no fail condition, then relying on a definition which requires fail conditions becomes a problem. I frankly don't see why the forgery example isn't a contest between someone's Forgery Kit Proficiency check and another character's Insight check. There is no fail condition there. You ALWAYS create a forgery. You succeeded. You made a forgery. The quality of that forgery isn't actually set in stone either. Just because you rolled poorly doesn't make it a bad forgery. After all, the other character could roll poorly as well, meaning that the forgery passed inspection.

All that means is that the forgery was good enough at this point in time. It doesn't actually tell us anything about the quality of the forgery. Just that the forgery was good enough to fool that character at that point in time. The forgery doesn't change if a second character looks at it and rolls higher and sees the forgery. Just like if two characters are observing a character using Stealth. If one character fails, and the other succeeds at their Perception check, does that mean that the Stealthing character failed or succeeded on their check? Well, the question is really nonsensical. You cannot fail a Stealth check. Your Stealth check is always a contest between your Stealth check and the other characters' Perception check(s).

((Note, it was mentioned about a character stealthing in a brightly lit empty room. That's not possible since you cannot use Stealth without something to break line of sight. It's not that the character failed a Stealth check, but rather, the character could not have made a Stealth check at all under those conditions))

Anyway, all this is rather rambling. But, my basic point is, there are multiple tools in the DM's belt for adjudicating skill checks. There is not a one size fits all interpretation. "Checks require fail conditions" (or however you want to phrase it) is not always accurate. There are a number of checks that have no fail condition at all (opposed checks) and a number of checks where failure really doesn't have a "setback" condition (Intelligence checks to recall knowledge for example) but probably shouldn't allow for rerolls unless the in game fictional situation changes (the party finds new information, for example, resulting in addition Intelligence checks).

Use the one that best fits the situation that you are in. Dogmatic adherence to any one method will result in problems.

Please excuse the following if it's hard to follow; I'm struggling to put this into clear language.

I think one of the differences may be that you are viewing the "skill check" as the event, or the manifestation of the event or something. I bolded a couple of passages to highlight this, but it's really woven throughout the post. And it comes up in how you analyze contests and fail conditions.

This also relates to the observation I made earlier about the arm wrestling, that your goal was to win the arm wrestling match and your approach was to push hard, whereas Charlaquin's goal was impresssing the onlookers and the approach was to engage in an arm wrestling match.

So I think when you talk about making a forgery or picking a lock or engaging in arm wrestling, those events equate to a game mechanic, namely a skill check.

What I think Charlaquin and iserith and Ovinomancer do, and what I'm trying to get better at doing, is treating those events as just something the characters do, for the purpose of accomplishing a goal. When the success or failure of that attempt will determine which way the story forks, and the outcome is uncertain, you resolve it with a random number generator, biased by the character's abilities. (That is, a skill check with modifiers.)

So in your version, "attempting to stealth" is kind of the goal and approach (and I think you've mocked the division between those two concepts enough times that I think it's fair to assert this, although if you disagree I'd like to hear more). And, so, yeah, I can sorta see how with that framing you could argue that the contested roll only has a success condition, not a fail condition.

But if instead you see the dice roll as adjudicating not whether you stealthed/forged/armwrestled/picked, but rather whether you accomplished your goal (of sneaking past the orc, tricking the guard, impressing the crowd, or opening the door) then clearly a contested check can lead to a fail condition.

In other words, it's not that your dice roll failed, it's that your goal and approach failed.

 

[Hussar]

I'd argue potato potahto.

Did I fail to impress the crown with my arm wrestling? Or did the other character succeed in his or her goal? Or both? Did I fail to sneak past the guard or did the guard spot me? But, the guard didn't have a goal to spot me. I suppose his goal was just to spot anything, so, he succeeded. But, again, what if there are two guards, one spots me and the other doesn't. Did I succeed or fail?

It's easier to see some checks as discrete events. It makes it much simpler to adjudicate.

I mean, you had to change the example to make the arm wrestling example work. ((Which is often why these examples become so problematic)) What if I wanted to win the arm wrestle? My goal is to win that arm wrestling contest? Maybe there is prize money involved or some sort of wager. I'm not there to impress the crowd, or anything else. I'm there, specifically to win that contest.

You addressed @Charlequin's goal, but, failed to address mine.

Now, I totally agree that sometimes the goal:approach methods works great. I can totally see that. My point here is that it's simply one approach among many and it has its flaws. In a situation where partial success is an option, or in a situation where there really isn't a fail state, or in a situation where failure doesn't really carry any additional weight other than just you made no progress, Goal and Approach can become problematic.

Which, frankly, that's why your own examples in this thread have been problematic. You're using the wrong tool for the job.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'd argue potato potahto.

Did I fail to impress the crown with my arm wrestling? Or did the other character succeed in his or her goal? Or both? Did I fail to sneak past the guard or did the guard spot me? But, the guard didn't have a goal to spot me. I suppose his goal was just to spot anything, so, he succeeded. But, again, what if there are two guards, one spots me and the other doesn't. Did I succeed or fail?

I think it's pretty straightforward. If you're trying to sneak in, and you don't, you failed. Anything other than that is just trying to twist words to avoid an obvious conclusion.

It's easier to see some checks as discrete events. It makes it much simpler to adjudicate.

I will definitely grant you that. DMing was easier when I did it this way. And it's easier when I play with a DM who does it this way, too. "I roll Investigation to look for traps....14." "Nope, you didn't find any." As you say, it's simpler.

But, for me, dissatisfying.

I mean, you had to change the example to make the arm wrestling example work.

I did? In what way? I thought I was just contrasting what you and @Charlaquin wrote about it. Did I misrepresent what you said?

((Which is often why these examples become so problematic)) What if I wanted to win the arm wrestle? My goal is to win that arm wrestling contest? Maybe there is prize money involved or some sort of wager. I'm not there to impress the crowd, or anything else. I'm there, specifically to win that contest.

You addressed @Charlequin's goal, but, failed to address mine. [/quote]

As I said above, please explain how. I didn't do that intentionally. I may have misunderstood your goal.

Now, I totally agree that sometimes the goal:approach methods works great. I can totally see that. My point here is that it's simply one approach among many and it has its flaws. In a situation where partial success is an option, or in a situation where there really isn't a fail state, or in a situation where failure doesn't really carry any additional weight other than just you made no progress, Goal and Approach can become problematic.

Yeah, I don't think goal and approach would work for you as the go-to approach. As you said above, you want to win the arm wrestling match for the sake of winning the arm wrestling match. The way you use ability checks is just not going to mix well with goal and approach.

Which, frankly, that's why your own examples in this thread have been problematic. You're using the wrong tool for the job.

Huh? You lost me there. What job are you thinking of? I started this thread specifically looking for examples that seem, figuring that's where the most can be learned. And I've learned a lot in this thread.

The goal wasn't to persuade people who don't want to be persuaded that they should change their playstyle.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You addressed @Charlequin's goal, but, failed to address mine.

Oh, wait, I think I understand. Do you mean that I failed to explain how goal & approach could be used to adjudicate the arm wrestling match in a way that fits with your playstyle?

If so, that was never my goal. I freely admit that your playstyle...as I understand it, anyway...is a bad fit with goal & approach. All I've attempted to do is to show (and also to learn) how an arm wrestling match, or a game at a festival, or a forgery attempt, or whatever could be implemented using goal and approach. But not necessarily with any arbitrary set of playstyle constraints.

When you say that:

Now, I totally agree that sometimes the goal:approach methods works great. I can totally see that. My point here is that it's simply one approach among many and it has its flaws.

I will agree, in the sense that you can't just plop it into your game without possibly also having to change some of the ways you interact with players and how ability checks are used.

If, for example, you really, really like having players make Investigation checks at doors and chests to detect traps, with no telegraphing, and no consequence on a failure, then...sure...goal & approach is not going to work. If you consider that a flaw, then ok it's flawed.