D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Guest 6801328]

Although I'm a fervent convert to the goal-and-approach way, I'll admit that years of ingrained (calcified?) gaming habits sometimes makes it hard to implement in the heat of the moment. I still occasionally revert to my old DMing habits. "Um....gimme a Perception check?" I'm just the disciple, not the master, so I'm starting this discussion more to get advice than to impart wisdom. So for those who want to play this way, let's talk about how to do it, especially how to always incorporate a "meaningful consequence of failure."

For those who don't want to play this way, I'm really going to try to restrain from arguing with you about it in this thread, but derail away! I'm going to do my best to interpret any question as a genuine inquiry.

I'll start with a medium-hard one: stealth. (I do also want to discuss the "Do I know about X?" scenario, too. That's a tougher one.)

One question that might arise is whether failing a stealth check, and thus failing to hide, really counts as a consequence. Isn't that the same outcome as not rolling at all? It might be if you think of it as "failing a die roll" instead of "failing at a task." But if the player attempts something with consequence, and fails, they are worse off than if they hadn't attempted it. E.g., if the player takes a risk by trying to sneak past the dragon, then the failure state is alerting (or moving a step closer to alerting) the dragon. The player could have said, "$%@# the dragon! I'm not going in there!"

So I think a key feature is that the player has to actively / knowingly undertake a task with risk. If the party hears something coming and they say, "Let's all hide!" my instinct would be to say "Ok, let's have stealth checks." But in this case the failure state IS the same as not doing anything.

Maybe take an (approximate) average of "passive Stealth" in the party, and then compare to the monster's passive perception? (Or you could have the monster roll Perception...which raises the whole question of whether the "consequence of failure" principle applies to NPCs.)

Alternatively, does this need to be resolved by comparing die rolls or passives at all? What about simply choosing an outcome based on the story. E.g.:

• The monster comes close enough to give a scare, but sees nothing, however the party gains some clue/information relevant to the adventure.
• Make it clear the monster is ABOUT to discover them because there isn't really anything to hide behind, and give them a chance to think of a plan. E.g. trying to distract/mislead it. That plan might involve risk.

What would YOU do in this case?

 

[Celebrim]

Lol.

I'm not laughing at you, but rather I'm amused by the fact that you are in the process of discovering the answer but you think that you haven't because the answer doesn't look like what you were told to expect.

I'd stop worrying about theory and just run a good game.

Look, in the case of stealth it's not the consequence of failure that is meaningful, but the consequence of success. Sure, failure is the same as not doing anything at all, but success is success and gains you a meaningful advantage in the challenge.

This is the problem with theory: it tries to put everything in a nice neat box and forces everything to fit to the box. But this is reverse of what you want to do. What you actually want to do is get tools out of the box and make them fit to everything. That is to say, your process of play should feel like it naturally arises out of the needs of the moment and generates play that reasonably seems to proceed from the fiction. Whether there are meaningful consequences of failure at every step doesn't really matter. What matters is that the consequences of success or failure seem to flow naturally from what the players are envisioning in their heads.

"What about simply choosing an outcome based on the story." indeed.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Lol.

I'm not laughing at you, but rather I'm amused by the fact that you are in the process of discovering the answer but you think that you haven't because the answer doesn't look like what you were told to expect.

Deep breath.

I'm glad you are amused by your assumption about what I think, and that you think it is a fact not a (mis)assumption. Amusement is a positive thing, and I'm happy to do my part spreading it.

I'd stop worrying about theory and just run a good game.

Look, in the case of stealth it's not the consequence of failure that is meaningful, but the consequence of success. Sure, failure is the same as not doing anything at all, but success is success and gains you a meaningful advantage in the challenge.

This is the problem with theory: it tries to put everything in a nice neat box and forces everything to fit to the box. But this is reverse of what you want to do. What you actually want to do is get tools out of the box and make them fit to everything. That is to say, your process of play should feel like it naturally arises out of the needs of the moment and generates play that reasonably seems to proceed from the fiction. Whether there are meaningful consequences of failure at every step doesn't really matter. What matters is that the consequences of success or failure seem to flow naturally from what the players are envisioning in their heads.

"What about simply choosing an outcome based on the story." indeed.

Hmm. I suspect you're misunderstanding my motivation. I'm not "worrying about the theory" and trying to comply with it for the sake of being a hipster. Rather, I've been noticing two things:

1. When "goal and approach" unfolds well, it's really fun. Players like weighing the risk*, and everybody at the table is interested in the outcome of the roll.
2. When I don't do it well, it just feels...like a board-game. I've really become aware at how uninteresting most dice rolls are. "I'll check the door for traps." "Ok, give me an Investigation check." Blech.

I'm trying to get better at turning the #2's into the #1's.

*EDIT: And coming up with plans/solutions.

 

[Charlaquin]

So, one thing I’ve noticed about Stealth is that most DMs handle it in a way they don’t handle any other action - they have the player make the check long before any potential consequences are in play. Usually, what do you do when a player says they’re scouting ahead stealthily? I’d wager most folks would answer that they have the player make a Stealth check then and there, and the result becomes the DC for any Perception checks (rolled or passive) that hostile creatures make to find them.

I would argue that this is not consistent with Goal and Approach action resolution. If there are no hostile creatures present when the player says they are scouting ahead stealthily, there is no possibility of failure, and no consequence for failure (and if there are hidden creatures watching, there is no possibility of success).

What I do instead, is I have the player succeed at hiding themselves without a roll. Then later. once they are in enemy territory and there is a real possibility and risk of them being detected, that’s when they might need to make a check. Give the player some narration that equates to the red exclamation point above the NPC’s head in Metal Gear, then ask “what do you do?” and resolve the action then, when it’s relevant, instead of pre-rolling that Stealth check.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Here's another one I've been thinking about:

You're in a room where you want to find something. Maybe it's a library and you need to find a book. And there's time pressure: the guards could come in at any moment. So the players state: "We each take a section, and look through the books as fast as we can, looking for anything that (meets the criteria)."

The way I would typically handle this is to ask for Investigation rolls, and you fail (or everybody fails) then you don't find the book before the guards come.

But....

Failing the roll leaves you in the same state: either way you don't have the book.

 

[Guest 6801328]

So, one thing I’ve noticed about Stealth is that most DMs handle it in a way they don’t handle any other action - they have the player make the check long before any potential consequences are in play. Usually, what do you do when a player says they’re scouting ahead stealthily? I’d wager most folks would answer that they have the player make a Stealth check then and there, and the result becomes the DC for any Perception checks (rolled or passive) that hostile creatures make to find them.

I would argue that this is not consistent with Goal and Approa

Yeah. I very much agree with this.

My preference...although again I sometimes forget to present it this way...is "Ok, you are sneaking through the palace..." and then give them a situation to handle. For example: "All is going well, until you find yourself in a long corridor, with suits of armor in niches along one wall, stained glass windows on the other, and you see lantern light approaching the intersection ahead. At the same moment, you hear heavy footsteps approaching from behind."

How do you handle it?

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah. I very much agree with this.

My preference...although again I sometimes forget to present it this way...is "Ok, you are sneaking through the palace..." and then give them a situation to handle. For example: "All is going well, until you find yourself in a long corridor, with suits of armor in niches along one wall, stained glass windows on the other, and you see lantern light approaching the intersection ahead. At the same moment, you hear heavy footsteps approaching from behind."

How do you handle it?

Yeah, I do the same, I just accidentally hit post reply before I had finished writing my comment

 

[iserith]

There's this thing DMs a lot in my experience do where if a player describes an action that seems like it fits categorically with a skill proficiency, they reflexively call for an ability check without considering the situation. Oh you're trying to hide? Stealth check! Never mind that there's nobody even there to notice you in the first place. Oh you're lying? Deception check! Even if the credulous NPC has no good reason to suspect you're lying. It doesn't help that many players push to make ability checks without being reasonably specific what they want to do and hope to achieve. It reinforces the DM's behavior in this regard.

If you can prevent yourself from doing that and encourage your players to be reasonably specific as to their goal and approach without asking to make checks, you're almost all the way there. I'll add more later perhaps afters others have had a chance to respond.

 

[Charlaquin]

Here's another one I've been thinking about:

You're in a room where you want to find something. Maybe it's a library and you need to find a book. And there's time pressure: the guards could come in at any moment. So the players state: "We each take a section, and look through the books as fast as we can, looking for anything that (meets the criteria)."

The way I would typically handle this is to ask for Investigation rolls, and you fail (or everybody fails) then you don't find the book before the guards come.

But....

Failing the roll leaves you in the same state: either way you don't have the book.

I think that’s still a meaningful consequence, because you’ve spent that time without gaining anything. You’re not in the same state - you have expended a precious resource (time) and gained nothing. Same as firing an arrow from a bow and missing.

This is why I prefer to say “meaningful cost for the attempt or consequence for failure” rather than just “cost or consequence for failure.” It hi-lights the fact that no change in your situation can still be a meaningful consequence, if affecting that lack of change cost you something valuable.

 

[Celebrim]

@Elfcrusher

Grr. New interface issues.

Yes, I know I'm frustrating but you really are over thinking this and heading down to dead end. You are wrong about what I assume your motivation to be. I assume you are trying laudably, to be a better GM.

And there really is a nugget of truth that is very important to be found things like ""goal and approach" and I'm glad that it is helping you develop your game.

But it's not a straightjacket, and the real underlying issue is good encounter design.

But ok, let's look at your scenario where the bugbear hears the party and they decide to hide. You are suggesting that since the consequence of failure is that they are seen and now have to deal with the bugbear, that this is the same as doing nothing. And that is one of the several ways your wrong about this. Because the consequences of failure of that plan is that the didn't try a different plan. Hearing the bugbear coming down the corridor, they could have tried, "We all get out our bows and ready to shoot whatever it is that is coming down the corridor." And that plan puts them in a better position than having gone off to hide and failed. Moreover, that plan has meaningful consequences of failure that potentially have nothing to do with dice rolls, like if the thing that comes around the corner isn't a bugbear, but the princess they've been trying to rescue.

Consider the problem of checking the door for traps and an investigation roll. It's not fun. But it also doesn't take up much time at the table. The question I would have is why are the players checking for traps in the first place? If it is a main thorough fare in the bugbears lair, it probably doesn't have a death trap on it, and if you have put a death trap on it, then you've got an encounter design issue - you've just described something to the player's that strongly suggests no traps. So if you have players checking for traps where the chances of a trap is really small, then you're not setting up scenarios well. On the other hand, if this looks to be some sealed treasure vault, now the check for traps thing might be part of an meaningful scenario. Not finding the trap leaves the player without an important clue about how to get the door open safely.

But what's important here is not the mechanical approach to the process of play, but that the whole room leading to a trap and the trap itself be engaging. A good trap should be engaging, and when sprung get the party involved. I'm not a fan of traps that are just big blobs of damage that maybe at most inflict some amount of attrition on the party. Traps that are just that tend to be grindy and boring, and in your terminology tend to not lead to "goal and approach" play. But traps that place party members in ongoing jeopardy do tend to lead to what you call "goal and approach" play.