D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Guest 6801328]

Well, see but in the case of bike paths vs downhilling, there may be abpn actual difference in challenge due to it being steeper and requiring more effort. There may be added gain and value in it over bike paths.

But if you were say "I am leading a group of casual bikers weekly through some trails and... " then you go into the downhills, that's a whole different animal. Is your downhill challenge better for the group?

See, the case here is you are talking like its raising the bar, but there doesn't seem to show sanyway it's a higher bar, just one with more trouble.

I mean, sure, I can choose to swim laps covered in molasses wearing golashes and a fedora but it's just causing problems for no gain.

I can tell the other swimmers all about how much higher a bar it us, but if these problems impact them... should they care about my bsr?

And what if I said, "Hey, I've found that swimming in molasses while wearing galoshes is really fun. Anybody want to discuss how to do that more effectively?" Would you spend the thread trying to persuade me to stop?

 

[Charlaquin]

Oh, I just realized I read iserith backwards: I thought it was that the player gets to choose the ability, not the proficiency. Interesting. I need to digest this.

I’m working on a custom character sheet for newcomers to my table that actually walks you through this process, as well as my process for handling personally traits, ideals, bonds and flaws. I think you might like it. I’ll post it here when I finish, which should be before the end of the week.

 

[Celebrim]

What’s not such a meaningful cost/consequence is when you fail to find whatever you’re searching for and the only penalty is that you don’t find it until you try again and roll better. Or failing to pick the lock and the only penalty is that the door remains locked until you try again and roll better. Now, if the time it takes to try again brings you that much closer to the completion of the evil ritual, or the next roll for random encounters, that’s a different story.

I think there is a lot more agreement in this thread between everyone than you might at first thing.

If in fact they will eventually find the thing if they search long enough, and they state that they intend as a methodology to do a thorough search, then there is no need to make a roll for the search. They eventually find the thing. No roll needed. Likewise, if they will eventually pick the lock if they try long enough, and they state the intention to keep trying until they succeed, there is no need to make any rolls. They simply open the lock.

None of that is I think controversial.

However, one approach that I tend to find coming up a lot in threads like this is that, if the player proposes to pick a long, then to make that lock picking meaningful, the GM needs to on the fly invent an evil ritual that is happening or invent a guard that might be coming along, so that you have immediate impactful stakes and a dramatic situation that makes this proposed act of picking the lock have a meaningful consequence of failure.

And I'm suggesting that in the long run, that's a bad idea. Just get through the lock or the search quickly and on to what is meaningful. There is no need to make everything have dramatic stakes, and at some point there is little difference between trying to make everything have dramatic stakes and antagonistic DMing or railroading.

 

[5ekyu]

- emphasis added

Isn't "no progress" exactly the result Oofta is suggesting might come up?

I was providing the location and the reference.

Sometimes by the rules a failed ability check simply means "no progress" as in nothing gained. They acknowledge both the case where you get nowhere and you get some but not all with setbacks.

That allows for maybe just not knowing.

 

[Oofta]

Just seems like a waste of time to me if that’s the only penalty. If the only penalty is that you don’t get the information, who cares? Just try again. If there’s something stopping you from trying again (including the DM ruling that you can’t retry with the same skill), then not getting the information wasn’t really the only penalty.


See, I would argue that all of these examples satisfy the requirement of a cost or consequence. Missing your Attack cost you your action (or a fraction of it if you have Extra Attack.) Failing to detect the lie means you might believe something that isn’t true. Getting noticed while trying to be stealthy usually leaves you in a dangerous situation. All of these things are meaningful costs/consequences for failure. What’s not such a meaningful cost/consequence is when you fail to find whatever you’re searching for and the only penalty is that you don’t find it until you try again and roll better. Or failing to pick the lock and the only penalty is that the door remains locked until you try again and roll better. Now, if the time it takes to try again brings you that much closer to the completion of the evil ritual, or the next roll for random encounters, that’s a different story.

What makes you think the PC could make the history check again? As far as picking the lock or similar, if there is no chance to jam the lock and no time pressure there is no reason to ask for a check.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think there is a lot more agreement in this thread between everyone than you might at first thing.

If in fact they will eventually find the thing if they search long enough, and they state that they intend as a methodology to do a thorough search, then there is no need to make a roll for the search. They eventually find the thing. No roll needed. Likewise, if they will eventually pick the lock if they try long enough, and they state the intention to keep trying until they succeed, there is no need to make any rolls. They simply open the lock.

None of that is I think controversial.

However, one approach that I tend to find coming up a lot in threads like this is that, if the player proposes to pick a long, then to make that lock picking meaningful, the GM needs to on the fly invent an evil ritual that is happening or invent a guard that might be coming along, so that you have immediate impactful stakes and a dramatic situation that makes this proposed act of picking the lock have a meaningful consequence of failure.

Here’s the thing, though: has anyone here actually said they would do that? Or are you making a pre-emptive argument against a poor DMing practice you assume someone else is employing?

 

[5ekyu]

You can rely on roleplaying for this, but in general I'd prefer the check be structured in a way that can result in the player (not just the character) getting bad information. And the problem with that is that it depends on the DMs acting ability or poker face or whatever.

The progress with setback option allows for instance to give a failed check the info that he is being deceitful but pointing to the wrong bit. That leads to potentially the wrong direction chosen.

Ability checks are st their most basic phb definition trinary - three broad options to choose from depending on the roll.

 

[Oofta]

I would distinguish between boredom with the old way, and challenge of consistently using a different (and I think better) way.

You and Oofta both made an argument like, which I find puzzling. If this were, say, a forum on mountain biking, and I said, "I got bored riding on bike paths, and I'm trying to get into downhilling, but I'm having trouble with the big drops..." I would be surprised by the response, "Then why don't you just stick with bike paths?"

I like challenges, and getting better at hard things.

I'll go back to the history check. I outlined a real cost to not remembering the history of the McGuffin. I guess I'm not sure why you're being so dismissive because of the nature of the cost. No, it's not immediate but it is a cost. It's a cost of time if there's a race against the clock, it's a potential combat encounter or monetary penalty depending on Jimmy's mood.

Let's say I'm trying to remember how to get to the local tavern. I try to remember the shortest route and forget that I can just go left at the next corner and get there in 5 minutes. Instead I take the long route and it takes 25 minutes. I miss happy hour in addition to spending an additional 20 minutes walking I didn't need to. If my memory is bad enough I might end up at a healthy juice bar (possibly a fate worse than death) instead of the tavern.

So for sake of argument if I want there to be an explicit penalty for a failed knowledge check then that penalty does not have to be immediate to be significant.

 

[5ekyu]

And what if I said, "Hey, I've found that swimming in molasses while wearing galoshes is really fun. Anybody want to discuss how to do that more effectively?" Would you spend the thread trying to persuade me to stop?

If it was done with a gtoup snd causing problems, I would point out that issue.

Do you feel my one post where I offered advice of dont do that "spending the thread"?

 

[Charlaquin]

What makes you think the PC could make the history check again?

Because there’s nothing stopping you from doing so (unless the DM decides there is). Personally, I don’t like it when the only reason you can’t try something again is because the DM says so, so I handle the history check the same way as the unjammable lock with no time pressure. If it’s something the PC could know with a high enough roll, they succeed. If it’s not, they fail.

As far as picking the lock or similar, if there is no chance to jam the lock and no time pressure there is no reason to ask for a check.

I agree, and this is precisely what is meant by those of us who say a task must have a cost or consequence for failure to require a check.