D&D 5E (2014) Consequences of Failure

[Celebrim]

Still having trouble with the new interface.

 

[Celebrim]

A check must necessarily have been a result of an action that was attempted and, because there was a check, then the action that was attempted was not trivially easy or impossible and carried with it a meaningful consequence for failure.

This is the framework in which we're operating.

I'm really wanting to say that this is the framework in which we are all operating, and the only disagreement in the thread at all is over what is "meaningful consequence for failure". However, maybe there is some aspect to this I'm not getting.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, isn't that what the book says to do? Roll check then hold it?

Not that I’m aware of. It says to make a Dexterity (Stealth) check when you attempt to conceal yourself from enemies, slink past guards, slip away without being noticed, or sneak up on someone without being seen or heard, and it says that until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence. But I’m not aware of anything that says to make the check when there are no enemies from which to hide and to hold onto that result until there are.

 

[iserith]

I'm really wanting to say that this is the framework in which we are all operating, and the only disagreement in the thread at all is over what is "meaningful consequence for failure". However, maybe there is some aspect to this I'm not getting.

There are a handful of folks frequently in these discussions that implicitly or explicitly treat actions and checks as the same. I would like to chalk it up to imprecision in their choice of words, but frequently their conclusions and assertions can only be arrived at by holding that presupposition.

As for disagreeing over what is or isn't a meaningful consequence for failure, it's kind of a pointless debate without all the specifics of the context in play which is impossible to account for in these discussions. Examples have proven to be problematic as the details of the example are obsessively focused on to the exclusion of the point the example is supposed to make. In actual play, whether failure is meaningful and thus pointing toward there needing to be a check is obvious. But depending on the game, those circumstances may be very infrequent, meaning that most attempts to recall lore just succeed or fail without a roll.

And anyway what is or isn't meaningful is also entirely up to the DM so it will just vary and we're going to have to make peace with that. If someone wants to say that an attempt to recall lore always has a meaningful consequence for failure, well, that's their call. It's not the call I'd make, but there's little hope of convincing them otherwise as I see it. That is especially true if they view actions and checks as the same or have a mindset where they want to see more rolls in the game in general, perhaps because they think this rewards player investment in skill proficiencies or combats "metagaming."

 

[iserith]

Not that I’m aware of. It says to make a Dexterity (Stealth) check when you attempt to conceal yourself from enemies, slink past guards, slip away without being noticed, or sneak up on someone without being seen or heard, and it says that you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence. But I’m not aware of anything that says to make the check when there are no enemies from which to hide and to hold onto that result until there are.

I certainly don't have the whole book memorized, just the parts we're always arguing over. So I'd really be interested to see if there is support for the assertion to which you're responding. I don't think there is and I'd be really surprised if I was wrong.

 

[Charlaquin]

I certainly don't have the whole book memorized, just the parts we're always arguing over. So I'd really be interested to see if there is support for the assertion to which you're responding. I don't think there is and I'd be really surprised if I was wrong.

I would be too, in part because the rules say so little about Stealth at all. I think the big about the result of your check being used to contest Wisdom (Perception) checks until you stop hiding or are detected, and the later bit about how Stealth interacts with passive Perception are where people get the idea from that they should just make the check right away and keep the result for when it becomes relevant.

 

[Guest 6801328]

As for disagreeing over what is or isn't a meaningful consequence for failure, it's kind of a pointless debate without all the specifics of the context in play which is impossible to account for in these discussions. Examples have proven to be problematic as the details of the example are obsessively focused on to the exclusion of the point the example is supposed to make.

Aye, there's the rub.

Among those who want to have a discussion about how to implement this methodology, imperfect examples, warts and all, are great for stimulating that discussion. But observers looking to pick apart the premises can then use those examples to, well, pick apart the premise.

And anyway what is or isn't meaningful is also entirely up to the DM so it will just vary and we're going to have to make peace with that. If someone wants to say that an attempt to recall lore always has a meaningful consequence for failure, well, that's their call. It's not the call I'd make, but there's little hope of convincing them otherwise as I see it. That is especially true if they view actions and checks as the same or have a mindset where they want to see more rolls in the game in general, perhaps because they think this rewards player investment in skill proficiencies or combats "metagaming."

Bullseye.

I'm personally interested in consequences that might cause the player to weigh whether or not they really want to take the proposed action. And "well you won't get to do it again" doesn't trigger that consideration, at least not without further conditions (such as the fluctuating DC mentioned above). Unless I'm missing something.

 

[Celebrim]

@iserith Unfortunately, that clarified nothing. I'm not sure you attempted to answer any of my questions.

I don't know who these handful of folks are, but generally I find that there are differences in play styles based on proposition filters. That is, I know for a fact that some tables would validate propositions like:

"I try to persuade the Baron to lend us troops." or "I try to use my diplomacy to persuade the Baron to lend us troops."

But it is not at all clear to me that the difference in processes of play between the two tables comes down to failing to understand that actions and checks are not the same thing. On the contrary, these posters prefer to validate those sort of propositions because they suggest that to not do so would risk suggesting a that an uncharismatic player could not play a charismatic character. And in any event, given how rigorously my proposition filter excludes check declaration as a valid proposition, that can't be the source of my confusion.

As for disagreeing over what is or isn't a meaningful consequence for failure, it's kind of a pointless debate without all the specifics of the context in play which is impossible to account for in these discussions.

It doesn't seem that problematic to me. For example, I've raised a very simple question which has repeatedly been ignored. I will now phrase that question in the terms of a very simple example that harkens back to the OP's first post.

Suppose we have a sleeping orc guarding a pie, and a single adventurer. The adventurer's player proposes the action, "I quietly sneak over to the orc, so that I can kill the orc in its sleep." This to me represents a valid proposition. The exact resolution method - how the check works - isn't relevant to the point. The point is that the player has proposed something in the fiction which it is believable for the character to attempt. However, suppose now that the GM determines that the orc is a light sleeper or that otherwise, there is a chance of failure. The GM then calls for a fortune test (the details of which don't matter) to arbitrate between what the GM seems as two possible outcomes to the risky proposition.

A: The player successfully sneaks up to the orc and finishes him off in his sleep.
B: The player makes some noise that wakes the orc, and a difficult and noisy fight ensues.

Several posters in the thread, including myself, have argued that outcome B represents sufficient consequence of failure because outcome A is far more desirable.

But @Elfcrusher in his original post makes the objection that if the player didn't attempt stealth at all, that option B would happen anyway, and as such seems to imply in the post that since the failure mode of the check is the same as no check that there is some more desirable way where there is some unknown option C that is worse than not attempting stealth at all. He wants to know what that more desirable way is.

But again, it seems clear to me that option B is much less preferable to option A, nor are there grounds for punishing a player for attempting to be stealthy compared to not attempting to be stealthy. Even if we advance the argument that option B maintains the status quo and as such there is "no consequences to failure", the fact is that option A does not maintain the status quo. As such, there is a meaningful consequence to success that would be forgone under failure. Not attempting stealth is in this situation in some sense like choosing to fail (perhaps the plate clad warrior knows he's not good enough at stealth to bother), but we don't in the general case say that there is no consequence to failure just because theoretically a character could choose to fail.

And anyway what is or isn't meaningful is also entirely up to the DM...

Wait? What?? Are you suggesting that it's entirely subjective what constitutes a meaningful consequence of failure? And you are suggesting this in the context of a proposition filter that requires the player to state a goal? I don't think that's a sustainable position at all. If the player has stated a goal, it's darn tooting obvious what a meaningful consequence of failure is, and not at all subjective.

Now, in theory the player could state an action which though risky (or doubtful?) does not advance the players larger scenario goal in anyway - investigating a dead end of some sort, either literally or figuratively - and as such even if the player obtains the goal it ultimately doesn't matter in the long run, but that's not quite the same thing and in any event as it pertains to this particular proposition it is still objectively clear what meaningful failure looks like.

 

[Charlaquin]

I see that as a big problem, in that it's giving the players info their characters don't know and then expecting them to play as if they don't know it.

Any time they say they're being stealthy, get 'em to roll - if the roll isn't needed right then, either take it under advisement for later if-when it is or tell them that the first bit of sneaking has gone [badly-normal-well] based on the roll.

In general, meaningless rolls are important because they help disguise the rolls that actually matter, and thus prevent (or greatly mitigate) any metagaming.

Yeah, I used to feel this way too. Then I read some very good DMing advice and decided to try just not worrying about metagaming. And not only did it not ruin the game, it actually improved it quite a bit, because we were no longer wasting time on meaningless rolls made only to disguise which rolls were important. Players acted with more confidence because they were empowered to make informed decisions. I was able to stop fretting over when it was or wasn’t appropriate to tell a player that their character believed something spurious or didn’t know something that’s common player knowledge. Now I look back and I can’t figure out what I was afraid would happen if players acted on out of character knowledge. Literally only good things came from letting it go.

 

[Umbran]

I don't think I "proposed" that methodology. It's been discussed many times prior to this.

In the sense that you brought it up in the OP as the thing to be discussed. You set up the initial parameters - you proposed people could talk about this thing. Yeah, in the history of the universe, you didn't come up with it, but in the history of this thread, it comes form you.

That's not a definition, it's the proposed goal in this thread. Rolls can be meaningful if success leads to a change in game state, even if failure does not. But that's not what I wanted to discuss.

You've noted several times things to the effect of "that's not what this thread is about."

You do realize... you don't really get editorial control over conversation in that way, right? We don't support thread ownership in that sense. You write a thing, and folks are welcome to discuss whatever aspect of it they want.

If your approach didn't specifically inspire them to discuss in the direction you wanted... that's not anyone else's fault. I would suggest, in the future, a far shorter and tighter declaration of intent at the start if you have specific desires.