D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Ovinomancer]

Agreed. I like that the player has offered up some interesting backstory that may be useful later, but I just can't see the reason for an ability check here. I'll just provide more information.

Sure. I see a strong version of the player's action where he just asserts these stones are like the ones back home and that he's activating them according to the rituals he's observed. While this still runs into the player introduced fiction problem (and 5e's lack of tools to really address it*), it's a much more clearly defined action that can have more obvious downsides (the stones aren't like back home and you've done something bad, you've messed up the ritual and something bad happens, you've started the ritual but something's off and you better figure it out right now or something bad happens, etc.).

I kinda feel like this play looks more like other games that encourage player-side fiction propositions that the mechanics then test to see if they're true or not.

*I say this because 5e really focuses on altering odds through bonuses and have mechanics like seeking advantage that can really sway the likelihood of success. Also, the DM's tool of DC adjudication is a bit off for setting a DC on if something is true or not, so the tools on the DM side are weak as well. Most games that favor player-side fiction introduction use a mechanical system that has relatively fixed success/fail odds for everything and strong player-side tools to mitigate failures. This lets the DM really push hard on failures and introduce more tension into play by thwarting player propositions to the fiction and introducing negative aspects because the players can mitigate them. In D&D, the closest similar tool is really the hitpoint.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

In effect, this scenario is presenting a fiction to the players with no information about what's expected or what's possible and asking them to either ask you questions about it to find out or do things blindly. This is a poor formulation from a number of angles, especially since you establish that even the DM doesn't know what they stone are or what they do.

The link was about the caretakers (hint: they’re the Druids that Nigel talks about in Spinal Tap), not the stones. But the point you raise is a good one: there really isn’t enough info here for the players.

We have a vague situation that we're asking the players to negotiate. In other games, like a PbtA game, this would be okay, because the players have a lot of ways to introduce new fiction and the mechanics of those systems work well with that. But, that's lacking in 5e. Still, that's essentially what you have the player's ask do -- create new fiction.

The player's declaration is actually both complex and just asking the DM to narrate more. It's complex in that it has a buried proposition to create new fictions -- that these stones are like the stones back home. This is problematical in 5e because there's no mechanical way to do this and, in effect, the player is asking the DM to add this to the game. The adjudication of this is DM whim. So, once we've negotiated past the part where the DM decides if it's permissible for these stones to be like the ones back home, we get to the basic part where the player is now asking the DM to narrate to the player the fiction of these stones, which are now like back home, that the DM elected NOT to do prior to this (didn't know, didn't want to say, eh). The premise of the question is that the DM now decides that receiving this narration is uncertain, and has a cost for failure, and so calls for a check. Only, this check is difficult to parse because we've missed that it is just an ask for more DM narration and that there's nothing at risk here except that DM deciding that these stones aren't like back home, but, again, 5e lacks a strong mechanical use case for this kind of determination.

So, essentially, this entire though experiment boils down to the DM failing to preset a complete scene, forcing the players to ask both for new fiction and for the DM to narrate the scene more, This leads to confusion because it's assumed that the player's ask should be gated behind a check. We're asked to identify a possible failure case for this check, which is precisely backwards -- you should know this before asking for the check.

I see no check necessary here to ask the DM if the player's backstory can please be relevant to the not-fully-developed scene presented -- this is entirely up to the DM.

Good stuff. No objection to this analysis.

Let’s try a permutation with more detail:

During wilderness exploration, the party stumbles upon a grove of eleven standing stones with weathered runes upon them, the caretakers having long abandoned the site. No one knows who they (the caretakers) were, or what they were doing. The forest has been quite ordinary up to now, but the grove seems strangely a bit darker than the understory from whence the party emerged. Some of the stones are stained, perhaps from exposure. Hearty, thorny vines surround the bottom of each stone. Now one of the PCs harkens back to wandering the woods behind the family farm (part of a pre-established backstory)... "I approach one of the standing stones to examine, visually at first, the runes and compare them against what I remember of the stones behind our family farm where the green robed humanoids chanted but always kept their distance when we wandered nearby."

Ability check? No check? Make up your own failure condition, if need be. I’ve got one in mind based on the telegraphing in the description. But maybe still more detail is needed?

 

[Ovinomancer]

The link was about the caretakers (hint: they’re the Druids that Nigel talks about in Spinal Tap), not the stones. But the point you raise is a good one: there really isn’t enough info here for the players.



Good stuff. No objection to this analysis.

Let’s try a permutation with more detail:

During wilderness exploration, the party stumbles upon a grove of eleven standing stones with weathered runes upon them, the caretakers having long abandoned the site. No one knows who they (the caretakers) were, or what they were doing. The forest has been quite ordinary up to now, but the grove seems strangely a bit darker than the understory from whence the party emerged. Some of the stones are stained, perhaps from exposure. Hearty, thorny vines surround the bottom of each stone. Now one of the PCs harkens back to wandering the woods behind the family farm (part of a pre-established backstory)... "I approach one of the standing stones to examine, visually at first, the runes and compare them against what I remember of the stones behind our family farm where the green robed humanoids chanted but always kept their distance when we wandered nearby."

Ability check? No check? Make up your own failure condition, if need be. I’ve got one in mind based on the telegraphing in the description. But maybe still more detail is needed?

Personally, you're running into my dislike of the players asking the DM if they can know something. This is a personal hangup, though, and largely due to the fact that it's very difficult to come up with failure states that actually change the fiction. "You don't know" is a status quo answer that doesn't change the fiction -- the player didn't now before and now they don't know still. Sure, there's the establishing in the fiction that the character doesn't know, but that's not an especially effective change in the fiction. Then there's my personal opinion that more information is always better -- if my scenario hinges on the PCs not knowing something I've not done my (IMO) job as DM.

Instead, here, it looks like any interaction with the stones might trigger an encounter. That's fair, but then there's nothing special about the player's declared action -- not harkening back to your memories can trigger the encounter as well. This works, okay, but it feels kludgey, as if the scenario is set up so that the GM can justify a consequence to a player ask for more information.

I suppose if I had to establish something in this vein, I'd allow the player a check -- success means that these stones are like back home, but corrupted, and the player has a viable course of action to correct it by performing one of the rituals they observed to purify the site. On a failure, though, these stones are different -- still corrupt you figure, but you've no good idea how to cleanse it. In both cases, I'd set up an imminent encounter that I'd reveal now. In the success case, the PCs have options to try to cleanse the stones and halt the encounter (or mitigate it), in the fail case, the PCs can prepare a moment, but the bad is coming anyway. Or, in either, they might surprise me. Oh, the joys of the discrete packets of chaos called players.

EDIT: I misspelled imminent. I know my posts are littered with typos -- I haven't had much time lately to post at leisure or have had a lot to say quickly -- but this one, this one bothered me enough to edit. I think because I know immanent is a different word, so the difference stands out for me.

 

[iserith]

I feel like this example is presented as if I'm the player and then I'm asked to adjudicate the proposed action as DM without knowing anything about what's really going on with those stones. What does my prep say?

 

[Lanefan]

Honestly, given the action described, I don’t really see one, other than not recognizing the runes, which isn’t really a meaningful consequence in my evaluation. As mentioned before, I think this action would probably succeed or fail without a check. I suppose, if there is time pressure - maybe there is an upcoming great conjunction and the PCs need to perform a special ritual at these standing stones at the appropriate time to prevent Cthulhu from waking up or whatever - then the time it takes to study theses runes in the way described might be a sufficient cost for the attempt, and the consequence for failure would be spending that resource without making progress.

Can I raise a practical question at this point?

Why can't a consequence of failure be that the PCs miss a clue that would make their ongoing task (whatever it may be) considerably easier than it'll now otherwise be? The thing is, this consequence will not be apparent right now, and - depending how things play out down the road - may never be. Doesn't make it any less significant.

And for me, anything like remembering the stones and-or their significance would require a check of some sort. Deciphering the runes would require at least one of: a) someone in the party to be literate in that language, or b) a Thief to succeed on a Read Languages roll (in 1e), or c) someone to cast Comprehend Language.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Can I raise a practical question at this point?

Why can't a consequence of failure be that the PCs miss a clue that would make their ongoing task (whatever it may be) considerably easier than it'll now otherwise be? The thing is, this consequence will not be apparent right now, and - depending how things play out down the road - may never be. Doesn't make it any less significant.

And for me, anything like remembering the stones and-or their significance would require a check of some sort. Deciphering the runes would require at least one of: a) someone in the party to be literate in that language, or b) a Thief to succeed on a Read Languages roll (in 1e), or c) someone to cast Comprehend Language.

How is this different from not asking, though? That's my hangup -- if the consequence is "you don't know" then this is just furthering the status quo; it's not a consequential change to the fiction.

 

[pemerton]

This thread has gotten way too theoretical. In a staring-at-one's-navel kind of way.

Well, on the practical side: you asked a question about resolving consequences in the context of tying up prisoners. I posted, and then re-pointed you to, an actual play example of resolving a situation of that sort. Do you have any views on that?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, on the practical side: you asked a question about resolving consequences in the context of tying up prisoners. I posted, and then re-pointed you to, an actual play example of resolving a situation of that sort. Do you have any views on that?

Also on the practical side, he did ask that question in the context of playing 5e and using a specific approach to adjuducating actions in 5e. You posted an example from a different game. I'm not sure @Elfcrusher is on the hook to discuss.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Personally, you're running into my dislike of the players asking the DM if they can know something. This is a personal hangup, though, and largely due to the fact that it's very difficult to come up with failure states that actually change the fiction. "You don't know" is a status quo answer that doesn't change the fiction -- the player didn't now before and now they don't know still. Sure, there's the establishing in the fiction that the character doesn't know, but that's not an especially effective change in the fiction. Then there's my personal opinion that more information is always better -- if my scenario hinges on the PCs not knowing something I've not done my (IMO) job as DM.

Fair enough, but for "knowledge checks" do you just auto-succeed or auto-fail and move on in your game? I'm trying to get at a case where there might be a meaningful consequence for failure and hence a call for a roll. And, I agree, "You don't know" is not meaningful and falls flat after a roll.

Instead, here, it looks like any interaction with the stones might trigger an encounter. That's fair, but then there's nothing special about the player's declared action -- not harkening back to your memories can trigger the encounter as well. This works, okay, but it feels kludgey, as if the scenario is set up so that the GM can justify a consequence to a player ask for more information.

Then what is special about any player's declared action? Many actions will result in the same outcome. (e.g. a pit trapped hallway - the PC could trigger the pit trap by running down the hallway, crawling down the hallway, forcing the NPC captive to walk down the hallway, poking the 10' pole ahead of them, etc).

I'd argue it is not up to the DM to judge if a declared action is special or valuable or whathaveyou. The player has already determined the value of their action simply by declaring it. It's valuable because that's what they want their character to do. The DM just adjudicates fairly the result of said action. I suppose you might say that if the DM gives an auto-success, then the player might feel that it was one very special action. The again, maybe I'm too hung up on your use of the word "special".

I suppose if I had to establish something in this vein, I'd allow the player a check -- success means that these stones are like back home, but corrupted, and the player has a viable course of action to correct it by performing one of the rituals they observed to purify the site. On a failure, though, these stones are different -- still corrupt you figure, but you've no good idea how to cleanse it. In both cases, I'd set up an imminent encounter that I'd reveal now. In the success case, the PCs have options to try to cleanse the stones and halt the encounter (or mitigate it), in the fail case, the PCs can prepare a moment, but the bad is coming anyway. Or, in either, they might surprise me. Oh, the joys of the discrete packets of chaos called players.

EDIT: I misspelled imminent. I know my posts are littered with typos -- I haven't had much time lately to post at leisure or have had a lot to say quickly -- but this one, this one bothered me enough to edit. I think because I know immanent is a different word, so the difference stands out for me.

LOL. Maybe the caretakers were eminent stone standers. Auto-succeed with the declared action!

Also, love that bolded part!

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I feel like this example is presented as if I'm the player and then I'm asked to adjudicate the proposed action as DM without knowing anything about what's really going on with those stones. What does my prep say?

Certainly. I guess I was leaving the prep up to the imagination of the DMs here. That said, I bet I'm not the only one that would find it extremely valuable to see your prep notes! WWID