D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Kinematics]

What might be a meaningful consequence of failure here?

What if it the stones might belong to Cult A, or it might be Cult B. And getting it wrong could have consequences later? Like, using the correct greeting would earn their trust, but the incorrect one would make them hostile?

Somehow I'd like to give the player an answer now, but then later, when/if a critical moment comes the player would roll. But the only way I can see doing that is to use quantum dice: at the moment of the roll, the world could change. That is, I tell the player, it's Cult A. Later, they meet the tenders of the stones, and assuming they are from A, use the A greeting. At that moment they roll, and if the roll is failed...nope! They are Cult B! So I have to be willing for the story to branch either way at the moment of the roll.

STANDARD DISCLAIMER: I'm not saying I'd necessarily do this, or that there even needs to be a consequence to trying to remember things about the stones. I just think it's an interesting exercise to explore these pathways.

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.

I'm not sure if this fits in with the "exploratory play" format being discussed, but this feels like the roll is in fact quantum, as Elfcrusher describes. The roll isn't to determine success or failure, and the requirement that there be consequences for failure in order to require a die roll don't make sense. Instead, the roll is to establish the state of the universe itself.

For example, when you search a room, the roll isn't to determine whether or not you found the doodad, but whether or not there is anything to be found in the first place. There's an implicit two-step process, though most ignore the non-roll related step when discussing these matters.

1) Is there something to be found? Using approach A, this is decided beforehand, and no roll is needed to establish this. Using approach B, this is unknown, and only becomes 'real' after a roll.

2) Did the player find it? Using approach A, this is what's being rolled for, if there's a likelihood of not finding it, or consequences for not finding it. Using approach B, this is not rolled for (basically using the auto-find aspect of approach A), as the act of making it real in step 1 makes no sense if you can't discover the new truth.

Now, approach A might be the "exploratory play" system (based on further clarifying posts in the thread), and approach B is "something else". I'm not clear on how people are drawing the lines there, or what the "something else" would be formally called. Nor do I know what the various "drama" terms are really referring to.

I'd probably use the terms "exploratory play" and "revelatory play". Exploratory play explores what does exist; the truth is predefined. Revelatory play explores what could exist, revealing and defining the truth in the course of play.


In the case of the standing stone example, the roll might be for whether the character remembers anything important, or the roll might be to determine whether a connection exists at all. It's not a matter of "consequences for failure"; it's a matter of "determining truth". The roll result isn't necessarily binary; it can result in an entire range of changes to the world. For example:

• A friendly druid taught your younger self some details that are of consequence to maintaining the circles and keeping the forest from being corrupted.
• You had a bad encounter with an angry druid when you got too close to their group, and examining the stones causes a flashback that leaves you Frightened just as something starts appearing in the circle.
• The druids were actually a secret cult attempting to summon an evil deity (though you never realized that), and they taught you the proper ritual to use if you ever encountered another stone circle. You're convinced you need to perform this ritual to help protect the forest.
• Etc.

In this case, rolling low doesn't mean, "You don't remember anything", such as might be the case in the Exploratory style. Rather, it results in something potentially problematic — having the wrong knowledge.

The GM often leaves plot hooks for the players to follow. This type of roll is the GM allowing the players to create plot hooks for himself.


In some systems you can do this deliberately, by spending some resource (eg: fate points, hero points, dark/light side points, etc). However it's always available as just an implicit part of GMing, and is often "accidental" — the player tries to do something the GM didn't expect, and the GM finds the possibility of this new truth interesting enough to let the player make the roll, and possibly change the "truth" of the world.

Note: While @Ovinomancer makes good points about the negative aspects that this approach can have, I think he's missing the point in treating it as purely negative. D&D may not have an explicit mechanic for introducing new world truths, but it's trivial to treat most skill checks as a means of engaging in that style of play.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You could, but this very quickly (i.e. immediately!) runs into issues with players taking unfair advantage and always just happening to be able to justify having the required knowledge. No thanks.

To me this screams "I don't trust my players."

Or, at least, "My players have a different idea of fun than I do, so I must use rules to bend them to my will."

The way I see it, if a player's idea of fun is to keep twisting things to give him/herself advantage, why do I care? The only reason I could see caring is if I have some pre-written script in my head, and the player is somehow going off-script. But I don't, so it doesn't bother me.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure, and the check could be postponed to that point when it does matter.
So you don't lose the drama/uncertainty, and avoid the player drawing conclusions/taking precautions/whatever based on the roll being particularly good or bad.

Some problems here:

1. The player/PC might not ever know or realize when-if it matters. Example here would be that a failure to read the runes on the stones costs the party a clue that would have later provided a nice short-cut to completing their mission. When would this check ever be rolled?

2. Following on from 1, if the check isn't made at the time information like this might/might not be presented, you wind up with a rather crazy situation where the PCs have a level of knowledge that neither the players nor DM are aware of!

3. Real-world time. If there's a six-session postponement between the check-causing event (say, reading the rune-stones) and the rolled check (whwnever that reading would first cause a major change in course) many things such as modifying factors in that specific instance will likely have been forgotten by both player and DM alike; assuming the DM even remembers to call for the check so long after the fact.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Some problems here:

1. The player/PC might not ever know or realize when-if it matters. Example here would be that a failure to read the runes on the stones costs the party a clue that would have later provided a nice short-cut to completing their mission. When would this check ever be rolled?

2. Following on from 1, if the check isn't made at the time information like this might/might not be presented, you wind up with a rather crazy situation where the PCs have a level of knowledge that neither the players nor DM are aware of!

3. Real-world time. If there's a six-session postponement between the check-causing event (say, reading the rune-stones) and the rolled check (whwnever that reading would first cause a major change in course) many things such as modifying factors in that specific instance will likely have been forgotten by both player and DM alike; assuming the DM even remembers to call for the check so long after the fact.

So design your challenges such that none of these things are likely to happen?

1. If the clue provides a nice short-cut, if they figure it out, just give them the clue. (I put this in the category of secret doors that are only discovered by a die roll. Why bother?)

2. This isn't crazy if you accept the "revelatory play" approach that Kinematics describes above.

3. Not sure I understand how this is different from rolling at the time of the action. Even playing the traditional way, DMs give information to players all the time that needs to be remembered in later sessions.

 

[Lanefan]

To me this screams "I don't trust my players."

I see it as the players' job to, without breaking the game completely, push against and-or exploit the rules to gain whatever advantage they can for their PCs. In TTRPGs this can very quickly lead into playing in bad faith if not curtailed.

Same as team sports - you do whatever you can to gain an advantage, and if it happens to be a bit outside the rules it's fine if you don't get caught.

The referee's job is the same in either instance: to enforce the rules and ensure things are done in good faith as far as possible.

Or, at least, "My players have a different idea of fun than I do, so I must use rules to bend them to my will."

The way I see it, if a player's idea of fun is to keep twisting things to give him/herself advantage, why do I care?

I care because it's going outside the realm of good faith.

The only reason I could see caring is if I have some pre-written script in my head, and the player is somehow going off-script. But I don't, so it doesn't bother me.

This is at best a tangential argument and more likely a red herring: the presence or absence of a script has little if anything to do with playing in bad faith. (in fact, the players doing such twisting would make my life easier if I had a hard-coded script, as I'd always be able to assume they'd find the answers and not have to plan for if they didn't)

 

[Lanefan]

So design your challenges such that none of these things are likely to happen?

1. If the clue provides a nice short-cut, if they figure it out, just give them the clue. (I put this in the category of secret doors that are only discovered by a die roll. Why bother?)

Key words there are "if they figure it out" - a major uncertainty, and thus why the roll happens.

2. This isn't crazy if you accept the "revelatory play" approach that Kinematics describes above.

Yeah, I've gone around the circus with pemerton on similar ideas more often than I probably want to think about, and my main issue with it always comes back to that exploratory play becomes irrelevant if there's nothing there waiting to be explored (i.e. if the game world isn't predesigned).

3. Not sure I understand how this is different from rolling at the time of the action. Even playing the traditional way, DMs give information to players all the time that needs to be remembered in later sessions.

Yes, but it then falls onto the players-as-their-PCs to remember it. Player knowledge = character knowledge, and often player memory can roughly equal character memory.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Some problems here:
1. The player/PC might not ever know or realize when-if it matters.

As long as the DM knows when to call for it...

Example here would be that a failure to read the runes on the stones costs the party a clue that would have later provided a nice short-cut to completing their mission. When would this check ever be rolled?

When the clue would matter?

2. Following on from 1, if the check isn't made at the time information like this might/might not be presented, you wind up with a rather crazy situation where the PCs have a level of knowledge that neither the players nor DM are aware of!

Nothing crazy about it. Happens in fiction all the time. In RPGs, it's just another abstraction, the players (& DM) are never aware of the imagined world to the degree or in the detail that they are aware of the real world, for instance.

3. Real-world time. If there's a six-session postponement between the check-causing event (say, reading the rune-stones) and the rolled check (whwnever that reading would first cause a major change in course) many things such as modifying factors in that specific instance will likely have been forgotten by both player and DM alike; assuming the DM even remembers to call for the check so long after the fact.

All the more reason, really, as any information imparted on the players weeks/months ago, but to the PC moments/hours ago is going to be problematic in the same way.

 

[Charlaquin]

I've no use for 'GSN terminology' either, hence the small 'g' on gamist.

Do you mean it in a different way than GSN theory does?

You could, but this very quickly (i.e. immediately!) runs into issues with players taking unfair advantage and always just happening to be able to justify having the required knowledge. No thanks.

I don’t see a problem with that. The action is still subject to the normal action resolution rules, and it’s not like the player is always going to know an approach that won’t have a chance of failure. I don’t do it that way for other reasons, but I don’t think this particular criticism of that technique is a strong one.

Yeah, to me this is a problem with 3e-and-forward's overly-elaborate skill system.

I don’t think “roll a d20, add a modified reflecting your training, try to beat a target number reflecting the difficulty of the task” is particularly elaborate.

And yes, sometimes a strong person can fail on a relatively easy strength check just by bad luck or not getting the leverage right or whatever, and then have the not-so-strong person nail it in one and make the strong guy look like a fool. It happens - I mean, how many times have you struggled and failed to open a jar and then had someone who you know to be weaker than you come along and pop it on the first try?

My issue isn’t with capable characters randomly failing, my issue is with characters’ maximum capability being constantly subject to random fluctuation. Sure, I might fail to open the jar. I might fail repeatedly at it, and decide it isn’t worth my time. Someone less strong than me might have a go at it and succeed instantly. But what doesn’t happen is the jar doesn’t somehow become beyond my capability to open. If I kept at it long enough I would have gotten it, but my time, unlike that if D&D characters, is always a limited resource.

Not quite. The d20 roll sets the limit of how well your character can possibly do in this situation, against a set difficulty that just sits there.

Sure, if you prefer to phrase it that way. Point is, the die roll isn’t reflecting the character’s performance in the moment. Whether it’s the character’s capabilities or the difficulty of the task that’s determined at random, it’s still bizarre.

The difficulty of a particular task doesn't change, but the PC's ability to overcome it isn't set in stone.

Right, and that’s weird.

(and yes this means PCs fail far more often than if take-20 was in effect, but I've no problem with that). Put another way, a PC might blow through some DC 17 task (e.g. opening a stuck door; roll adds to 23) and then two hours later completely fail on a very similar DC 17 task (roll adds to 10) and need to find a plan B.

Right, yeah, that’s all fine. What’s weird to me is that the character can’t just attempt the latter task again, given that a DC 17 task is clearly within that character’s capabilities to succeed at.

That does match with general 3e design philosophy, though, in that they intentionally tried to turn more mechanics over to the player side. Not that edition's best selling feature, IMO.

It’s probably a strong selling point to a particular type of player. Those players are probably all playing Pathfinder these days.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Key words there are "if they figure it out" - a major uncertainty, and thus why the roll happens.

Wait...are you talking about rolling the dice to see if they find the clue, or whether they figure out the clue?

If it's truly an optional short-cut, I would give them the clue, but leave it to the players to figure out.

Of course, it might be gated behind an objective. E.g., kill the orc chieftain, find the clue in his treasure chest.

But I'm really totally completely over the whole, "Everybody give me a Perception check." "18!" "Ok, you spot...."

 

[iserith]

You could, but this very quickly (i.e. immediately!) runs into issues with players taking unfair advantage and always just happening to be able to justify having the required knowledge. No thanks.

The failsafe is DM still decides if the attempt to recall lore succeeds or fails or needs a roll. And why do you contemplate playing with people who would take unfair advantage of you?