D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[ClaytonCross]

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?

For clarification, does "meaningful consequence of failure" include or not include "gaining advantage on success"? I ask because it seems like risk and reward swings both ways. Its possible I don't completely understand the intent here.

My understanding of "meaningful consequence of failure" would also include lose of possible reward. A failure in disarming a trip for example results in a consequence of damage where a success is often an avoidance of damage. I a scenario where a trap is not lethal, the trap represents a raise in tension, a lose of resources and the possibility of alerting the enemy lose hope of surprise. Success results in maintaining the possibility of surprise, keeping resources, and maintaining a lower though possibly still raised tension because know there are traps adds trepidation relays that an enemy is prepared to deal with intruders. Having by passed that may reduce the momentary tension, but does the party feel less alert because they assume they have bypassed opposition and can now scout with impunity or do they feel their opponents are taking precautions against intruders and they need to be careful of further efforts to keep them out such as more traps, patrols, and guards on watch at specific locations.

Focusing on your stealth example. Failing to hide might have no consequence to not hiding at all but success offers a benefit they might not otherwise have in applying the surprised condition to enemies and having advantage on their first attack for being unseen. This means failing also has meaningful consequences of denying the value of success, doesn't it? … to me this adds consequence in failure as a denial of success. But I am not sure "consequence of failure" trade of thought includes "benefit for success" by your definition. If it does than the question needs to be "Does failure have meaningful consequences and/or success have meaningful benefit over not attempting the action?" If the answer is yes, it seems reasonable to call for a roll since, failure to gain a benefit is also a consequence. Though, I can defiantly see scenarios of "and" being more interesting than ether/or. For example, if players make no attempt to hide, they are spotted, surrounded, and questioned to there intent. If players choose to hide however success gains them surprise and hidden from sight while failure causes the opposition to assume hostel intent, attacking first and asking questions later. Like, seeing a police officer and immediately starting into a run in the opposite direction. The police might chase under the assumption of guilt, hold the suspect, then question them and those around as to why they ran. Assuming the run was a reaction of guilt. (I had this happen to me in real life, though In my case I just like to run and I was too young and naive to realize how this action would be viewed by police.)

… So do you include the lose of value of success as consequence of failure?

 

[Guest 6801328]

For clarification, does "meaningful consequence of failure" include or not include "gaining advantage on success"? I ask because it seems like risk and reward swings both ways. Its possible I don't completely understand the intent here.

My understanding of "meaningful consequence of failure" would also include lose of possible reward. A failure in disarming a trip for example results in a consequence of damage where a success is often an avoidance of damage. I a scenario where a trap is not lethal, the trap represents a raise in tension, a lose of resources and the possibility of alerting the enemy lose hope of surprise. Success results in maintaining the possibility of surprise, keeping resources, and maintaining a lower though possibly still raised tension because know there are traps adds trepidation relays that an enemy is prepared to deal with intruders. Having by passed that may reduce the momentary tension, but does the party feel less alert because they assume they have bypassed opposition and can now scout with impunity or do they feel their opponents are taking precautions against intruders and they need to be careful of further efforts to keep them out such as more traps, patrols, and guards on watch at specific locations.

Focusing on your stealth example. Failing to hide might have no consequence to not hiding at all but success offers a benefit they might not otherwise have in applying the surprised condition to enemies and having advantage on their first attack for being unseen. This means failing also has meaningful consequences of denying the value of success, doesn't it? … to me this adds consequence in failure as a denial of success. But I am not sure "consequence of failure" trade of thought includes "benefit for success" by your definition. If it does than the question needs to be "Does failure have meaningful consequences and/or success have meaningful benefit over not attempting the action?" If the answer is yes, it seems reasonable to call for a roll since, failure to gain a benefit is also a consequence. Though, I can defiantly see scenarios of "and" being more interesting than ether/or. For example, if players make no attempt to hide, they are spotted, surrounded, and questioned to there intent. If players choose to hide however success gains them surprise and hidden from sight while failure causes the opposition to assume hostel intent, attacking first and asking questions later. Like, seeing a police officer and immediately starting into a run in the opposite direction. The police might chase under the assumption of guilt, hold the suspect, then question them and those around as to why they ran. Assuming the run was a reaction of guilt. (I had this happen to me in real life, though In my case I just like to run and I was too young and naive to realize how this action would be viewed by police.)

… So do you include the lose of value of success as consequence of failure?

My definition is that there must be sufficient risk that a player has to weigh it against the benefit. Failure should come with at least a twinge of regret for having rolled.

“Failure to earn a reward” wouldn’t seem to qualify.

 

[Ovinomancer]

For clarification, does "meaningful consequence of failure" include or not include "gaining advantage on success"? I ask because it seems like risk and reward swings both ways. Its possible I don't completely understand the intent here.

My understanding of "meaningful consequence of failure" would also include lose of possible reward. A failure in disarming a trip for example results in a consequence of damage where a success is often an avoidance of damage. I a scenario where a trap is not lethal, the trap represents a raise in tension, a lose of resources and the possibility of alerting the enemy lose hope of surprise. Success results in maintaining the possibility of surprise, keeping resources, and maintaining a lower though possibly still raised tension because know there are traps adds trepidation relays that an enemy is prepared to deal with intruders. Having by passed that may reduce the momentary tension, but does the party feel less alert because they assume they have bypassed opposition and can now scout with impunity or do they feel their opponents are taking precautions against intruders and they need to be careful of further efforts to keep them out such as more traps, patrols, and guards on watch at specific locations.

Focusing on your stealth example. Failing to hide might have no consequence to not hiding at all but success offers a benefit they might not otherwise have in applying the surprised condition to enemies and having advantage on their first attack for being unseen. This means failing also has meaningful consequences of denying the value of success, doesn't it? … to me this adds consequence in failure as a denial of success. But I am not sure "consequence of failure" trade of thought includes "benefit for success" by your definition. If it does than the question needs to be "Does failure have meaningful consequences and/or success have meaningful benefit over not attempting the action?" If the answer is yes, it seems reasonable to call for a roll since, failure to gain a benefit is also a consequence. Though, I can defiantly see scenarios of "and" being more interesting than ether/or. For example, if players make no attempt to hide, they are spotted, surrounded, and questioned to there intent. If players choose to hide however success gains them surprise and hidden from sight while failure causes the opposition to assume hostel intent, attacking first and asking questions later. Like, seeing a police officer and immediately starting into a run in the opposite direction. The police might chase under the assumption of guilt, hold the suspect, then question them and those around as to why they ran. Assuming the run was a reaction of guilt. (I had this happen to me in real life, though In my case I just like to run and I was too young and naive to realize how this action would be viewed by police.)

… So do you include the lose of value of success as consequence of failure?

Interestingly, in your example of stealth, you move failure from just not being able to get surprise to the opposition becoming hostile. This isn't just denial of a reward, it's a change in fiction away from the intent of the action.

Personally, I think that evaluation of the goal in goal and approach is important for failure consequences. A success moves towards the goal, a failure away. This simple framework does a good job of removing questions and firmly rooting decisions in the fiction of the moment. It's what you've done with your stealth example, assuming the goal of the sneaking is to get the drop on the opposition. You succeed, you get the drop. You fail, they not only notice you, but immediately move into hostilities without you having the drop. Towards, away.

If you can't think of how to move away from the goal of the action, then don't call for a roll. I think it's okay to involve meta-goals, here, though. Moving away from a meta-goal can be sufficient punishment, like, say, losing time in a race against the clock, or having a fight when you're trying to conserve resources. Goals can be layers, but a failure should move away from a player stated goal.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Interestingly, in your example of stealth, you move failure from just not being able to get surprise to the opposition becoming hostile. This isn't just denial of a reward, it's a change in fiction away from the intent of the action.

Personally, I think that evaluation of the goal in goal and approach is important for failure consequences. A success moves towards the goal, a failure away. This simple framework does a good job of removing questions and firmly rooting decisions in the fiction of the moment. It's what you've done with your stealth example, assuming the goal of the sneaking is to get the drop on the opposition. You succeed, you get the drop. You fail, they not only notice you, but immediately move into hostilities without you having the drop. Towards, away.

If you can't think of how to move away from the goal of the action, then don't call for a roll. I think it's okay to involve meta-goals, here, though. Moving away from a meta-goal can be sufficient punishment, like, say, losing time in a race against the clock, or having a fight when you're trying to conserve resources. Goals can be layers, but a failure should move away from a player stated goal.

That is (once again) stated more eloquently than I seem to manage.

 

[5ekyu]

Welcome to the beginning stages of some actually different playstyles. There are many games where players can make truth propositions that the mechanics then test rather than leaving it up to the DM. There are even others where players can just assert things about the fiction without any adjudication, or win the right after a table challenge.



And, many find this outcome very problem causing. For one, the player likely knows they rolled poorly, so they know the information is bad but have to act otherwise. This puts a strain on authentic portrayal of the character. In effect, you've now tasked the player to play in a way that's best for the story rather than be the strongest advocate for their character possible. Also, this method involve you, the DM, providing false information to the players. This can (and usually does) erode player trust in the DM.

Yes, you can do it, but the system is bad at it and you will get poor results. If I, as a player, can assert fiction in play by leveraging my best scores and playing to gain advantage, then I'll start directing play in ways the GM has little control over. Since I'm then creating my own problems and then their solutions, we're now in a degenerate situation for game play. This isn't good. The only factor the GM would control here is setting DCs, which the temptation is to set high for control, but, again, this leads to players stacking powers for high rolls and also erodes player trust in the GM. It sets up a bad adversarial position in play. As such, I say that 5e has no mechanical means to enable this kind of play because just doing it leads to degenerate play situations.

However, I agree that GMs will often incorporate new fiction based on player action declarations (or out-loud thinking) because that sounds fun. The point I was making is that this kind of thing is based on the GM's approval, not any mechanical functions in 5e. The GM decides is the only means of new fiction, and the system is built to enable and work with this. The resolution tools in 5e are, after all, only engaged after the GM considers the situation and the action and determines there's uncertainty and a consequence for failure. Note that this only happens if the GM decides.

Even if you go with players asking for rolls, it's still the GM deciding what happens for any outcome, not the player. Again, GM decides in the controlling mechanical structure.

What I'm discussing here is player initiated fiction introduction in a direct manner. 5e is not built to support this.

I want to disagree with this part about the possibility of getting false or wrong info in poor checks for PC knowledge...

"And, many find this outcome very problem causing. For one, the player likely knows they rolled poorly, so they know the information is bad but have to act otherwise. This puts a strain on authentic portrayal of the character. In effect, you've now tasked the player to play in a way that's best for the story rather than be the strongest advocate for their character possible. Also, this method involve you, the DM, providing false information to the players. This can (and usually does) erode player trust in the DM."

Your "for one..." presumes the player having to act with knowledge different from the character which is faulty. The GM can choose to reflect the roll in the narrative, presenting low rolls with info described as partial recollections or that was one among many ideas and so on... its ridiculously easy to describe bits of knowledge to reflect the roll in the narrative so that the character and the player operate from the same place of understanding. As for the latter claim that the GM providing false info in this kind of case "can (and usually does) erode player trust in the DM." well, I would say that in my experience - most notably including games with long standing and enduring trust in the GM, it is by no means "usually" the case that this hits the GM trust at all. The GM is accurately representing the results of the check in a way fitting the rules. That is the kind of thing that drives the trust.

When I present my PCs with a failed knowledge check narrative thst gives them a number of incomplete bits, a number of reasons to doubt the results and some might false but some might be true - rather than them start wondering if the GM can be trusted, they start considering how the characters can verify the bits they have that might help them.

Frankly, if players have thrircttusr eroded when the GM gives them false info on a failed check... my suspicion would be that "usuully" that trust was already on life support or at least under the weather for other reasons. Seems more like a group that sees way too much overlap between success and trust.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Your "for one..." presumes the player having to act with knowledge different from the character which is faulty. The GM can choose to reflect the roll in the narrative, presenting low rolls with info described as partial recollections or that was one among many ideas and so on... its ridiculously easy to describe bits of knowledge to reflect the roll in the narrative so that the character and the player operate from the same place of understanding.

Help me understand what you're saying here. @Ovinomancer's point I think is pretty clear: if the player says, "Do I know this creature's vulnerabilities?" and rolls a 1, and the GM says, "Yes, you recall that it's vulnerable to fire...." isn't the player pretty darned sure that the creature is NOT vulnerable to fire? But, given that this is metagame knowledge, is the player expected to try a fire spell and learn his mistake or is it ok to avoid fire spells, because you know that the roll failed, and thus you were given bad information? Because both of those results are pretty unsatisfying.

Is there an alternative result I'm missing?

 

[iserith]

Help me understand what you're saying here. @Ovinomancer's point I think is pretty clear: if the player says, "Do I know this creature's vulnerabilities?" and rolls a 1, and the GM says, "Yes, you recall that it's vulnerable to fire...." isn't the player pretty darned sure that the creature is NOT vulnerable to fire? But, given that this is metagame knowledge, is the player expected to try a fire spell and learn his mistake or is it ok to avoid fire spells, because you know that the roll failed, and thus you were given bad information? Because both of those results are pretty unsatisfying.

Is there an alternative result I'm missing?

It's something like progress combined with a setback. The player wants to know fact A. The check fails. The DM gives the player fact B. It's not what the player wanted, but it's TRUE. The character now has the onus to try to make fact B useful, if he or she can.

But, of course, the response you're quoting was not the kind of narrated result that @Ovinomancer was talking about in the first place.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Help me understand what you're saying here. @Ovinomancer's point I think is pretty clear: if the player says, "Do I know this creature's vulnerabilities?" and rolls a 1, and the GM says, "Yes, you recall that it's vulnerable to fire...." isn't the player pretty darned sure that the creature is NOT vulnerable to fire? But, given that this is metagame knowledge, is the player expected to try a fire spell and learn his mistake or is it ok to avoid fire spells, because you know that the roll failed, and thus you were given bad information? Because both of those results are pretty unsatisfying.

Is there an alternative result I'm missing?

I can't see the post you're responding to, but, yes, this was my point. I was responding to a statement that the DM can provide false information on a failure, and discussed how this can cause problems as you've summarized above.

 

[Campbell]

I'll say this:

If your Apocalypse World games play like your Dungeons and Dragons game it is likely because you are ignoring a vast swathe of the game. The majority of what makes Apocalypse World Apocalypse World is GM facing. It does not have GM advice. It has GM instructions.

It tells you what your goals are. It tells you what your principles are. It tells you how to live up to those principles and goals.

When it tells you not to preplan a story, it reiterates with language not fit for this board. This is not unlike when other players are instructed to play their characters with integrity. Vincent Baker means it.

Tom Moldvay also makes no suggestions. He tells you how to be a referee.

These form a set of expectations that GMs are expected to uphold.

 

[Campbell]

I can't see the post you're responding to, but, yes, this was my point. I was responding to a statement that the DM can provide false information on a failure, and discussed how this can cause problems as you've summarized above.

I don't think false information works well outside of the context of secret rolls. Secret rolls and false information also require a significant amount of buy in that I do not think are a given for most Fifth Edition players. You absolutely have to do the work to show that you have no agenda for how things turn out before you can really utilize asymmetric information.