D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Charlaquin]

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.

Yeah, but have you heard TAZ Amnesty? Griffin does not follow those instructions, but I’ll be damned if it isn’t an incredible game of Monster of the Week.

 

[Guest 6801328]

"You character has heard a lot about creatures like this but the rumors have been mixed, often contradictory. Some have listed it as vulnerable to lightning, others fire and some have listed it as resistant to non-silvered weapons and another said it was difficult to affect with spells - some kind of magic resistance."

Now, which of those is true, which is false? Which resistances or other traits were not mentioned?

You the player and your character have knowledge that you have little confidence in, cited from the in-game sources.

Now which of these progress with setback nuggets of wisdom do you choose to try and risk?

Huh.

Let's explore this.

First, let's assume one of those things is true, and the others false, but not the "opposite of false." I.e., maybe it's not vulnerable to lightning, but it's not resistant/immune, either. In that case even though they don't know for certain what its weaknesses are, the players (being used to your DMing style) at least have 3 possibilities to test. So they are strictly better off than if they hadn't rolled.

So instead let's say that one of those things is the "opposite of true", for example immune to lightning. Again, the players are used to your DMing style so they know one of these things is true, and one or more of the others is the opposite of true. It might tweak how they go about experimenting ("Don't use a high level slot on lightning...try a cantrip or level 1 spell first.") but they have clues to explore. Aren't they still better off than if they hadn't rolled?

In both cases, when the player proposes the action and informed there's a roll, there's zero reason to not roll. They're not taking a chance.

 

[ClaytonCross]

I get the impression this question is directed at Elfcrusher, but my two cents for anyone who might be interested is, yes, but only if the opportunity to gain that advantage is actually lost. Trying to hide is a good example of a case where the loss of an opportunity to gain an advantage is a meaningful consequence. If you don’t successfully hide right now, you’re not going to have time to set up your ambush before your target arrives (or whatever). An example of a case where the loss of advantage for success would not be a meaningful consequence in my mind would be something along the lines of researching in a library. On a succes, you’ll find relevant information, which certainly constitutes an advantage that failure would deny you. But if you fail, no big deal, keep researching for a few more hours and see if you find the information this time (I’m assuming the information in question is available in the library, otherwise we wouldn’t be rolling for a different reason). So, failure doesn’t actually deny you the advantage, it just makes the advantage take longer to gain, sp unless that time is a finite resource, that’s not a real consequence.

That's very good point. So for Stealth I also do count the lose of advantage, but its very true for any repeatable task the lose of the advantage of success is not sufficient a lose to be a "meaningful consequence of failure". That kind of goes back to "any many cases it is a judgment call by the GM, but a roll is generally called for when their consequence of failure and the result is a success moving towards the goal or a failure moving away from the goal." is a pretty good guild, but not perfect. … Failing stealth check has a clear consequence of being known. Even if you hide in battle, they search for you because they might not know exactly where you are, but they do know your around and they are not going to continue on their way keeping you from a goal of surprising them or holding you up and preventing you from just moving on. While success allows you allow the enemy to pass or the party to attack them hidden in a surprise attack.

 

[ClaytonCross]

In both cases, when the player proposes the action and informed there's a roll, there's zero reason to not roll. They're not taking a chance.

Why is it bad about players wanting to roll without having a reason not to want to roll? I mean a melee attack is kind of weapon skill test, but players are generally going to make those attacks without any thought of lose for attacking once the fight starts. What is gained by making players question as many rolls as possible? The idea listed above about having false information and sorting it out... seems like fun roleplaying to me. I feel like I am missing something here as to whey this type of "failing forward" would be bad. Can you explain, your reasoning here? I am really curious what your view of the benefit is.

 

[5ekyu]

Huh.

Let's explore this.

First, let's assume one of those things is true, and the others false, but not the "opposite of false." I.e., maybe it's not vulnerable to lightning, but it's not resistant/immune, either. In that case even though they don't know for certain what its weaknesses are, the players (being used to your DMing style) at least have 3 possibilities to test. So they are strictly better off than if they hadn't rolled.

So instead let's say that one of those things is the "opposite of true", for example immune to lightning. Again, the players are used to your DMing style so they know one of these things is true, and one or more of the others is the opposite of true. It might tweak how they go about experimenting ("Don't use a high level slot on lightning...try a cantrip or level 1 spell first.") but they have clues to explore. Aren't they still better off than if they hadn't rolled?

In both cases, when the player proposes the action and informed there's a roll, there's zero reason to not roll. They're not taking a chance.

In my experience in actual play the choice to experiment through say four options trying safer bets first is often a bit less effective than just relying on your strengths.

Leading with a cantrip is a good eample where if it wasnt opposite then going cantrip first slows your progress towards victory.

But, whether or not this rises to your own personal value of significance of consequence is to me meaningless.

The position i was addressing was the claim about the player knowing the roll as bad on a knowledge check created this conflict where the player knew the info was bad by the roll but needed to pretend it was not so.

Your own view over whether this was enough of a consequence to encourage the player not to roll is another subject and not one i tried to reply to in that post.

 

[Charlaquin]

Why is it bad about players wanting to roll without having a reason not to want to roll? I mean a melee attack is kind of weapon skill test, but players are generally going to make those attacks without any thought of lose for attacking once the fight starts. What is gained by making players question as many rolls as possible? The idea listed above about having false information and sorting it out... seems like fun roleplaying to me. I feel like I am missing something here as to whey this type of "failing forward" would be bad. Can you explain, your reasoning here? I am really curious what your view of the benefit is.

I believe that this is a guiding principle of Elfcrusher’s, in the same way that “never tell the players what their characters do” is one of mine. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with everyone in the group wanting a try at a check, but it’s something Elfcrusher finds undesirable at their table, and so they (he?) tailor the way they adjudicate actions to avoid it happening.

@Elfcrusher: If I’ve correctly identified your reason for not wanting to call for checks that don’t have outcomes worse than not attempting, have you considered adjusting the way you handle teamwork? Personally, I think the Group Check rules are kind of rubbish. What I do is, when there’s an action that the party is working on together as a group, I determine if the action would succeed if any individual succeeds (for example, when sweeping an area for a hidden enemy) or if it would fail if any individual fails (for example, when trying to travel stealthily as a group). In the former case, I ask that the character with the highest modifier make the check, and grant them advantage if anyone in the group would have advantage. In the latter case, I ask that the character with the lowest modifier make the check, and impose disadvantage if anyone in the group would have disadvantage. I find this covers most situations where everyone would want a go at something.

 

[Lanefan]

And this is also a common solution to an issue that the method you prefer. That, no metagaming, secret rolls, no retries even if the situation may suggest otherwise - all fixes for a problem created in the adjudication process. Why do any of them if you can just make an adjustment to how you adjudicate?

Because the 'fix' only serves to create bigger problems: loss of mystery from the player side, player knowledge put at variance with character knowledge (leading to either players having to self-police or to metagaming, neither of which is desireable), and loss of realism are but a few.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Hear, hear!

Also, this method involve you, the DM, providing false information to the players. This can (and usually does) erode player trust in the DM.

It shouldn't, assuming the players are aware that not everything is going to be handed to them and sometimes that which is, is wrong.

Otherwise, it'd be mighty hard to play a spy-based game, or to insert a double-agent or doppelganger into the party with any hope of success.

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.

Again, absolute agreement from here.

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'm not sure any edition of D&D is built for this, at least by intent. Which kind of means, given that this thread is in the D&D-specific forum, that discussion of direct player initiated fiction isn't likely to get all thatfar.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Hmmm...this makes it sound far more difficult/challenging than I've ever found it to be.

Varying mileage, I suppose...

 

[Lanefan]

To assess "toward" and "away" you have to compare success and failure to each other AND to not attempting the action that requires the roll. Presumably the reason they want to jump over the pit in order to get somewhere. If they successfully jump it then they have moved closer to their goal than if they stood there refusing to jump.

Now, it may also be that if they fall in they are still better off, because taking some damage then climbing out the other side may still be better than not getting over the pit at all. (It depends on why they are trying to get over the pit and how important that is.) In that case even though there's a consequence to failure, it's still a no-brainer to try, which makes it an uninteresting choice. Right? If it's the only exit from the dungeon, then eventually everybody is going to try to make the jump, so they aren't really making a decision of whether to take the risk. The decision was made for them, and their only job is to roll dice.

And no matter how they get across it, they've now put themselves in a position where they've cut off their own escape route...

If it's absolutely necessary to get over the pit, there should be other ways to accomplish it.

Why? If the goal of the pit is nothing more than some potential resource attrition (where resources can be anything from time to hit points to stealth) then making them work to get across it is the whole point.

And, as I just said above, the presence of the pit behind the PCs once they do get across it makes escape a no-longer-straightforward prospect.

Sure, if you set it up that way. But why? It's basically, "Make an ability check. If you succeed you get a gem, if you fail you don't." Why would you NOT make an ability check? I don't think this makes for an interesting challenge or obstacle. (The acid test is to ask what would happen if you asked "Does anybody else want to try?" If everybody says, "Hell yes!" then I would say you haven't set up an interesting challenge.)

I'd much rather they all say "Hell, yes!" than "Nah, that's boring."