D&D 5E 5e consequence-resolution

[Bill Zebub]

Right. But there would be consequence for success, even if the safe was empty. If you succeed, you know it is empty, whereas before you didn't.

Ah, gotcha. Yes, I agree. I misunderstood your point.

Also, I think a lot of perception/investigation checks are such that failure effectively doesn't change the game state. You didn't know the thing, and you still don't. But such checks are still commonly made, as on success you would learn something, even though sometimes what is learned might be rather trivial like that there are no goblins hiding nearby.

(I try to differentiate between low and high results on perception/investigation checks even if there isn't anything particularly interesting to be found. The former, is more "dunno, you don't notice anything," and latter is more like "you have scanned the area thoroughly and are all but certain that there is nothing hiding/hidden here.")

This is why I hate check Perception checks, or checks to detect things in general. I don't have a good generalized solution to offer, but I hate 'em.

In some cases a successful detection can improve the result, for example preventing surprise in combat, but what about walking past a secret door?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ah, gotcha. Yes, I agree. I misunderstood your point.

I think I worded it awkwardly.

This is why I hate check Perception checks, or checks to detect things in general. I don't have a good generalized solution to offer, but I hate 'em.

In some cases a successful detection can improve the result, for example preventing surprise in combat, but what about walking past a secret door?

What about it? I'm not sure I understand the issue.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Because it shouldn't be impossible until you have tried, and failed, and realized it is not possible. The odds might be 1 in a billion, but there is still a chance. Heck, you could take the most complex safe in the world and a chimp with a stick could still have a chance, however remote, to open it. But once tried and failed, the attempt might lock down the safe or you just realize in the present situation, it can't be done.

Now, can there be circumstances where something is impossible for a character? Sure, but that is usually because they are not capable (such a safe that is only opened by magic and the PC in question literally has no magic to open it with...), lacking something required.

I can agree with that in the context of a freshman philosophy class, but not as an RPG game design principle.

Something can be impossible because the DM decides it is so, whether or not the character has tried. The player will learn that it's impossible when they say, "I try X" and the DM looks them in the eye and, without even calling for a roll, says, "You fail."

What does the character know/believe? That's up to the player. If they want to roleplay it by trying again (and again...), or ascribing it to bad luck, or whatever, that's cool.

 

[Bill Zebub]

What about it? I'm not sure I understand the issue.

I picked a bad example because of the introduction of passive perception, but in general if somebody wants to look for something, and there's no time pressure (i.e., they aren't wasting precious time by looking), what's the possible consequence to failing to find it?

(That said, I don't like passive perception and secret doors, either, because of what it implies about adventure design. A secret door should...imo...be a meaningful part of the fiction, not something that maybe you find it, maybe you don't. I'd much rather have the players suspect there must be a secret door, and then have to accomplish something to find it. Or have an NPC tell them about it, so that sneaking through it becomes part of the story. Or just about anything other than "maybe you find it, maybe you don't.")

 

[Laurefindel]

Sure, it is definitely context sensitive, but I would argue there should always be a context which implies meaningful consequences.

If there is not, and you feel that is the default, then in those situations what is the purpose of rolling the check?


But isn't falling a meaningful consequence? What does the failure result in?

That the PC simply doesn't jump?
They make the jump, but fall prone upon landing (succeed with a setback)?
Or something else?

This is where our rule about failing by more than 5 comes in, for example.

• Success: the jump is made.
• Fail by 1-5: the player is given the choice: success with a setback OR the PC stops short, realizing they won't make it, and doesn't leap.
• Fail by more than 5: the PC jumps, doesn't make it, and falls to whatever fate lies below.

Falling is a very meaningful consequence indeed!

But it could also be tumbling awkwardly upon landing, allowing the bad guy to get away, or having to ditch your shield in the process, or being spotted by someone you wish didn’t, or like you said, realizing before the jump that « oh crap, I’m not gonna make that » and stop on the spot, etc, whichever is a significant setback for the PC.

I had DM who incorporated degree of success/failure like you proposed and it work great. For whatever reason it doesn’t work as well for me and I prefer a pass/fail option, with 1 and 20 being exceptional results.

 

[FrogReaver]

Ah, gotcha. Yes, I agree. I misunderstood your point.



This is why I hate check Perception checks, or checks to detect things in general. I don't have a good generalized solution to offer, but I hate 'em.

In some cases a successful detection can improve the result, for example preventing surprise in combat, but what about walking past a secret door?

One thing that can be done with secret doors is to give hints of their existence but don't make opening them easy.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I had DM who incorporated degree of success/failure like you proposed and it work great. For whatever reason it doesn’t work as well for me and I prefer a pass/fail option, with 1 and 20 being exceptional results.

Degrees of success (even limited in scope) are my carry over from d20 SW and I prefer them, personally, but I know it isn't 5E at all so it's cool if you prefer pass/fail. FWIW, when I join a game and a DM runs pass/fail, I am fine with that as a player, too.

 

[clearstream]

Degrees of success (even limited in scope) are my carry over from d20 SW and I prefer them, personally, but I know it isn't 5E at all so it's cool if you prefer pass/fail. FWIW, when I join a game and a DM runs pass/fail, I am fine with that as a player, too.

It's worth parsing DMG 242 for your game. The DMG characterises rules in different ways.

One characterisation is via "Variant" or "Option" in the title or section title, which I believe clearly signal that the rule is "off" by default. Gritty Realism for example is under Rest Variants, within the signalling that it is "off" by default. A variant rule may replace a standard rule (does the same job, but in a different way.) Another characterisation is just giving the rule. I don't currently know of a reason to say those rules are "off" by default. For one thing, if they are, it makes it hard to understand the need for Variant or Option in the title of other rules?

Assuming then, that non-"variant", non-"optional" rules in Core - whether PHB, DMG, or MM - are just rules. The "flourishes" on DMG 242 are available to you as baseline rules. That connects with the last sentence of the Ability Checks section of PHB 174 (last sentence of the paragraph under the table.) That sentence is by default true, and in the DMG are rules for how you can make it true.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It may seem counter-intuitive, but in 5e, you don't really roll to open a safe

This statement would seem to be contradicted by the express instructions of DMG 237, where it says, "An ability check is a test to see whether a character succeeds at a task that he or she has decided to attempt." It would be very strange if what they meant was, "An ability check is a test to see what the consequences are of a task that a character has decided to attempt."

Now, DMG 242 provides optional possibilities for DMs who wish to make ability checks more complicated. Allowing near-miss (or forcing barely-made) checks to succeed with cost is augmenting the roll's answer to the original question ("did you succeed?") with the answer to a different question, "what did it cost?" This is factoring in consequences, yes. But it is not required. If it were, it would be on page 237, not several pages later, and certainly not placed after unrelated rules elements like Inspiration, Proficiency, and Ad/Dis, which do factor into checks, but would surely be less important than critical components of what all checks are supposed to be.

 

[clearstream]

This statement would seem to be contradicted by the express instructions of DMG 237, where it says, "An ability check is a test to see whether a character succeeds at a task that he or she has decided to attempt." It would be very strange if what they meant was, "An ability check is a test to see what the consequences are of a task that a character has decided to attempt."

Hence "really", to indicate one has to parse and contemplate the upshot of the rules. What do they amount to?

Now, DMG 242 provides optional possibilities for DMs who wish to make ability checks more complicated. Allowing near-miss (or forcing barely-made) checks to succeed with cost is augmenting the roll's answer to the original question ("did you succeed?") with the answer to a different question, "what did it cost?" This is factoring in consequences, yes. But it is not required. If it were, it would be on page 237, not several pages later, and certainly not placed after unrelated rules elements like Inspiration, Proficiency, and Ad/Dis, which do factor into checks, but would surely be less important than critical components of what all checks are supposed to be.

I don't believe ordering implies optionality. The text can't be legibly piled on top of itself: some must come later.

That said, I can see that if you decide ordering implies optionality you are likely to draw different conclusions.