D&D 5E 5e consequence-resolution

[FrogReaver]

Okay, so that's what I'm asking about. Having set target numbers. From the article you linked:

To do something roll+stat.

• On a 10+ you do the thing, with no complications.
• On a 7-9 you do the thing, but with complications.
• On a 6- the GM will determine what happens.

The complications that come from a 7-9 are often in the form of some list that the player can select and then present to the GM.

So there are set Target Numbers. How do you think this would benefit a game? What might be the drawbacks?

I’m not Oofta but My immediate thought is all tasks using a particular stat have the same chance of success regardless of how easy or difficult they are in the fiction. That’s odd. I’d immediately think, how does this work if I try to persuade the king to give me his kingdom. Does that result fictionally make sense for a success?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I’m not Oofta but My immediate thought is all tasks using a particular stat have the same chance of success regardless of how easy or difficult they are in the fiction. That’s odd. I’d immediately think, how does this work if I try to persuade the king to give me his kingdom. Does that result fictionally make sense for a success?

Sure, that's a good question, and a valid point. The PbtA games I'm familiar with may have additional mechanics to add to this (for example, Stonetop has Advantage/Disadvantage very similar to 5e). The GM also has the ability to say something is not possible, or that it may take more than one success to accomplish (again, this may vary a bit by game).

So, the example you gave of convincing a king to give you his kingdom isn't going to work, unless there's a compelling reason that it may. Same for simpler tasks; you generally aren't going to roll unless there is something at risk.

 

[Laurefindel]

Sure, that's a good question, and a valid point. The PbtA games I'm familiar with may have additional mechanics to add to this (for example, Stonetop has Advantage/Disadvantage very similar to 5e). The GM also has the ability to say something is not possible, or that it may take more than one success to accomplish (again, this may vary a bit by game).

So, the example you gave of convincing a king to give you his kingdom isn't going to work, unless there's a compelling reason that it may. Same for simpler tasks; you generally aren't going to roll unless there is something at risk.

Indeed, in games like PbtA, the DM/gamemaster/storyteller has a lot of say as to whether an action can be attempted or not (or if it's worth a roll to attempt or not). And if it does, it may be a long process requiring several successes over a period of time (like the progress clocks in Blades in the Dark). Also, the DM decides the starting position which in turns determines the severity of the consequences. Convincing the king to hand over his kingdom might be a 12-step progress clock where a failure makes you a traitor scheduled to be executed in the next hour...

So even in games like blades in the dark or Aliens, dice rolls are still dependent on the arbitration of the gamemaster, not unlike a D&D DM deciding on the DC and the consequences of failure in case of a failed check.

 

[iserith]

If we're looking at a game like Dungeon World (a PBtA hack), there really isn't a move for trying to convince the king to give you the keys to the kingdom. If there's no move, there's no roll. DM decides.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

convincing a king to give you his kingdom

convince the king to give you the keys to the kingdom.

I always find this funny... if you were watching or reading about a grifter/con man you would not only be rooting for this, but by the end of the story it would seem silly for the king NOT to give it up... but it's never just a word or sentence or single action.

so why does everyone go there?

 

[iserith]

I always find this funny... if you were watching or reading about a grifter/con man you would not only be rooting for this, but by the end of the story it would seem silly for the king NOT to give it up... but it's never just a word or sentence or single action.

so why does everyone go there?

Because RPG forums are a hell of our own making wherein we discuss three silly examples for all eternity: (1) asking the king to give you the kingdom; (2) someone jumping or falling off a cliff for some reason; and (3) whether or not someone knows about fire hurting trolls.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I always find this funny... if you were watching or reading about a grifter/con man you would not only be rooting for this, but by the end of the story it would seem silly for the king NOT to give it up... but it's never just a word or sentence or single action.

so why does everyone go there?

I think typically it's because folks try to use absurd examples as if they really illuminate anything about play.

I think also, when one doesn't actually play a game, one cannot offer any actual examples from play. So usually, they're posting some imagined boogeyman of how play must fall apart rather than anything that resembles actual play.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Indeed, in games like PbtA, the DM/gamemaster/storyteller has a lot of say as to whether an action can be attempted or not (or if it's worth a roll to attempt or not). And if it does, it may be a long process requiring several successes over a period of time (like the progress clocks in Blades in the Dark). Also, the DM decides the starting position which in turns determines the severity of the consequences. Convincing the king to hand over his kingdom might be a 12-step progress clock where a failure makes you a traitor scheduled to be executed in the next hour...

So even in games like blades in the dark or Aliens, dice rolls are still dependent on the arbitration of the gamemaster, not unlike a D&D DM deciding on the DC and the consequences of failure in case of a failed check.

Not at all in the same way, and I disagree with your opening sentence pretty strongly. The GM is not a gate that actions need to pass to be implemented in these games. I've never once been told, nor have I told my players when running, that an action is not allowed. The closest that I've seen is when an action is declared that is wildly at odds with other's understanding of the fiction (not just the GM's) and then there's a discussion. Nothing at all in the game texts even suggest that the GM is the gate that actions need to pass -- this isn't mentioned as a duty of the GM. And in games that are very clear about what jobs people have at the table, you'd think such a thing would be mentioned if it was intended.

Also, everything is in the open and transparent for everyone. And open for challenge. Your example of negotiating the king to hand over the kingdom is badly flawed in many ways. 1) this shouldn't be happening at all, because it's violating the principles of play on the players side. The idea that you can get to the king and then have a discussion to get him to give you the kingdom is not what these games entertain as play to begin with. This isn't a problem the GM needs to address as a GM, but one that needs to stop the game and have a serious table discussion about what it is you're all doing. 2) if, for the sake of argument, it does happen, then the GM's choices about the challenge are still bound by the principles of play, and since everything is in the open, players can look and challenge on that basis. So if it is in play (arguendo) then the GM's choice here aren't 100% fiat 'suck it up players' because they can hold the GM's feet to the fire and call that table break as well on the GM as they can on the players. And, since everyone in these games should be engaged with playing to find out and fully onboard with the games agendas and principles, this isn't even a thing that's worrisome or challenging to the people.

Aliens, on the other hand, is rather traditional in it's authority structure. It's not at all the same kind of game as Blades in the Dark, but much more like D&D in it's authorities and structures. So, yeah, the Aliens GM should be making a lot of judgement calls about the fiction and presenting those as they bear on play in a way that wouldn't look at all odd at a D&D table. But Blades? Not even close to how D&D plays. And the GM is very much more constrained in their judgement, where it applies, and how it's used.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Not at all in the same way, and I disagree with your opening sentence pretty strongly. The GM is not a gate that actions need to pass to be implemented in these games. I've never once been told, nor have I told my players when running, that an action is not allowed. The closest that I've seen is when an action is declared that is wildly at odds with other's understanding of the fiction (not just the GM's) and then there's a discussion. Nothing at all in the game texts even suggest that the GM is the gate that actions need to pass -- this isn't mentioned as a duty of the GM. And in games that are very clear about what jobs people have at the table, you'd think such a thing would be mentioned if it was intended.

Yeah, this is a good summation. I think I mentioned how the GM can say something is impossible, but that was in response to the aforementioned absurd example. Typically, the GM doesn't have to do that, because most folks aren't going to attempt things that the fiction indicates are impossible.

If they do, then usually what happens is a discussion, as you say, and a resetting of understanding and/or expectations.

 

[clearstream]

I’m not Oofta but My immediate thought is all tasks using a particular stat have the same chance of success regardless of how easy or difficult they are in the fiction. That’s odd. I’d immediately think, how does this work if I try to persuade the king to give me his kingdom. Does that result fictionally make sense for a success?

Modifiers still apply (and DCs are converted to modifiers, in my version.)

So the difficulty is arrived at by summing the modifiers, rather than as a number to beat.