D&D 5E 5e consequence-resolution

[Umbran]

Good grief Oofta. Seriously?

Telling people to do their own research does not qualify as a constructive of helpful answer.

If you don't have time to give a full answer, that's okay, but telling folks at least explains the unhelpfulness. If you don't have the inclination, maybe you shouldn't engage...

 

[clearstream]

What is a roll index?

It's where the roll indexes a results table, which can be fixed, sliding, dynamic, uniform, bespoke etc.

Example of a 'fixed' roll index (simplified FitD)
Highest die is 6, it’s a full success—things go well.
Highest die is a 4 or 5, that’s a partial success—you do what you were trying to do, but there are consequences: trouble, harm, reduced effect.
Highest die is 1-3, it’s a bad outcome. Things go poorly. You probably don’t achieve your goal and you suffer complications.

That's a fixed index. One virtue is that it's both nuanced, but also easy to remember in play. A roll that isn't an index is dealing damage in 5e. Roll d6, get 4, deal 4+STR damage e.g. 7.

Example of a 'sliding' roll index (simplified 5e)
DC 17
Modified roll is 17+, it's a full success
Modified roll is <17, it's a failure

With the latter, the number associated with success always changes. There's a lot more to both these example systems. But anyway, what I've done in my homebrew is translated the sliding index into a fixed index, so that we can focus better on nuanced outcomes. Then, because we're focusing more on the outcomes, possibly you see how that can work well for "consequences-resolution."

 

[Maxperson]

It's where the roll indexes a results table, which can be fixed, sliding, dynamic, uniform, bespoke etc.

Example of a 'fixed' roll index (simplified FitD)
Highest die is 6, it’s a full success—things go well.
Highest die is a 4 or 5, that’s a partial success—you do what you were trying to do, but there are consequences: trouble, harm, reduced effect.
Highest die is 1-3, it’s a bad outcome. Things go poorly. You probably don’t achieve your goal and you suffer complications.

That's a fixed index. One virtue is that it's both nuanced, but also easy to remember in play. A roll that isn't an index is dealing damage in 5e. Roll d6, get 4, deal 4+STR damage e.g. 7.

Example of a 'sliding' roll index (simplified 5e)
DC 17
Modified roll is 17+, it's a full success
Modified roll is <17, it's a failure

With the latter, the number associated with success always changes. There's a lot more to both these example systems. But anyway, what I've done in my homebrew is translated the sliding index into a fixed index, so that we can focus better on nuanced outcomes. Then, because we're focusing more on the outcomes, possibly you see how that can work well for "consequences-resolution."

Out of curiosity, what do you call the 5e system with success at a cost invoked? Is it still sliding? The DC is still variable, but it's not pass/fail any longer.

 

[clearstream]

Out of curiosity, what do you call the 5e system with success at a cost invoked? Is it still sliding? The DC is still variable, but it's not pass/fail any longer.

Example of a 'sliding' roll index (simplified 5e)
DC 17
Modified roll is 17+, it's a full success
Modified roll is 15+, it's success-with-complication
Modified roll is <14, it's a failure

DC13
Modified roll is 13+, it's a full success
Modified roll is 11+, it's success-with-complication
Modified roll is <10, it's a failure

Compared with FitD/PbtA you can see that the index "slides" with DC (the number pointing to each result changes).

 

[clearstream]

@Maxperson and then with the more than 5 rule for botches.

DC13
Modified roll is 13+, it's a full success
Modified roll is 11+, it's success-with-complication
Modified roll is 8+, it's a failure
Modified roll is <8, it's botched

You can see how those are similar to FitD, but "sliding".

 

[iserith]

The issue I would have with this approach is that the DC is in some sense based on the efficacy of the approach to the goal, so static DCs become problematic in that case unless the approach is standardized too. For some common tasks that could be done certainly, but not all.

 

[clearstream]

The issue I would have with this approach is that the DC is in some sense based on the efficacy of the approach to the goal, so static DCs become problematic in that case unless the approach is standardized too. For some common tasks that could be done certainly, but not all.

Part of the "translation" is to convert DCs to modifiers.

Very Easy then becomes +5, Easy +0, Moderate –5, Hard –10, Very Hard –15, Nearly Impossible –20.

So the index becomes fixed and it is the roll result that "slides" (which is what happens in any of the systems discussed, as all use modifiers.) This has a nice consequence for passive checks as it turns out (although I would need more words to explain that.)

 

[Oofta]

Telling people to do their own research does not qualify as a constructive of helpful answer.

If you don't have time to give a full answer, that's okay, but telling folks at least explains the unhelpfulness. If you don't have the inclination, maybe you shouldn't engage...

Until recently I'm lucky if I've had time to play once a month. I don't have an issue with how D&D works so I have no desire to purchase other games merely to find out how they work. In addition I find that you can't really get an understanding of how games actually play out without playing them. Since I don't care for online games and options for gaming groups are limited it's not like I could do much about it even if I wanted to.

On the other hand, if someone asked me a question I could easily answer I would just, I don't know, answer. I'm not asking for a dissertation but I hear all the time "X does this better, D&D design is awful". Answering why X is better should not be that hard. Why is it a bad thing to ask people to justify or at least explain their opinion?

 

[Oofta]

It's where the roll indexes a results table, which can be fixed, sliding, dynamic, uniform, bespoke etc.

Example of a 'fixed' roll index (simplified FitD)
Highest die is 6, it’s a full success—things go well.
Highest die is a 4 or 5, that’s a partial success—you do what you were trying to do, but there are consequences: trouble, harm, reduced effect.
Highest die is 1-3, it’s a bad outcome. Things go poorly. You probably don’t achieve your goal and you suffer complications.

That's a fixed index. One virtue is that it's both nuanced, but also easy to remember in play. A roll that isn't an index is dealing damage in 5e. Roll d6, get 4, deal 4+STR damage e.g. 7.

Example of a 'sliding' roll index (simplified 5e)
DC 17
Modified roll is 17+, it's a full success
Modified roll is <17, it's a failure

With the latter, the number associated with success always changes. There's a lot more to both these example systems. But anyway, what I've done in my homebrew is translated the sliding index into a fixed index, so that we can focus better on nuanced outcomes. Then, because we're focusing more on the outcomes, possibly you see how that can work well for "consequences-resolution."

Thanks for the explanation. Don't they discuss that as an option in the DMG? How if you fail by 5 or less you may have partial success? I have to go back to digging ditches post holes or I'd look it up. Doesn't that achieve the same thing or am I missing something?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Until recently I'm lucky if I've had time to play once a month. I don't have an issue with how D&D works so I have no desire to purchase other games merely to find out how they work. In addition I find that you can't really get an understanding of how games actually play out without playing them. Since I don't care for online games and options for gaming groups are limited it's not like I could do much about it even if I wanted to.

On the other hand, if someone asked me a question I could easily answer I would just, I don't know, answer. I'm not asking for a dissertation but I hear all the time "X does this better, D&D design is awful". Answering why X is better should not be that hard. Why is it a bad thing to ask people to justify or at least explain their opinion?

Well, in the first paragraph you said you have no intention of purchasing other games, and that you don't think you can really grasp other games without actually playing them.

So anyone who may offer you an answer is offering you something you can't by your own definition accept, and so it's pointless. You've rendered anyone's ability to offer you any meaningful suggestions moot.