D&D 5E 5e consequence-resolution

[GMforPowergamers]

Sure, but the GM must also respect the fiction, and if they don't it becomes blatantly obvious. Like it would be hella weird if that farmer's shed had an enchanted adamantium door so that the GM can set a high DC.

okay first I cut the door out, then I forget this quest entirely and take the door to be reforged into armor and weapons

 

[Oofta]

Sure. Comprehensive list is impossible and impractical. But I don't think a little bit more would hurt. Setting some benchmarks that help extrapolating. Perhaps skill descriptions could have some sample DCs for common uses? I don't know, this is not a thing that is a problem for me, as I have my own internalised model, but I can see how new GMs might benefit from having a bit more examples.

Let's take a hypothetical. WOTC hires or assigns someone to be "The Decider". Any scenario that comes up, they give a target DC. The information is then logged and added to a searchable database in DndBeyond. Slowly, over time, you would have an example of most potential scenarios.

My hypothetical is a bit exaggerated, but my real question is: would it add value? Yeah you have an "official" answer, but it's still just a judgment call. A judgment call made by someone that doesn't know the group, the style of the DM.

Furthermore, from past experience, some players would insist you use the official rule no matter how improvised the scene is or how much it breaks up the flow of the game. It's not as big of an issue if everything is planned ahead so the DM is prepared, it can be a huge impediment.

Given that everything can be improved, at least for some people, I don't think a comprehensive list would be practical or an improvement. We could get more guidance, but I don't know when enough would be enough.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I would like a skill system that is at least as complex as the combat system. Or, at the very least, anything more than just "Here's the bonus on your d20 roll, make everything else up as you go along."

While I would love that, my hunch is that it can’t be done for “a skill system.” It would have to be done for each activity. E.g. a haggling system as complex as combat, a swimming system as complex as combat, a tracking system as complex as combat, etc.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

While I would love that, my hunch is that it can’t be done for “a skill system.” It would have to be done for each activity. E.g. a haggling system as complex as combat, a swimming system as complex as combat, a tracking system as complex as combat, etc.

I would settle for skills that take up 1/4 of the system and interact with social and exploration encounters

 

[hawkeyefan]

While I would love that, my hunch is that it can’t be done for “a skill system.” It would have to be done for each activity. E.g. a haggling system as complex as combat, a swimming system as complex as combat, a tracking system as complex as combat, etc.

Or you could ditch attributes and skills and instead have action ratings. Then combat and non-combat actions can all be resolved similarly, which means that non-combat can be as robust as combat (if other elements are designed with this in mind). It also frees up the player to decide why they're good at a given action, whether it's a quality of skill or aptitude or physicality, etc.

It also avoids the need for several systems that you suggest.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Or you could ditch attributes and skills and instead have action ratings. Then combat and non-combat actions can all be resolved similarly, which means that non-combat can be as robust as combat (if other elements are designed with this in mind). It also frees up the player to decide why they're good at a given action, whether it's a quality of skill or aptitude or physicality, etc.

It also avoids the need for several systems that you suggest.

yeah a strength of WoD for 'other then combat' is that everything works the same... if melee and ranged attacks were skill checks at a DC (or ability checks if not prof) that would help

 

[Oofta]

While I would love that, my hunch is that it can’t be done for “a skill system.” It would have to be done for each activity. E.g. a haggling system as complex as combat, a swimming system as complex as combat, a tracking system as complex as combat, etc.

They tried that with skill challenges, but while I initially thought they were a good idea it always seemed like they were too broadly applied. They're a hammer, but not everything is a nail. I still use the concepts now and then, but in a much broader and more flexible form.

If something is as simple as opening a chest, I'm not sure what you can do. Either you open the lock, or you don't. Either you can open the lock quickly, or it takes a while. Perhaps you can get it open but it takes a while and in the process you destroy the lock.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If something is as simple as opening a chest, I'm not sure what you can do. Either you open the lock, or you don't. Either you can open the lock quickly, or it takes a while. Perhaps you can get it open but it takes a while and in the process you destroy the lock.

I'll use that example to illustrate what I mean.

Combat could be described the same binary way: either you win, or the other guy wins. But most games don't do that: they using sliding scales for health, and track positioning, and give you choices of different moves and counter-moves.

So we could represent lockpicking the same way: model different kinds of locks, have various skills that make you better at manipulating pins vs. tumblers, tracking each one independently, etc, with a failure at any point meaning that you had to start over, or the lock is broken, or it's just beyond your ability, etc. We could build an entire sub-system for just lockpicking.

But that sub-system wouldn't apply to other skills (haggling, tracking, climbing, horseback riding, forging documents, cooking, etc.) for two reasons:
1. The mechanics that would evoke each of those activities, with the risks involved, would vary.
2. The fluff that gives meaning to the abstract mechanics would vary dramatically.

I guess I just believe that any multi-step conflict/task resolution system designed to apply to any scenario is not going to address any one scenario in a very meaningful, engaging way.

 

[Oofta]

I'll use that example to illustrate what I mean.

Combat could be described the same binary way: either you win, or the other guy wins. But most games don't do that: they using sliding scales for health, and track positioning, and give you choices of different moves and counter-moves.

So we could represent lockpicking the same way: model different kinds of locks, have various skills that make you better at manipulating pins vs. tumblers, tracking each one independently, etc, with a failure at any point meaning that you had to start over, or the lock is broken, or it's just beyond your ability, etc. We could build an entire sub-system for just lockpicking.

But that sub-system wouldn't apply to other skills (haggling, tracking, climbing, horseback riding, forging documents, cooking, etc.) for two reasons:
1. The mechanics that would evoke each of those activities, with the risks involved, would vary.
2. The fluff that gives meaning to the abstract mechanics would vary dramatically.

I guess I just believe that any multi-step conflict/task resolution system designed to apply to any scenario is not going to address any one scenario in a very meaningful, engaging way.

Thanks for the explanation, but it goes back to the same issue. How do you have guidelines when there are so many things someone could potentially attempt?

I still do some things in stages. The example we had above of climbing the side of the building for example. In my scenario it could involve several checks, a perception check to see the rain gutter coming down the side of the building. Perhaps there's an investigation check to let them know that the rain gutter is exposed to the street so if they want to use the rain gutter (a very easy DC 5 so probably automatic for someone with training in athletics) they'll need a stealth check as well to time it for when no one will notice. Perhaps there's a complication and the rain gutter breaks free, make an athletics check to leap the rest of the way to the top or an acrobatics check to hold on to the rain gutter but then flip to where you can land on an edge. In

But that's all very much about what's going to fit the scene, what's going to be fun for the group, does it add tension. In a lot of cases, it's just going to be "there's a rain gutter you can climb" because I want to keep the story flowing. I'm not sure how to create a system that would give me a tense scene with multiple checks unless the TTRPG is very narrowly focused. I'm open to ideas and suggestions, but anything we do should be easy to resolve and relatively simple.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Thanks for the explanation, but it goes back to the same issue. How do you have guidelines when there are so many things someone could potentially attempt?

I mean we have guidelines for combat... and if there is one thing I have found in my almost 30 years of gaming is that PCs will find actions that NO ONE saw coming...