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.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

I mean, when the text explicitly says ability checks are for resolving success, and even the later section you point to explicitly says, "You determine the consequences of...ability checks,[...] When an ability check equals or exceeds the DC, the check succeeds." It's pretty clear that ability checks themselves are about success or failure. DM judgment in response to a check, on the other hand, may involve questions of consequences.

Notice the "may," or "can," as used in the text. Emphasis added: "When a character fails a roll by only 1 or 2, you can allow the character to succeed at the cost of complication..." "You can also use this technique when a characters succeeds on a roll by hitting the DC exactly..." "However, you can choose to take such an exceptional roll [nat 20 or nat 1] into account when adjudicating the outcome." Note also the (repeated) use of referring to the check itself as "succeeding" or "failing." It still seems pretty clear, even in the DMG 242 text, that checks are about success vs failure of a given task. It is only what happens after the check--that is, the description and adjudication of what "you succeeded at the task" means--which can involve DM intervention as to consequences, though it need not have to.

The rules themselves are (somewhat surprisingly for 5e) quite clear about what they're for. This is an area where the "DM-curation," to use your term, crops up after the rules are triggered and resolved, not in the process of triggering the rules.

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.

I mean, yeah? It's literally the very last portion of the Using Ability Scores section. If it were meant to be the heart and soul of...y'know, using ability scores, you'd think it would get somewhat higher billing!

Even if it weren't, the text makes it pretty clear how optional this is. It repeatedly uses "you can choose..." or similar phrases ("consider adding...", "when you introduce..." meaning you aren't always introducing such things, referring to them as "flourishes and approaches" rather than as the core function, etc.) Flourishes are optional: "a decoration or embellishment," "showiness in the doing of something," etc. "Approaches" likewise implies that these are some possible directions, but far from the only ones; one could, in fact, decide that it's unnecessary "to make things a little less black-and-white," that black-and-white resolution is perfectly adequate.

 

[clearstream]

I mean, when the text explicitly says ability checks are for resolving success, and even the later section you point to explicitly says, "You determine the consequences of...ability checks,[...] When an ability check equals or exceeds the DC, the check succeeds." It's pretty clear that ability checks themselves are about success or failure. DM judgment in response to a check, on the other hand, may involve questions of consequences.

Consider the order of operations.

I mean, yeah? It's literally the very last portion of the Using Ability Scores section. If it were meant to be the heart and soul of...y'know, using ability scores, you'd think it would get somewhat higher billing!

Even if it weren't, the text makes it pretty clear how optional this is. It repeatedly uses "you can choose..." or similar phrases ("consider adding...", "when you introduce..." meaning you aren't always introducing such things, referring to them as "flourishes and approaches" rather than as the core function, etc.) Flourishes are optional: "a decoration or embellishment," "showiness in the doing of something," etc. "Approaches" likewise implies that these are some possible directions, but far from the only ones; one could, in fact, decide that it's unnecessary "to make things a little less black-and-white," that black-and-white resolution is perfectly adequate.

Do you see any real objection to counting them rules? Taking the wording sincerely (as we should, with rules.)

EDIT Folk sometimes read more in than what I write. I'm mindful of the wording, and nowhere say that the choice defined in that wording is to be overlooked.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Consider the order of operations.

As far as I can tell, I have. One processes the ability check. That check indicates that the task either succeeded or failed. That is its function. As the text says, it is quite black-and-white.

Once the ability check is rolled, the DM may then take the result, whether qualitatively, quantitatively, or both, and intrude to complicate matters beyond those black-and-white boundaries. This necessarily follows after the ability check has done its job.

Do you see any real objection to counting them rules? Taking the wording sincerely (as we should, with rules.)

Yes. They are, at absolute most, being extremely charitable to your interpretation, a description of "best practices." Even that requires interpolating "you're supposed to do this, but we can't force you to do it" into the text when it isn't there. A reading purely on the text alone, with no insertion of implied "you're supposed to do this" notions, would simply see this as a description of a thing some DMs might do while running games, not even reaching the level of guidance. More like your phone providing word suggestions as you type; you might find them useful, but you might just as easily completely ignore them and never really notice. I don't consider that anywhere near "rules."

But I also personally find 5e to be much too closer to mother-may-I for my tastes, so perhaps my criticisms should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[clearstream]

As far as I can tell, I have. One processes the ability check. That check indicates that the task either succeeded or failed. That is its function. As the text says, it is quite black-and-white.

Once the ability check is rolled, the DM may then take the result, whether qualitatively, quantitatively, or both, and intrude to complicate matters beyond those black-and-white boundaries. This necessarily follows after the ability check has done its job.

EDIT Posted before finished! It parses out like this.

• Certain? Don't roll.
• Impossible? Don't roll.
• Uncertain (solely)? Don't roll, multiply time by 10.
• Uncertain and meaningful consequences? Only now ought we roll.

What's clutch is the meaningful consequences; without them, don't roll.

When must we know the meaningful consequences? Going in, because we use them to judge if we will roll.

Yes. They are, at absolute most, being extremely charitable to your interpretation, a description of "best practices." Even that requires interpolating "you're supposed to do this, but we can't force you to do it" into the text when it isn't there. A reading purely on the text alone, with no insertion of implied "you're supposed to do this" notions, would simply see this as a description of a thing some DMs might do while running games, not even reaching the level of guidance. More like your phone providing word suggestions as you type; you might find them useful, but you might just as easily completely ignore them and never really notice. I don't consider that anywhere near "rules."

But I also personally find 5e to be much too closer to mother-may-I for my tastes, so perhaps my criticisms should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

EDIT Posted before finished! It parses out like this.

• Certain? Don't roll.
• Impossible? Don't roll.
• Uncertain (solely)? Don't roll, multiply time by 10.
• Uncertain and meaningful consequences? Only now ought we roll.

What's clutch is the meaningful consequences; without them, don't roll.

Those are the order of operations to determine whether you should trigger the Ability Check rules at all. The trigger for the rule is, "Is this situation uncertain with meaningful consequences for both success and failure?" Once that trigger applies, you engage the Ability Check rules. Once the Ability Check rules have been triggered and resolved (with either success, roll≥DC, or failure, roll<DC), the DM might then choose to intrude.

Certainty isn't about "consequences" as you have framed it; it is about success--specifically, success is guaranteed. Impossibility is likewise success and not consequence, it is that failure is guaranteed. Personally, "Uncertain (solely)" isn't even its own category, it's just the first category, certain, with more steps. "Impossible" is also a form of certainty, just certain failure.

Note, though, that "meaningful consequences" has two words you've elided out (or four in my preferred phrasing): "meaningful consequences of failure." (My personal preference is "meaningful consequences of success and failure," because uninteresting success results are almost as bad as uninteresting failure results.) But in order for consequences to be "of" something, the "of" thing must occur first. That's what consequences are, they're a result from some preceding cause. In this case, the clear cause is "success" or "failure."

When must we know the meaningful consequences? Going in, because we use them to judge if we will roll.

Do we though? Or do we just need to know that the consequences need to be meaningful, regardless of what they specifically are?

Do you need to know what failure will specifically do when the player attempts to crack the safe, or do you just need to know that failure should do something more interesting than "you fail and nothing happens"? I would absolutely argue the latter. "Fail forward" does not demand that you know exactly what all possible results will be before the player has even attempted the roll. It just means you need to keep in mind that, whatever failures you describe, they should be interesting.

 

[clearstream]

Those are the order of operations to determine whether you should trigger the Ability Check rules at all. The trigger for the rule is, "Is this situation uncertain with meaningful consequences for both success and failure?" Once that trigger applies, you engage the Ability Check rules. Once the Ability Check rules have been triggered and resolved (with either success, roll≥DC, or failure, roll<DC), the DM might then choose to intrude.

Certainty isn't about "consequences" as you have framed it; it is about success--specifically, success is guaranteed. Impossibility is likewise success and not consequence, it is that failure is guaranteed. Personally, "Uncertain (solely)" isn't even its own category, it's just the first category, certain, with more steps. "Impossible" is also a form of certainty, just certain failure.

Note, though, that "meaningful consequences" has two words you've elided out (or four in my preferred phrasing): "meaningful consequences of failure." (My personal preference is "meaningful consequences of success and failure," because uninteresting success results are almost as bad as uninteresting failure results.) But in order for consequences to be "of" something, the "of" thing must occur first. That's what consequences are, they're a result from some preceding cause. In this case, the clear cause is "success" or "failure."

To clarify, the meaningful consequences of success are those that brought the player to do as they described. That's not reified within the game system.

Do we though? Or do we just need to know that the consequences need to be meaningful, regardless of what they specifically are?

Do you need to know what failure will specifically do when the player attempts to crack the safe, or do you just need to know that failure should do something more interesting than "you fail and nothing happens"? I would absolutely argue the latter. "Fail forward" does not demand that you know exactly what all possible results will be before the player has even attempted the roll. It just means you need to keep in mind that, whatever failures you describe, they should be interesting.

That's an interesting take. It makes the rule structure inexplicable - we mean narrate a meaningful consequence, but we said only roll if there is a meaningful consequence. The if implies that there might not be, so for me your take doesn't parse out successfully. Still, if that is your take I can understand your conclusion.

I feel it is evident that it's not what I'm proposing, but from your perspective is my interpretation ambiguous in that regard?

As a minor aside, I don't see it as "fail-forward" due to the inclusion of set-backs among the possible consequences. One can quibble labels of course. To me, consequence-resolution gets best at what I am proposing.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'd say that in some situations 'you fail and nothing happens' is a meaningful consequence, if there is not option to just keep trying until you succeed. It means that path/method is blocked, and you need to try something else. And I don't think this is necessarily even narratively dull. It is pretty common in fiction for the hero to try to overcome a problem but fail, and they need to come up with an another angle to approach the matter.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Saying after 10 minutes you eventually open the door or safe is usually not the way i do it.

I normally always ask for Dexetrity (Thieves' Tools) check to open a locked door or safe. It must be an old habbit, but if there is something that should be an obstacle to overcome, i don't give it away for free automatically, regardless of what's inside or past it. This goes all the way back to when i played AD&D with thieves needing to roll % to open lock.

 

[Shardstone]

I quite like the interpretation given in the op, and will incorporate this advice into my games.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If on the other hand the party is looking for the hidden recipe to krabby patties, then not knowing if the recipe is inside will alter the way the party continues exploration which is a meaningful consequence for failure.

darn it... I think you just found my next campaign pitch... stealing the secret recipe.