D&D 5E 5e consequence-resolution

[Maxperson]

Sometimes the safe just can't be opened by the rogue. But until they try, I'm not going to reveal that information. After they fail, I'll use their result to determine if they know it's impossible.

See, I'm not going to call for a roll for that.

DM: "Okay. You want to open the safe, give me a thieves' tools roll to see if you can.
Rogue: "8"
DM: "You don't succeed. Do you want to keep trying?"
Rogue: "9 rolls later, 18! Finally a good number."
DM: "You fail and learn that you can't succeed."

Now you've(general you) wasted a chunk of limited play time on something that really didn't matter. Instead I'd say something like.

DM: "Okay. You want to open the safe. How long are you going to spend trying to get it open?"
Rogue: "5 minutes seems safe. Pun intended. Haha!"
DM: "Very funny. After 2 minutes of trying, you're certain that this safe is beyond your ability."

That entire exchange would happen in less time than it would take for the player to register a request to roll, pick up the die, roll it, and read me a number to see if he figures out that he can't open the safe. Let alone all the other exchanges in your method where you continue to describe failure and ask for more rolls until he rolls well enough to figure it out.

 

[Maxperson]

DMG 237 says only roll when there are meaningful consequences. That implies that we must know if there are meaningful consequences before the roll. Think of the decision flow.

No. That does not automatically follow from only rolling if there are meaningful consequences. Let's go back to the example with the safe.

The party has snuck in through the south door and the rogue is trying to get the safe open. They've seen it and are curious to see if anything is inside of it. Outside the closed north door are a pair of guards. What the group doesn't know is that if the safe door is not opened within 10 seconds of something entering the keyhole, there is a trap inside the lock that will make noise and alert the guards.

I'm under no in fiction or out of fiction obligation to inform the player of the consequences for failing to succeed on the attempt to get the safe open. I'm simply going to ask for a roll and go from there. There only has to be a meaningful consequence for failure. The players need not know what that consequence is before it happens.

 

[Oofta]

See, I'm not going to call for a roll for that.

DM: "Okay. You want to open the safe, give me a thieves' tools roll to see if you can.
Rogue: "8"
DM: "You don't succeed. Do you want to keep trying?"
Rogue: "9 rolls later, 18! Finally a good number."
DM: "You fail and learn that you can't succeed."

Now you've(general you) wasted a chunk of limited play time on something that really didn't matter. Instead I'd say something like.

DM: "Okay. You want to open the safe. How long are you going to spend trying to get it open?"
Rogue: "5 minutes seems safe. Pun intended. Haha!"
DM: "Very funny. After 2 minutes of trying, you're certain that this safe is beyond your ability."

That entire exchange would happen in less time than it would take for the player to register a request to roll, pick up the die, roll it, and read me a number to see if he figures out that he can't open the safe. Let alone all the other exchanges in your method where you continue to describe failure and ask for more rolls until he rolls well enough to figure it out.

I generally don't allow retries for something like picking locks or breaking manacles. If there is no significant time limit I may make the minimum result a 10. After the first attempt I'll let them know that they can't open it and that either it can't be picked or they simply aren't skilled enough.

The other alternative is that if there's no time pressure that they do the old "take 20" and assume they work on it long enough they'll eventually get the best result they can. I switch up a bit based on what makes the most sense and what will be more fun.

 

[clearstream]

No. That does not automatically follow from only rolling if there are meaningful consequences. Let's go back to the example with the safe.

The party has snuck in through the south door and the rogue is trying to get the safe open. They've seen it and are curious to see if anything is inside of it. Outside the closed north door are a pair of guards. What the group doesn't know is that if the safe door is not opened within 10 seconds of something entering the keyhole, there is a trap inside the lock that will make noise and alert the guards.

I'm under no in fiction or out of fiction obligation to inform the player of the consequences for failing to succeed on the attempt to get the safe open. I'm simply going to ask for a roll and go from there. There only has to be a meaningful consequence for failure. The players need not know what that consequence is before it happens.

Good example.

By "we" I mean to let in an ambiguity. At minimum, DM must be included in "we" (as DM calls for roll.)

Does "we" necessarily also include players? As your example illustrates, there might be times that to enable a groups preferred play, it does not. I am not saying that "we" necessarily includes players. It may. It may to some extent or in part. It may not.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I guess the issue is that 'meaningful consequences' is pretty vague and subjective. Is not knowing what in the safe meaningful?

Not knowing what is in the safe is not a consequence of failure because nothing has changed. You are in the same game state whether you try and fail, or not try at all.

There are no right or wrong answers to this, its just a matter of preference.

But otherwise, yes: whether an actual consequence is meaningful or not is subjective.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Not knowing what is in the safe is not a consequence of failure because nothing has changed. You are in the same game state whether you try and fail, or not try at all.

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.

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.")

But otherwise, yes: whether an actual consequence is meaningful or not is subjective.

 

[Laurefindel]

I guess I just always see failure itself as a meaningful consequence. For instance, even if the safe is empty, the PCs won't know that until it is opened, but if they fail to open it, they won't know--and not knowing could have impact on what they do next.

Not knowing whether the safe contains what the players were looking for can definitively be a meaningful consequence in the right context. I don't think it is by default however. Usually, the objectives of the PC are multiple,

Keeping the safe example, PCs are rolling to succeed on...

• knowing for certain what was inside
• getting what is inside
• not attracting unwanted attention while doing so
• doing it quick enough not to jeopardize the rest of their activities/goals
• not get hurt or poisoned or trapped in the process
• not destroying what was inside in the process
• not spending more resources that anticipated doing so

Depending on context, some of the above may not be applicable or represent a meaningful consequence if failed, but oftentimes we don't roll for each of them separately. Thus a failure might be on any of the factors in play. [edit] Sometimes a roll might be asked simply to keep tension in the narrative and keep players on edge but neither success nor failure are consequential. The relevance of the roll is outside the actions of the PC and aimed at the players/game [/edit]

Oftentimes when I ask a PC to roll athletics to jump from one roof to another for example, failure doesn't result in a fall.

 

[Laurefindel]

But otherwise, yes: whether an actual consequence is meaningful or not is subjective.

and contextual

 

[Ovinomancer]

I guess the issue is that 'meaningful consequences' is pretty vague and subjective. Is not knowing what in the safe meaningful? There are no right or wrong answers to this, its just a matter of preference.

It's also that "no progress" is specifically held out in the rules as a result of a failed check.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Not knowing whether the safe contains what the players were looking for can definitively be a meaningful consequence in the right context. I don't think it is by default however.

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?

Oftentimes when I ask a PC to roll athletics to jump from one roof to another for example, failure doesn't result in a fall.

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.