D&D 5E 5e consequence-resolution

[clearstream]

I pulled this out of another thread and tidied it up as it captures something I've been mulling over. 5e is often thought of as task-resolution. With dead-ends and flat fails. Task-resolution is often contrasted with conflict-resolution, where the focus isn't on resolving the task, but on the reason the task matters. I think maybe 5e ability checks can be better explained as consequence-resolution like this, using the example of opening a safe

1. It may seem counter-intuitive, but in 5e, you don't really roll to open a safe
2. Per DMG 237, what you are really rolling for are consequences
3. Taken together with PHB 174, the results can be
   1. you open the safe (the consequence you want)
   2. you open the safe but with additional consequences
   3. you become engaged with some consequences

For emphasis,

• Per RAW, outcomes of ability checks in 5e - pass or fail - are ordinarily not inert. I'm not saying a dead-end couldn't ever come up in an interesting way, but that isn't the default.
• If a task is uncertain, but there are no meaningful consequences, the DMG rule is that they succeed in ten times the time.
• Following the procedure in RAW, consequences are known going in. They'll be those that are due to player choices and big picture elements: players and DM all get their say. That doesn't rule out unexpected twists, but those can still be principled - constrained by your situation, what's been described, and the game system.

Some might still see that as not really about resolving what matters. The missing piece isn't found in the rules: it's in the player orientation to their game. Why have my players chosen to open that particular safe? We're here now, why? Unless I picture my party going about opening random safes, their desired consequence - find what they are looking for in the safe - is what is resolved. Beyond the events kicking off play in session 1, DM does not have sole authorship over the situation: that's up to the group. DM doesn't choose stakes, they're chosen by the group. DM has their side of the picture, players have theirs. The two sides are asymmetrical, but they can (and in my view should) be equal.

I might wonder - couldn't that safe just be empty? The answer to that depends on my decisions about the kind of play I am interested in. Were I solely focused on immersion, perhaps I would like to imagine empty safes? 5e is a non-comittal game: it leaves decisions like that up to the group. I believe 5e is overwhelmingly DM-curated, so I would put it like this - where it's reasonable to say system matters, in 5e system + DM matters.

In understanding ability checks for 5e, folk normally start with examples like the one in the Basic rules primer. Later, they might read the PHB 174 and see they should take uncertainty into account and can narrate complications on failure. Eventually, they'll get familiar with DMG 237 and see what's possible. Stopping short at primer or PHB leaves the picture incomplete. Because in D&D system + DM matters, even the whole picture won't guarantee that any two groups will play it the same way.

Finally, a hat tip to @iserith who helped me really grasp all this. With any luck they are still around and will link their thoughts (their guide) in this direction.

 

[Maxperson]

I pulled this out of another thread and tidied it up as it captures something I've been mulling over. 5e is often thought of as task-resolution. With dead-ends and flat fails. Task-resolution is often contrasted with conflict-resolution, where the focus isn't on resolving the task, but on the reason the task matters. I think maybe 5e ability checks can be better explained as consequence-resolution like this, using the example of opening a safe

1. It may seem counter-intuitive, but in 5e, you don't really roll to open a safe
2. Per DMG 237, what you are really rolling for are consequences
3. Taken together with PHB 174, the results can be
   1. you open the safe (the consequence you want)
   2. you open the safe but with additional consequences
   3. you become engaged with some consequences

For emphasis,

• Per RAW, outcomes of ability checks in 5e - pass or fail - are ordinarily not inert. I'm not saying a dead-end couldn't ever come up in an interesting way, but that isn't the default.
• If a task is uncertain, but there are no meaningful consequences, the DMG rule is that they succeed in ten times the time.
• Following the procedure in RAW, consequences are known going in. They'll be those that are due to player choices and big picture elements: players and DM all get their say. That doesn't rule out unexpected twists, but those can still be principled - constrained by your situation, what's been described, and the game system.

Some might still see that as not really about resolving what matters. The missing piece isn't found in the rules: it's in the player orientation to their game. Why have my players chosen to open that particular safe? We're here now, why? Unless I picture my party going about opening random safes, their desired consequence - find what they are looking for in the safe - is what is resolved. Beyond the events kicking off play in session 1, DM does not have sole authorship over the situation: that's up to the group. DM doesn't choose stakes, they're chosen by the group. DM has their side of the picture, players have theirs. The two sides are asymmetrical, but they can (and in my view should) be equal.

I might wonder - couldn't that safe just be empty? The answer to that depends on my decisions about the kind of play I am interested in. Were I solely focused on immersion, perhaps I would like to imagine empty safes? 5e is a non-comittal game: it leaves decisions like that up to the group. I believe 5e is overwhelmingly DM-curated, so I would put it like this - where it's reasonable to say system matters, in 5e system + DM matters.

In understanding ability checks for 5e, folk normally start with examples like the one in the Basic rules primer. Later, they might read the PHB 174 and see they should take uncertainty into account and can narrate complications on failure. Eventually, they'll get familiar with DMG 237 and see what's possible. Stopping short at primer or PHB leaves the picture incomplete. Because in D&D system + DM matters, even the whole picture won't guarantee that any two groups will play it the same way.

Finally, a hat tip to @iserith who helped me really grasp all this. With any luck they are still around and will link their thoughts (their guide) in this direction.

It's not just a meaningful consequence. It's specifically a meaningful consequence for failure. So if someone wanted to break into a safe to get the gold inside, failure means no gold which is a meaningful consequence for failure. That added to the outcome being in doubt will cause a roll. If the outcome is not in doubt OR there is no meaningful consequence for failure, you don't roll.

So if the safe is empty and there's no real meaningful consequence for not knowing what's inside, the roll auto succeeds or auto fails. 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.

 

[clearstream]

It's not just a meaningful consequence. It's specifically a meaningful consequence for failure. So if someone wanted to break into a safe to get the gold inside, failure means no gold which is a meaningful consequence for failure. That added to the outcome being in doubt will cause a roll.

That's true. I make the assumption (result bullet-point 1.) that the player-characters have intentions behind attempting to open the safe, i.e. that opening it will have consequences that matter to them. Mabye their hungry for gold and missing out on that gold will put them in a pickle. Maybe an incriminating document is in the safe.

If the outcome is not in doubt OR there is no meaningful consequence for failure, you don't roll.

My take is currently that - per the rules just further down on DMG 237 - uncertainty alone ends up not really at issue. When the only cost is time, a character succeeds by spending ten-times the time. That results in cases where the outcome is in doubt, but you still don't roll because there is no meaningful consequence.

That is what led me toward characterising it as consequence-resolution. I've seen folk stop at the PHB 174 text and understand uncertainty to be what is most at issue. The way it lands taken together with DMG 237 is on consequences.

 

[Krachek]

Of course the safe can be empty!
To postpone the end of the plot is common in fantasy.
With some imagination effort, the DM should always be able to justify the empty safe.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Can’t happen. Safes are an anachronism.






(But I’m glad to see @iserith is continuing to spread the gospel.)

 

[Stoutstien]

Aye. It's a common mistake for DMs to utilize the action resolution mechanic as a means to determine what is possible rather than setting appropriate consequences based on the risks involved. You never rolling to see if you can open a safe you're rolling to see how long it's going to take you. if you don't have the necessary tools or ability to open it in the first place you don't roll.

I don't like the term failing forward but it's apt here. Unless a failure specifically prevents further attempts you're still going to achieve the task in some form.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It is a flaw in 5E the idea that you simply can't do something. Sometimes, you just can't open the safe-- you just aren't good enough. Sadly, the DC would have to be ludicrously high for a 20 to not succeed eventually. Again, bounded accuracy rears its ugly head.

Personally, our table only allows a retry if you fail by 5 or less. If you fail by more than 5, you just can't do whatever it is you are trying to do.

 

[clearstream]

Of course the safe can be empty!
To postpone the end of the plot is common in fantasy.
With some imagination effort, the DM should always be able to justify the empty safe.

Agreed, and I parse that this way

• Safe empty, no traps, possible to open? No roll. (It opens.)
• Safe empty, but trapped? What does player describe?
  • Player describes opening safe? No roll, it opens and trap triggers. (There can be various arrangements of this.)
  • Player describes checking for traps? Roll for checking for traps!

As you see, we don't really roll for opening that safe, we only roll for consequences.

 

[DND_Reborn]

As you see, we don't really roll for opening that safe, we only roll for consequences.

Why not roll to open the safe? Sometimes you can't do it, or do you just assume you always can???

Consequences follow actions, after all.

 

[clearstream]

Why not roll to open the safe? Sometimes you can't do it, or do you just assume you always can???

If it's possible, and there are no meaningful consequences for failure, per DMG 237 you can just open it (taking 10x the time).

EDIT For clarity, you can have a safe that is impossible to open. Again, no roll. It can't be opened.

Consequences follow actions, after all.

Agreed, but I think that is a good but separate observation.