D&D 5E 5e consequence-resolution

[Bill Zebub]

Right. But by definition hard task (DC20) is within the ability of unskilled schmuck (relevant bonus +0.) So it means any commoner would autosucceed at any hard task without catastrophic fail conditions and when under no time pressure. And this doesn't seem right to me.

I wouldn't get stuck on the terminology that WotC uses when giving advice on setting DCs. Your definition of 'hard' might mean a DC of 21, which avoid the problem you describe.

But, ignoring that, let's say we have a task with a stiff DC of 20.

First, fail conditions don't have to be catastrophic. (Not sure how you chose that word.) Just meaningful. It could simply be that you ruin your thieves' tools. So you could tell a player, "It looks like it's beyond your abilities, but maybe you could do it. However, if you fail you might ruin your lockpicks, which will require a second Dex check."

Or maybe you don't want there to be a consequence. In which case you can say, "It looks really, really hard, but if you try long enough you'll get it. It might take hours."

Maybe that doesn't sit right with you for whatever reason, but I don't see a problem with it.

And you didn't answer my question about knowledge skills. There often is no time pressure with those, so do you just let players to autosucceed in any with a DC that their skill+20 can beat?

Sorry, you're right. I personally see knowledge checks as something entirely different, and in fact I sorta wish knowledge skills were in a completely different category. I think I've seen @iserith say that they want players to describe how they try to recall some information....goal and approach and all...but I've never found that satisfying. I don't really see that kind of knowledge check as an attempt at anything; it's just asking if your character happens to know something, and it's randomly determined (or not, if the DM chooses.)

Yeah, sure, roll the dice and if you succeed the DM gives you the info, and if you fail the DM doesn't.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Maybe that doesn't sit right with you for whatever reason, but I don't see a problem with it.

It doesn't sit well with me because it makes very high DCs trivially beatable when there is no time pressure. But I'm not saying that it is 'wrong' to run it that way, it is quite logical. It just has implications.

Sorry, you're right. I personally see knowledge checks as something entirely different, and in fact I sorta wish knowledge skills were in a completely different category. I think I've seen @iserith say that they want players to describe how they try to recall some information....goal and approach and all...but I've never found that satisfying. I don't really see that kind of knowledge check as an attempt at anything; it's just asking if your character happens to know something, and it's randomly determined (or not, if the DM chooses.)

Yeah, sure, roll the dice and if you succeed the DM gives you the info, and if you fail the DM doesn't.

Right. So I don't think it is weird to treat other skill rolls similarly than knowledge. Either you know it or you don't, either you can do it or you don't, and further trying doesn't change that.

But like I said, I don't feel this is an are that rules really properly address.

 

[Umbran]

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

Except that "we" are not united in that approach. I have played under many GMs who make yo roll to open a safe, even if there's nothing in it and it isn't trapped.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It doesn't sit well with me because it makes very high DCs trivially beatable when there is no time pressure. But I'm not saying that it is 'wrong' to run it that way, it is quite logical. It just has implications.

Well, I would expect that the 'challenges' a DM presents are a function of play style. I wouldn't bother assigning a DC to a safe unless I was anticipating time pressure (or other constraint). And if the circumstances surprised me I would improvise something suitable to the situation.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

"You try and just fail," with zero additional information or context, sounds pretty much like the definition of non-meaningful consequence and narrative dullness. I don't see how there is any way to spin "you try and just fail and literally nothing else happens" as a meaningful consequence.

The stereotypical example of this is the "find the secret door"/"unlock the critical door" roll. You roll, the DM says you found nothing/failed to open the lock...and then everyone is just standing there. Because you needed to find/open the door in order to proceed. There wasn't a plan for any other approach. Play hits a dead end. Fail Forward exists specifically to counteract that problem by making it so failure creates interesting consequences, rather than just grinding play to a halt. Because that is a serious and ongoing issue for many, MANY DMs out there.

In what way are you getting narratively interesting, meaningful consequences out of "you literally just fail and nothing whatsoever happens"?

 

[Oofta]

I guess the thing that I've never understood about the "don't roll" is what it adds to the game. For me, if I'm rolling to open that empty safe and I fail that sense of mystery is still there. I'd hate to lose that because the DM knows something my PC never could. I also prefer not to play "try to convince the DM" because I want character builds to matter, not the fluency and persuasiveness of the player.

There are of course times when clever play can bypass difficulties. In a recent game the druid wildshaped into a giant spider, we tied my PC to the spider and then the spider just walked along the wall and avoided obvious trapped floor. But that wasn't "I cleverly describe how I open a lock" so it automatically succeeds, it was just the smart play.

So to me, trying to avoid rolling can be quite detrimental to the fun. First it takes away the mystery and immersion, second it favors players who are convincing or know the DM well while ignoring decisions and potential sacrifices I made for my PC to be effective.

 

[Oofta]

...

In what way are you getting narratively interesting, meaningful consequences out of "you literally just fail and nothing whatsoever happens"?

Immersion, mystery, that (fun) groan later on when you realized you missed something. I don't want to always succeed, failure in and of itself can be just as fun.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

"You try and just fail," with zero additional information or context, sounds pretty much like the definition of non-meaningful consequence and narrative dullness. I don't see how there is any way to spin "you try and just fail and literally nothing else happens" as a meaningful consequence.

The stereotypical example of this is the "find the secret door"/"unlock the critical door" roll. You roll, the DM says you found nothing/failed to open the lock...and then everyone is just standing there. Because you needed to find/open the door in order to proceed. There wasn't a plan for any other approach. Play hits a dead end. Fail Forward exists specifically to counteract that problem by making it so failure creates interesting consequences, rather than just grinding play to a halt. Because that is a serious and ongoing issue for many, MANY DMs out there.

In what way are you getting narratively interesting, meaningful consequences out of "you literally just fail and nothing whatsoever happens"?

Because then the character just shrugs, gives up and goes home? No. they try something else. Perhaps not regarding that particular obstacle, but the larger situation at hand.

Also, don't build adventures so that there is some specific thing that must happen "in order to proceed."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Immersion, mystery, that (fun) groan later on when you realized you missed something. I don't want to always succeed, failure in and of itself can be just as fun.

Why is "you just fail and literally nothing else happens" the only form failure can take?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why is "you just fail and literally nothing else happens" the only form failure can take?

It's not the only form the failure can take. It is a form failure can sometimes take.