D&D 5E 5e consequence-resolution

[Oofta]

Okay, so that's what I'm asking about. Having set target numbers. From the article you linked:

To do something roll+stat.

• On a 10+ you do the thing, with no complications.
• On a 7-9 you do the thing, but with complications.
• On a 6- the GM will determine what happens.

The complications that come from a 7-9 are often in the form of some list that the player can select and then present to the GM.

So there are set Target Numbers. How do you think this would benefit a game? What might be the drawbacks?

Well, first, I do basically that for some checks now. I think some things, like opening a lock when you need to do it quickly are too binary for this. In other cases if you have time the 7-9 would be something along the lines of "It takes a while [depending on the actual roll], but you manage to open it, leaving a few scratches on the lock. It's obvious it's been picked." versus clear success that you left no indication. A failure can be anything from "you just can't get it" to "your lock pick broke off and now it's jammed". If it's a check for information of some kind it can be a matter of how much you reveal or if you fail by enough you get incorrect information.

All of this is in the DMG under Resolution and Consequences in the Dungeon Master's Workshop section.

Follow-up question. Why is it so hard to just type up what you typed up? To me it's not rude to tell people "other games do it better but I can't be bothered to explain", it's also shutting down any conversation. Why is it that every time I happen to say I like something D&D does or, heaven forbid, mention the popularity of the champion fighter according to DndBeyond, I'm "shutting down the conversation" but literally telling someone "go look it up" is not?

EDIT: I assume in D&D it would be prof + ability bonus vs some DC targets. Roll + stat doesn't really make sense.

 

[Oofta]

Modifiers still apply (and DCs are converted to modifiers, in my version.)

So the difficulty is arrived at by summing the modifiers, rather than as a number to beat.

But you still add up modifiers and rolls, correct? Doesn't that ultimately mean you're targeting some set of numbers? In D&D if I have a history check for example, I could have any number of targets for my check. 5: you've heard something about this; 10: you remember some minor details and so on up to 25+: you could write a thesis on this.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, first, I do basically that for some checks now. I think some things, like opening a lock when you need to do it quickly are too binary for this. In other cases if you have time the 7-9 would be something along the lines of "It takes a while [depending on the actual roll], but you manage to open it, leaving a few scratches on the lock. It's obvious it's been picked." versus clear success that you left no indication. A failure can be anything from "you just can't get it" to "your lock pick broke off and now it's jammed". If it's a check for information of some kind it can be a matter of how much you reveal or if you fail by enough you get incorrect information.

All of this is in the DMG under Resolution and Consequences in the Dungeon Master's Workshop section.

Well, partial success or success with consequence is in the DMG as an optional rule, yes.

I don't know if static DCs are. Like a 16 is ALWAYS a success and a 13-15 is ALWAYS a partial success, and 12 or lower is ALWAYS a failure.

Having set DCs is a bit different than tiers of success. It greatly reduces the chance for GM force or fudging and it offers the players clear and specific chances of success. It's all very player facing. With default 5e D&D, that's not the case.

Follow-up question. Why is it so hard to just type up what you typed up? To me it's not rude to tell people "other games do it better but I can't be bothered to explain", it's also shutting down any conversation. Why is it that every time I happen to say I like something D&D does or, heaven forbid, mention the popularity of the champion fighter according to DndBeyond, I'm "shutting down the conversation" but literally telling someone "go look it up" is not?

I don't know, but I'm not really interested in the conversation about the conversation. People get frustrated in these discussions at times, it happens. When it does and I'm involved, I try to see how I may have contributed and I keep that in mind for future interactions. Beyond that, I can't worry too much about it.

 

[Oofta]

Well, partial success or success with consequence is in the DMG as an optional rule, yes.

I don't know if static DCs are. Like a 16 is ALWAYS a success and a 13-15 is ALWAYS a partial success, and 12 or lower is ALWAYS a failure.

Having set DCs is a bit different than tiers of success. It greatly reduces the chance for GM force or fudging and it offers the players clear and specific chances of success. It's all very player facing. With default 5e D&D, that's not the case.

My example was just that, an example. I'll normally roughly follow the guidelines found in the DMG. So in my world identifying a holy symbol of Idun (goddess of life and healing) would be automatic for a cleric of the pantheon and a 5 for everyone else. Identifying that there's a slight modification that indicates a secret sect not heard of in a century might be a 30. It's pretty situational based on what I think the PCs could reasonably know.

But I think degrees of success and how you determine target numbers for each degree of success are probably different issues.

 

[clearstream]

But you still add up modifiers and rolls, correct? Doesn't that ultimately mean you're targeting some set of numbers? In D&D if I have a history check for example, I could have any number of targets for my check. 5: you've heard something about this; 10: you remember some minor details and so on up to 25+: you could write a thesis on this.

It makes it easier to parse an index with more entries. The sliding index is inherently fiddly to parse.

But then the ease - the fixed entries - somehow makes you more thoughtful about the consequences themselves, and the range of nuance in that. It's clearer with the deal is... it guides you better, is what I'm finding.

 

[hawkeyefan]

My example was just that, an example. I'll normally roughly follow the guidelines found in the DMG. So in my world identifying a holy symbol of Idun (goddess of life and healing) would be automatic for a cleric of the pantheon and a 5 for everyone else. Identifying that there's a slight modification that indicates a secret sect not heard of in a century might be a 30. It's pretty situational based on what I think the PCs could reasonably know.

But I think degrees of success and how you determine target numbers for each degree of success are probably different issues.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant; they are different issues.

Having set DCs that never vary wouldn't work for D&D because of the ever-escalating proficiency/skills/attributes.

But if it did work, as it does with PbtA games, what it does is removes any ambiguity from the process. I know that when I pick up the dice, if I roll a 10+ I get a full success. Nothing changes that.

With 5e as presented, the GM can share the DC or not, they can set it at whatever number pops into their head, they can ignore it and determine success or failure based on whim....and so on.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But if it did work, as it does with PbtA games, what it does is removes any ambiguity from the process. I know that when I pick up the dice, if I roll a 10+ I get a full success. Nothing changes that.

With 5e as presented, the GM can share the DC or not, they can set it at whatever number pops into their head, they can ignore it and determine success or failure based on whim....and so on.

Whilst I get the benefit you're saying the first has, I definitely prefer the latter by a huge margin. Everything being equally hard unless it is totally impossible is just way too jarring to me.

Though I definitely think that in 5e the GM should have disciplined and principled approach with setting the DCs and interpreting the results, and I'm sure that a lot of GMs don't. If the DCs feel completely arbitrary to the players, then I certainly understand why a flat difficulty might start to seem appealing.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Whilst I get the benefit you're saying the first has, I definitely prefer the latter by a huge margin. Everything being equally hard unless it is totally impossible is just way too jarring to me.

Though I definitely think that in 5e the GM should have disciplined and principled approach with setting the DCs and interpreting the results, and I'm sure that a lot of GMs don't. If the DCs feel completely arbitrary to the players, then I certainly understand why a flat difficulty might start seem appealing.

Yeah, I get the idea of varying difficulty, but I don’t think it’s quite as big a deal as it may seem.

As mentioned earlier, players aren’t going to be rolling for things that are essentially impossible or for things that are easy. So anything that requires a roll is something that’s challenging by nature.

There sometimes may be rules (depending on the version of PbtA) that may make a given roll more or less difficult, but those are pretty situational, and not present in all versions of the system.

 

[Maxperson]

Because RPG forums are a hell of our own making wherein we discuss three silly examples for all eternity: (1) asking the king to give you the kingdom; (2) someone jumping or falling off a cliff for some reason; and (3) whether or not someone knows about fire hurting trolls.

You forgot Schrodinger's ogre.

 

[Oofta]

Yes, that's exactly what I meant; they are different issues.

Having set DCs that never vary wouldn't work for D&D because of the ever-escalating proficiency/skills/attributes.

But if it did work, as it does with PbtA games, what it does is removes any ambiguity from the process. I know that when I pick up the dice, if I roll a 10+ I get a full success. Nothing changes that.

With 5e as presented, the GM can share the DC or not, they can set it at whatever number pops into their head, they can ignore it and determine success or failure based on whim....and so on.

It's an interesting way of looking at it, I'm just not sure it's better. But maybe i don't understand. If a PC in D&D needs to climb a wall it can go anywhere from so easy that it's automatic to mountain goats are going to think you're crazy to think you can climb that and everywhere in between.

So would there be no difference in PbtA games? Is a character as likely to climb every wall no matter how difficult it would be in real life, or do you just not have checks for this kind of thing?

Edit: I should probably read a post or two before responding. But having a static target number wouldn't make sense to me much of the time. Having no difference between a rocky cliff face with decent handhold vs a shear wall that can be climbed if you're really good would be odd.