D&D 5E 5e consequence-resolution

[Hussar]

I just prefer the simulationist approach. It also doesn't mean DCs are arbitrary (or at least they shouldn't be), they should adhere to the fiction of the world.

See, that's where you lose me every single time this comes up, @Oofta.

This isn't simulation AT ALL. It's just not. It's 100% arbitrary decisions by the DM. What is the DC for a rough wall? Whatever the DM says it is. There is pretty much zero simulation going on in the 5e skill system. You keep saying you want a simulationist approach, yet completely reject anything that actually works as a simulation in favor of a half-baked system where you may as well just roll a random d30 for every check to set the DC. Because, there's one thing about it, the 5e skill system is about as far from simulation as you can get.

 

[FrogReaver]

There is a counter-argument to this though.

Does an arbitrary DC set by the DM make it less "odd"?

I don't think the DM setting a DC makes the DC arbitrary unless he actually done so arbitrarily. Much like 2 judges could hear the same case and rule differently, that doesn't mean their decisions are arbitrary.

In fiction, characters mostly succeed on whatever they are trying to do. Failure is typically a plot point. Otherwise, the character succeeds. Now, granted, gaming isn't fiction, so, we do need a fail condition for attempts or we don't really have a game anymore. But, is setting that fail condition arbitrarily by the DM somehow more believable than a flat and probably equally arbitrary chance of success that is open to everyone at the table?

Neither is arbitrary unless you go to the extreme of calling virtually everything arbitrary. The flat roll is codified in the system. We use that because the system tells us to, despite whether it's correlated with what the fictional chances of success should be. That makes it non-arbitrary. The DM setting a DC based on the scene described isn't arbitrary either. He may pick a different DC than a different DM but much like 2 judges deciding a case, the different results don't mean judges rule by fiat.

Savage Worlds, for example, uses the Rule of 4. Anything higher than a 4 succeeds. The only thing that changes is the size of the dice rolled. The more complex the task, the more successes you need. It's a pretty elegant system that works rather well.

I sometimes wonder if the D20 system, where it is absolutely wedded to using a d20 for ALL checks, isn't doing itself a disservice.

I agree there. I'm not very fond of the d20 for most skills.

 

[FrogReaver]

@FrogReaver for vis

To clear up some possible misapprehensions. In PbtA if I roll a 10 but I have -1 for the relevant ability then I don't get a full success. PbtA uses a narrower range of modifers than 5e, and few or none come from the environment - they come from player choices - but it still does use a roll+modifier index to results.

In the set roll+modifer approach I suggest for 5e, the differences are that a wider range of modifers are used (an advantage of the d20 flat distribution against the 2d6 curved) and those modifiers can come from things outside player choices, such as environment.

The basic version of what I suggest is like this

10+ = full success
5+ = success with complication
Lower = failure with consequences

Difficulty classes are converted to modifiers Very Easy becomes +5, Easy +0, Moderate –5, Hard –10, Very Hard –15, Nearly Impossible –20. As you can see, this is mathematically no different from DCs-as-targets. But it does remove ambiguity from the process. Players know that if their roll+modifier is 10+, they succeed.

What this change does is make it easier and more reliable to apply the DMG 242 rules in play, allowing better focus on three (or more) levels of consequences.

I think I follow.

 

[Hussar]

I don't think the DM setting a DC makes the DC arbitrary unless he actually done so arbitrarily. Much like 2 judges could hear the same case and rule differently, that doesn't mean their decisions are arbitrary.

However, those two judges by and large won't give completely different rulings either. Most likely, those rulings will be pretty close.

In this case, we've got a range of judgements from "don't roll at all, it's an automatic success" to "don't bother rolling, it's an automatic failure".

And, frankly, if your go to example of a good system is a legal system then that's a game I have zero interest in playing. If the system is so complex or so lacking in any guidance (either extreme) then it's a very poor system for a game.

Again, I point you to my very real example. How is the system helping me here? Yes, I can absolutely do it on my own. I can come up with a resolution on my own. I'm quite capable of that. But, what is the system doing? If I have to determine the DC on my own, with no input from the system, determine how it works in the game (what kind of action is it) and determine the results of a pass and a failed check (can it be retried? is there some sort of gradiation of success?), then what is the system actually doing here?

 

[Oofta]

See, that's where you lose me every single time this comes up, @Oofta.

This isn't simulation AT ALL. It's just not. It's 100% arbitrary decisions by the DM. What is the DC for a rough wall? Whatever the DM says it is. There is pretty much zero simulation going on in the 5e skill system. You keep saying you want a simulationist approach, yet completely reject anything that actually works as a simulation in favor of a half-baked system where you may as well just roll a random d30 for every check to set the DC. Because, there's one thing about it, the 5e skill system is about as far from simulation as you can get.

Everything about a TTRPG is ultimately arbitrary. Have a system where the GM decides whether some action is possible or not? Arbitrary. There's a chance of failure set at 60% by the author of the system? That author made an arbitrary decision. The fact that my last session had the group fighting skulks that (when revealed) looked vaguely like Danny Devito's penguin from the Batman movie? Arbitrary.

If I tell people that it looks like the wall should be easy to climb, they generally know it's going to be around a DC 5, as stated in the DMG. Virtually but not completely impossible? Better hope you get that 30.

Is the decision on the general difficulty arbitrary? Of course. Just like everything in the world that I'm staging for the PCs. I don't see how it matters. All decisions on how difficult it is to succeed at a task when the outcome is uncertain are arbitrary. The only difference is who decides that percentage.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Now, how do you determine whether that information is common knowledge or obscure? - Completely arbitrary DM decision. The rules certainly aren't helping you here.

You prefer rules that delineate how widely known a fact is in the game world? That sounds... unnecessarily prescriptive. I'm not sure that's exactly what you are saying, but it kinda seems like it.

As DM, yes, I do determine what is common knowledge in my world. The published adventures do a little bit of this as well.

What combat action would be done in tandem with a knowledge check?

Any combat action. Just like all the examples of "Other Activity on Your Turn" (PHB pg 190) can be done with any combat action.

But, the point is, the rules here are doing pretty much nothing. I could simply say, "Roll a d20, roll high and you know the information" and it would be just about as much use as the 5e rules.

Which is why I think it good practice to tell the player the DC of what their PC is trying to accomplish. I'm not a fan of a DM calling for a roll and determining, seemingly after the fact, that the roll was "high enough". That, to me, is arbitrary.

"Reasonable justification"? Again, purely arbitrary.

I mean, what are you looking for from a player if not some reasonable specificity about what their PC is doing in the game world? Call it arbitrary if you want but not every statement from a player can be codified. Otherwise we could just skip the human DM and have a computer handle it for us. I don't think that is exactly what you are saying, but I suppose I'm not fully understanding your grievance either.

It's not that I'm incapable of doing it. I can do it. I simply don't want to. I shouldn't have to. The system, if it was actually of any use, should be able to provide me with a framework for adjudicating resolution beyond, "roll something that looks right".

In a game where the players can propose almost anything for what their PC is trying to do, a DM often has to make calls using the advice in the rules. Is that something you are objecting to?

I really find hard to understand how people defend a system that doesn't actually do anything that it's supposed to do. A skill system should be able to adjudicate standard uses of the skills, no? I shouldn't have to make stuff up and play amateur game designer every single time the players want to use a skill for something that is a perfectly normal way of using that skill.

I'm only defending it because it accomplishes the goals of play at our table: to have fun and create an exciting, memorable story. I'm not redesigning anything when we play. I simply make quick adjudications based on what the PCs are doing in the fiction and utilizing the advice on how to run Ability Checks that are in the rules.

I'm not talking about using Athletics to leap off an angry dragon onto a galloping horse while singing opera. Fair enough, I don't think there are too many systems out there that would be able to answer that question easily. But, "Does my character know something about this monster" isn't exactly a corner case question. Yet, right out of the chute, the rules are largely useless for resolving that. The rules don't set a DC, don't tell me what kind of action it would be, don't tell me pretty much anything other than the raw bonus on a d20.

"I don't know, why would your character know something about this monster? Is there something in their backstory, background, or training that could be useful?"

The player's job is to give the DM something to work with to make a fair adjudication. The rules give clear advice on how to set a DC and when to employ ability checks. Otherwise, yeah, ignore that advice and we are just arbitrarily rolling dice.

 

[Maxperson]

Interestingly, I tend to be almost flip-flopped compared to your approach.

With an action-oriented scene like cracking a safe, I'd probably rule the check to have a gradient of success/partial/failure.

Whereas with knowledge-based stuff, I'm far more likely to either eschew the roll entirely, or making it a binary roll (you know it / you don't).

I'm more like @Oofta with a safe or lock. I do have succeed with a consequence if you fail by a point or two, but I don't really vary the DCs of something like that. With knowledge checks I do have variable DCs. The player will roll and a 10+ might get them the name of the god involved, a 15+ will get the name plus holy symbols and other basic knowledge of that god's religion, and 20+ will get the previous information plus obscure information and holidays.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I am certain that my use of DCs in 5e has been inconsistent at times. What may be hard is going to have so many variables involved that I think consistency is challenging.

It's simply a drawback of the system/method. It's fuzzy, it will mean different things to different people, and maybe even multiple interpretations of the same instance by one GM.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I am certain that my use of DCs in 5e has been inconsistent at times. What may be hard is going to have so many variables involved that I think consistency is challenging.

It's simply a drawback of the system/method. It's fuzzy, it will mean different things to different people, and maybe even multiple interpretations of the same instance by one GM.

But how is this not fundamentally true for any judgement a human being has to make? Setting appropriate DCs is among the easiest judgements a GM has to make.

 

[hawkeyefan]

But how is this not fundamentally true for any judgement a human being has to make? Setting appropriate DCs is among the easiest judgements a GM has to make.

Is it? To be consistent over time on a multitude of tasks and their relative difficulty to one another? While also including the character attempting the task?

Now, I'm not saying that it's much of an obstacle in the sense that I just make a decision and go with it, and I don't worry about it. And I certainly try to be consistent. But given the number of DCs I have to set and for the variety of actions for the myriad of characters, I know that I'm not always consistent.

If consistency is a concern, then I think it's actually pretty tough.