Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8647906" data-attributes="member: 71699">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<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">It may seem counter-intuitive, but in 5e, you don't really roll to open a safe</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Per DMG 237, what you are really rolling for are consequences</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Taken together with PHB 174, the results can be<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">you open the safe (the consequence you want)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">you open the safe but with additional consequences</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">you become engaged with some consequences</li> </ol></li> </ol>For emphasis, <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If a task is uncertain, but there are no meaningful consequences, the DMG rule is that they succeed in ten times the time.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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.</li> </ul>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 [USER=97077]@iserith[/USER] who helped me really grasp all this. With any luck they are still around and will link their thoughts (their guide) in this direction.</blockquote>

Verification