D&D 5E My one and only houserule: consequences & opportunities

[77IM]

I often don't tell players the DC and then do stuff like this behind the scenes. It works especially well for social interaction, where often the other person will want something in return for doing what you want; or will not do what you want, but still do something else beneficial.

When I have no earthly clue how to set a DC, I default to what I call the "10/20 split." On a 10-19, the PC gets a rudimentary, basic, or partial success, or success-with-consequences. On a 20 they get a complete success. I find this works well for knowledge checks: on a 10 or better the PC knows a little something; on a 20 or better you tell them all about it.

 

[Bihlbo]

I'm absolutely not at all in favor of adding penalties to a successful die roll. A DC is what you have to get to succeed. It's not what you have to get to slip and fall while trying to serve drinks. If you want consequences, let it apply to a failure instead of to not hitting the real DC, 5 higher.

If you're making it clear that the PCs are suffering consequences (nearly) every time they make a check, that just tells them to stop trying to make checks. I don't get why you can't just introduce complications qua complications, on your own, whenever you want, instead of as a penalty for trying to roll dice. If you think it's cool for the game that Kelly had a slip while serving drinks, just tell her it happened. She doesn't need to fail a roll for you to DM the game. That's why this is a bad rule in other systems too. I don't need a rule telling me to quantify and measure events happening to the characters. Bears fall when I want bears to fall.

I'm fuzzy on what you intend to use as consequences. Since this is your rule, your rule needs to explain what a complication is and is not, and when it's appropriate. There are situations where a consequence isn't fitting (with the exception of the Charisma skills), and there are a lot of checks that leave me scratching my head as to how I would complicate them as a result of an ability check.

Here are some rolls a player would call for, and you can either give answers or just think about them, I don't care. Assume the player hits the DC +1 and so they succeed with a consequence; what is that consequence?

1. What does my character know about vampires? I want to make an Intelligence check.
2. I'm the first to jump across the gap over the endless chasm, because my Athletics modifier is the best. I only have to roll a 3 to succeed, even though it's a 10' jump.
3. I make a Medicine check to stabilize her.
4. I make a shove attack, my Athletics was 16. Roll Acrobatics or Athletics to beat my roll.
5. When I get behind the wall I use Cunning Action to make a Stealth check. I want to go through this pantry to get behind the zombies.
6. Can I make an Insight check to see if she's telling the truth?
7. Since no one is around, I'm not trying to be that quiet while I make a check to use my tools to open this lock.
8. Oh good, I got an 11 on my Concentration check.

 

[PabloM]

Well, I guess it's not an approach for everyone...

 

[DND_Reborn]

Well, I guess it's not an approach for everyone...

Even if only narratively, it adds a level complexity to the game that doesn't appeal to me.

That being said, there is a precedent to it. There are times if you fail a save by 5 or more, something "worse" happens, etc.

As for it making players want to stack up bonuses, that already happens a lot IME so I don't know how much of a factor that will be.

 

[Bihlbo]

Well, I guess it's not an approach for everyone...

This isn't an approach. You wrote a rule. Rules get applied when conditions are met. If you'd stated that you think it helps a game to sometimes introduce complications when you feel like it's appropriate, then that would have been an approach to DMing. But you wrote a rule that dictates how you adjudicate ability checks.

"This is how I spice things up" is just good DMing. That's not a house rule at all.
"Sorry, but you only got a 12. Yes, that's a success, but I have to introduce a complication now because you didn't get a 15 on this DC 10 check," is a governing rule. See the difference?

I'm curious though, could you come up with satisfying complications for the 8 scenarios I listed? I had a much bigger list, but those were the only ones for which I couldn't think of a complication. You can just say, "If you aren't creative enough to think of complications, then it's not for you," but that's lazy. If you think it works as a rule, I'd like to learn how that actually works at the table. Because while I might not like it, I could accept that it works if it's explained.

Even if only narratively, it adds a level complexity to the game that doesn't appeal to me.

There's a certain amount of variability we already naturally work into the game when DMing. Some situations are just complex. When Rodax rolls 8 higher on his Persuasion check versus the shopkeeper's Insight, we naturally treat that as something a little special. If his roll had been 1 under, we naturally would want to let that sorta work, but not quite. Complications are a good tool that are already suggested in the DMG, and work great for situations like the adventure of Rodax at the Mouth of Market Street. As a DMing practice, occasionally using complications rather than binary win/loss can be really fun.

But as a house rule for all ability checks? There I agree that it's complexity is unappealing.

 

[GSHamster]

Well, I guess it's not an approach for everyone...

You could tweak it slightly:

Fail by more than 5 - unqualified failure
Fail by 5 or less - success but with a consequence
Success by 5 or less - unqualified success OR success + consequence + opportunity
Success by more than 5 - success + opportunity

Though I do think 'success + consequence + opportunity' is a little bit complicated, especially when you combine it with a choice.

 

[PabloM]

You could tweak it slightly:

Fail by more than 5 - unqualified failure
Fail by 5 or less - success but with a consequence
Success by 5 or less - unqualified success OR success + consequence + opportunity
Success by more than 5 - success + opportunity

Yes, I am thinking that too, after what was said in this thread. But, respecting the ratio between consequences and opportunities that I had originally proposed. Putting together what you propose with the O&C rule, it would be something like this:

Fail by more than 5 - unqualified failure
Fail by 5 or less - the PC is successful, but there is a consequence.
Success by 5 or less - the PC in addition to being successful can avoid a consequence or find an additional opportunity.
Success by more than 5 - the PC in addition to being successful can avoid a consequence and find an additional opportunity.

Answering other concerns, the point of all this is that consequences and the opportunities provided are only an excuse for the narrative to advance. If a DM feels comfortable doing it without these mechanisms, she doesn't has to use them.

Also, the rule doesn't have to be a burden. If as a DM you can't think of anything concrete as a consequence, just don't provide any and go on.

I understand that, as stated above, the basis of this rule (or approach) is that if there is really no consequence to a check it should not be done.

I'm curious though, could you come up with satisfying complications for the 8 scenarios I listed?

I thought you had put the situations as a way to prove your point, not with the genuine objective of knowing more about my perspective, I apologize for that.

Unfortunately, English is not my mother tongue and right now I am at work, so I cannot answer one by one of the situations you asked for.

I can give you two consequences or generic opportunities that occur to me on the fly:

-When a PC does a nature or history check to see what she knows about the Secret Valley, she can find out where the entrance is and that the entrance has a guardian, but not know who the guardian is (consequence).

-When a PC does an insight check to see if the king is being honest with her, she can see that the king is distressed, that he is hiding something from her but does not know what (consequence). Or, she can realize that the king is distressed, that he is specifically hiding from her the subject of the disappearance of his counselor and also realize that one of the members of the court witnesses the entire conversation with nerves (opportunity).

 

[Shiroiken]

Something else this would tend to do is cause unnecessary checks. If there's no possibility for failure or success, then no die roll is made (standard game rule from the PHB). With this system, you could succeed automatically, but still need to roll the die to determine consequences or extra benefits.

 

[NotAYakk]

Variant: always roll 2 dice.

-1 success: botch (fall off cliff)
0 successes: fail, offer a price to avoid botch (can't advance; make a noise or fall off cliff)
1 success: offer a price to succeed (if you let the guard see you...)
2 successes: succeed, sometimes offer a price for extra (you can kill the guard and get her key, but she'll probably yell)
3 successes: extra (you climb behind guard, and grab her key, and get away)

Advantage: +1 success
Disadvantage: -1 success

In a normal case there are 3 outcomes.
1. Fail. Player picks between 2 bad things (botch, or pay price)
2. Single success. Nothing happens, or player pays a price to succeed.
3. Double success. Player given option to pay extra for extra bonus.

I am a bit unhappy with 2. If player rejects offer, narrative stalls. How can we make that better?

 

[PabloM]

I am a bit unhappy with 2. If player rejects offer, narrative stalls. How can we make that better?

Works for me. That a PC is successful implies that things happen as she wanted and therefore the plot progresses.

I have second thoughts with the adv/disadv mechanics. Maybe they are too much?