Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9227427" data-attributes="member: 71699">The relevant 5e DMG237 text is this (which must be read together with PHB174)USING ABILITY SCORES When a player wants to do something, it's often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character's ability scores. For example, a character doesn't normally need to make a Dexterity check to walk across an empty room or a Charisma check to order a mug of ale. Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure. When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions: Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure? Is a task so inappropriate or impossible- such as hitting the moon with an arrow-that it can't work? If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate. The following sections provide guidance on determining whether to call for an ability check, attack roll, or saving throw; how to assign DCs; when to use advantage and disadvantage; and other related topics. MULTIPLE ABILITY CHECKS Sometimes a character fails an ability check and wants to try again. In some cases, a character is free to do so; the only real cost is the time it takes. With enough attempts and enough time, a character should eventually succeed at the task. To speed things up, assume that a character spending ten times the normal amount of time needed to complete a task automatically succeeds at that task. However, no amount of repeating the check allows a character to turn an impossible task into a successful one. In other cases, failing an ability check makes it impossible to make the same check to do the same thing again. For example, a rogue might try to trick a town guard into thinking the adventurers are undercover agents of the king. If the rogue loses a contest of Charisma (Deception) against the guard's Wisdom (Insight), the same lie told again won't work. The characters can come up with a different way to get past the guard or try the check again against another guard at a different gate. But you might decide that the initial failure makes those checks more difficult to pull off.I've discussed this text <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/5e-consequence-resolution.688891/" target="_blank">here</a>, and would draw attention to my third bullet under "For emphasis" which frames refereeing it in terms of what I might now call VM-ship. The general through-line is something like - player expresses their intentions in their choice of performances, and GM (functioning as VM) gives regard to those intentions by assigning them as binding consequences in resolution. And we're only rolling if it's uncertain and the stakes matter. In the past I would have thought of this as task-resolution based on the immediacy of intentions to performance (a basic legitimate intention for opening a safe would be to see what's in the safe, but game-state could legitimate getting the dirt.) But that does not fit your take on task-resolution, so I'm wondering if you'd call it conflict-resolution? You might also see how this prompted my earlier question about how we know how far out a goal has to be, before it normally counts as reaching.</blockquote>

Verification