Failing Forward

[iserith]

But here we get back to the same argument as with Mt Pudding: can you in any way reach the top (i.e. succeed) on a failed roll in either system? If yes, then "fail" is probably the wrong word to be using.

The player failed the check. The character failed to achieve the goal in the manner intended.

I'd say "fail" is an appropriate word to use.

 

[Maxperson]

The player failed the check. The character failed to achieve the goal in the manner intended.

I'd say "fail" is an appropriate word to use.

The problem is that success is also an appropriate word to use. When both fail and success are both appropriate to use for the same thing, something has probably gone wrong somewhere.

The die is rolled to see whether your succeed or fail, not both at the same time.

 

[iserith]

The problem is that success is also an appropriate word to use. When both fail and success are both appropriate to use for the same thing, something has probably gone wrong somewhere.

The die is rolled to see whether your succeed or fail, not both at the same time.

But neither the player or character did succeed as was intended. If I want to achieve X, but instead achieve X plus it costs me Y or tacks on Z complication, that's a failure to get what I wanted. I didn't want Y or Z. Y and Z suck (for the character).

 

[grendel111111]

Why not just roll for the thing that is in question? As DM you have decided that the characters must get to the top of the mountain/ basket ball game/ get through the door.

Top of the mountain. - if you fail a climbing check you get to the top but drop an item on the way......vs......It takes a while to get to the top but you struggle through and finally reach the top, However there is a chance you dropped an item out of your pack on the way (make a not losing stuff/ Did I pack real good?) roll. Cedric you are OCD so you have advantage on the Int (survival) roll, as you would have packed real good.

Rolling for picking a lock; it's an old lock but very pickable, you will pick it if you have the tools and time, so you are really rolling to see how long it will take (and thus how many wandering monster rolls will be made, or how quietly you manage to open it if this is the goal you stated (open it quietly) or stealth at disadvantage if they didn't specify being quite or they were in a hurry. We know you will pick the lock so either roll lock picking to determine how much time it takes (degrees of success) or roll stealth to see if you can do it without drawing attention. Rolling lock picking to see if a trap will suddenly appear in the lock doesn't make so much sense

You can then take factors that would really affect what you are rolling for into account. Instead of your proficiency in climbing determining how well you packed your bags in the morning, it's your survival (packing skills) that are in question.

But what it really come down to is where are you placing the focus of the game (more narrative, more simulation, clear goal, wandering dungeon bashes, cause and effect rolls vs, more story driven interpretations of rolls). The key thing being of cause that different styles use different tools and none are really right or wrong.

 

[Maxperson]

But neither the player or character did succeed as was intended. If I want to achieve X, but instead achieve X plus it costs me Y or tacks on Z complication, that's a failure to get what I wanted. I didn't want Y or Z. Y and Z suck (for the character).

But they did succeed at getting to the top of the mountain. It may be a lesser success, but it's still a success.

5e has two RAW possibilities when a roll is failed. Total failure, or not at all a success, but you still make some progress. Getting to the top of the hill without the rod isn't just "some progress." The climb has ended and you have succeeded. The rules don't allow you to succeed with a cost, they only allow some progress with a cost.

 

[iserith]

Why not just roll for the thing that is in question?

That is what's happening. As I said, it's just stake-setting.

But they did succeed at getting to the top of the mountain. It may be a lesser success, but it's still a success.

5e has two RAW possibilities when a roll is failed. Total failure, or not at all a success, but you still make some progress. Getting to the top of the hill without the rod isn't just "some progress." The climb has ended and you have succeeded. The rules don't allow you to succeed with a cost, they only allow some progress with a cost.

Wanting X and getting X plus Y or Z is a failure to get X as intended.

If the Cult of RAW doesn't recognize the validity of "progress combined with a setback" as allowing a character to achieve X with a undesirable cost or complication attached (undesirable to the character if not the player), then you can always just reference the DMG, "Success at a Cost" or "Degrees of Failure" rules. But I still see this as semantic quibbling when the intent of the Basic Rules is clear. And in the case of D&D, the DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions. The rules also serve the DM, not the other way around. Those two things are rules, too. I can play the RAW game to justify what I advocate, but do we really need to?

 

[Maxperson]

If the Cult of RAW doesn't recognize the validity of "progress combined with a setback" as allowing a character to achieve X with a undesirable cost or complication attached (undesirable to the character if not the player), then you can always just reference the DMG, "Success at a Cost" or "Degrees of Failure" rules. But I still see this as semantic quibbling when the intent of the Basic Rules is clear. And in the case of D&D, the DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions. The rules also serve the DM, not the other way around. Those two things are rules, too. I can play the RAW game to justify what I advocate, but do we really need to?

If someone is trying to climb to the top of the mountain with the rod and they fail the roll and end up at the top without the roll, what progress is being made? The trip is done. There's nothing left to do regarding the climb, so you haven't progressed towards your goal. The goal is over. You've succeeded in getting to the top.

Edit: I also think you're looking at the goal incorrectly. The goal of getting to the top safely is a two part goal. Get to the top AND safely. Failing at one part of that goal doesn't mean that getting to the top still isn't a success at the other part.

 

[Manbearcat]

There is no specific level for me... it very much depends on the abstraction level of the game I have agreed to play. If your basketball game has a simple mechanic in which the entire success or failure of the game is decided by a coin toss and I have agreed to play... well that is all I need. However if your system has the granularity of attribute/skill scores & checks and through an unrelated skill check you have decided I was not smart enough (Int) to remember to tie my bag down properly, or too clumsy (Dex) to hold onto my divining rod, or so weak (Str) that it was pulled from my grasp without us finding that out through the mechanics then yes I feel like you are treading on my agency in that particular game. Same with a trap that says I must step in a specific space to activate it (and movement is tracked on a granular enough level to determine if I did) but because I failed a search check (regardless of whether I specifically moved into said area or not)... I must have stepped right on it.

This is easily the most headway you and I have ever made in understanding our disagreements. I'm surprised this isn't getting more traction. To clarify a bit further, let us start with 13th Age:

1) PC Build includes attributes, but no granular, codified skills.

2) PC Build includes story-based, abstract backgrounds that can be applied (pending whatever credibility test the table established and subject to GM veto) to a relevant action declaration during non-combat conflict resolution.

3) Explicit GM direction in the rules text to:

3a) Have players telegraph their intent to the GM

3b) GMs use (i) that player intent and (ii) the fictional positioning (context of the established, tangible and intangible elements in the shared imaginary space with respect to one another) to generate fictional outcomes and change the present situation (post resolution), using "Fail Forward" based on (i) and (ii) should that outcome arise from the dice.

You're good with 13th Age (insofar as you're "good" with it), because of these aspects of the RPG. Is that correct?

 

[iserith]

If someone is trying to climb to the top of the mountain with the rod and they fail the roll and end up at the top without the roll, what progress is being made? The trip is done. There's nothing left to do regarding the climb, so you haven't progressed towards your goal. The goal is over. You've succeeded in getting to the top.

Progress toward what you wanted to achieve. You fell short because it cost you something you (or the character) did not intend to pay. I would say you're reading "progress" too literally in what appears to be an effort to undermine the legitimacy of the approach in D&D 5e. If that's what you're doing, why? If that's not what you're doing, why are we playing word games?

 

[Maxperson]

Progress toward what you wanted to achieve. You fell short because it cost you something you (or the character) did not intend to pay. I would say you're reading "progress" too literally in what appears to be an effort to undermine the legitimacy of the approach in D&D 5e. If that's what you're doing, why? If that's not what you're doing, why are we playing word games?

I just edited this in to the last post. Dang it for timing

I also think you're looking at the goal incorrectly. The goal of getting to the top safely is a two part goal. Get to the top AND safely. Failing at one part of that goal doesn't mean that getting to the top still isn't a success at the other part.

I'm not reading progress too literally. I'm reading progress for what it means. Moving towards your goal, but not getting there. If you have moved all the way, it's not progress. That's completion.