D&D 5E Do you use the Success w/ Complication Module in the DMG or Fail Forward in the Basic PDF

[Manbearcat]

In the early 5e era of 2014-spring 2017 when I was posting on the 5e forums, Success With Complication and Fail Forward were enormously controversial (just like they were in the 4e era).

In that same era, pretty much no one was using the Social Interaction conflict mechanics (when I posted about this on the 5e forums, virtually no one even had a clue what I was talking about!), people were sparingly using IBFTs and Inspiration, and the actual Player Fiat deployment of Background Traits was enormously controversial.

I have no idea if any/all of those things are overturned at this point.

What I'm specifically curious about is (a) if people are using either of the following when they're GMing action resolution in 5e and (b) some relevant info about that (see questions at bottom). As below:

---

FAIL FORWARD
D&D 5e Basic PDF 61

If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success—the creature overcomes the challenge at hand. Otherwise, it’s a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM.

---

SUCCESS WITH COMPLICATION (CALLED "COST" IN DMG)
D&D 5e DMG 242

Failure can be tough, but the agony is compounded when a character fails by the barest margin. When a character fails a roll by only 1 or 2, you can allow the character to succeed at the cost of a complication or hindrance.

---

It would be great if people voting could drop a quick post as well, answering a few questions:

1) Why do you use it if you do or why do you not use it if you do not?

2) Is this the first game you've used this GMing technique or did you use it in the past in other games (and when did you first use it)?

3) If you use SWC or FF, do you use it on every instance of action resolution or only certain instances of action resolution?

4) If you only use SWC or FF on certain instances of action resolution, what principles/reasoning underwrite your decision to use it here, but not use it there.


Finally, if you have a quick play excerpt of when you chose to apply it and then when you chose to not apply it, they may help further clarify things.

Appreciate it.

 

[Voadam]

I had not realized the DMG rule was only if you were close. I've been offering it as an option on any skill fail. I think I have had it be used by PCs three times in the last couple of years.

 

[Arilyn]

For some reason, even though I really like fail forward and SWC and use them in my non D&D games, I've never bothered in 5e. I'm pretty much just deciding what the dice rolls mean when I GM D&D. I can't even remember to use inspiration most of the time. Maybe because these things feel tacked on? Or maybe I'm just not used to having them in D&D?

I find that alternate rules from the DMG feel like they are tossed in to make a percentage of players happy with little thought on making them mesh well.

I too am curious to read about other people's experiences.

 

[iserith]

Progress Combined With a Setback - yes.

Success at a Cost - no.

To answer your questions:

1. Aside from being part of the basic rules of the game, certain tasks, when failed, are better resolved with progress combined with a setback than with outright failure. I find a failed Insight check to resolve whether a character can tell if an NPC is being untruthful to be better as "the NPC's mannerisms suggest some amount of dissembling, but the NPC locks eyes with you and realizes what's happening. It's harder to get a read on the NPC now." That's certainly better in my view than "You dunno" or the player rolling low and me telling them something untrue which the player has to square with having made a low roll.

2. I've used it at least since D&D 4e, so 2008. It was a feature of skill challenges.

3. Only some instances for resolution.

4. Whatever's more interesting at the time of the action and the check and likelier to lead to fun for everyone and the creation of an exciting, memorable story by playing.

 

[overgeeked]

1) Why do you use it if you do or why do you not use it if you do not?

I only use those mechanics on rolls that must be made that also cannot be failed, i.e. if the scenario is bottlenecked by the PCs finding this one clue, I have them roll to see if there is any complication attached to their automatically successfully attaining that clue. Otherwise failure is always an option. If the PCs can't fail, there's no point in rolling or playing, I think. Playing the result of a failure can be just as fun, sometimes more so, than playing the results of a success.

2) Is this the first game you've used this GMing technique or did you use it in the past in other games (and when did you first use it)?

Definitely not the first. I don't remember which the first was.

3) If you use SWC or FF, do you use it on every instance of action resolution or only certain instances of action resolution?

Only certain ones, as above.

4) If you only use SWC or FF on certain instances of action resolution, what principles/reasoning underwrite your decision to use it here, but not use it there.

As above.

I prefer things like Call of Cthulhu's Pushed Rolls. If you fail a roll you can narrate the failure and your redoubling your efforts to attempt the same thing. If that pushed roll succeed, you're fine. If that pushed roll fails, the DM/Keeper brings the horror, advances a clock/countdown, or makes a hard move (in PBTA parlance).

I tend to have the philosophy that you only make a roll if the outcome is interesting either way, success or failure. If there's nothing interesting that can happen either way, don't roll. If the result of the roll doesn't really matter to the emerging story, don't roll. So I tend to call for fewer, more important rolls...where the outcome should be interesting either way, so I tend not to use success at cost, etc all that often. Those mechanics strike me as coming from a weird place of the PCs must never fail. Bollocks. The PCs can and do fail frequently. Gaming would be boring otherwise.

 

[tetrasodium]

poll needs a third option for "no but I use something else" type thing. I find the mechanic noted in the title to be lacking too much but do tend to draw heavily on fate when I GM & it has more developed mechanisms in place involving the use & creation of aspects that allow some similar functionality when it fits the situation & feels like it would make for a better story/session/narrative.

 

[Charlaquin]

1) Why do you use it if you do or why do you not use it if you do not?

I often use progress combined with a setback, which “fail forward” is largely another term for. I don’t generally tie it to failure by a specific margin though. I like the elegance of the pass/fail nature of ability checks in D&D, but I find it is often appropriate for the fail state to be progress with a setback rather than no progress.

2) Is this the first game you've used this GMing technique or did you use it in the past in other games (and when did you first use it)?

Yes, although I didn’t DM much at all prior to 5e. I think I would likely have found my way to the technique eventually if 4e had kept going.

3) If you use SWC or FF, do you use it on every instance of action resolution or only certain instances of action resolution?

Only certain instances. Sometimes progress with a setback is the most appropriate consequence for failure, other times no progress is more appropriate. Depends on the action and the stakes.

4) If you only use SWC or FF on certain instances of action resolution, what principles/reasoning underwrite your decision to use it here, but not use it there.

When a player declares an action, I evaluate their goal and their character’s approach to achieving it for possibility of success, possibility of failure, and likely cost or consequence of failure, and I ask for a check only if it has all three, otherwise I simply narrate the results. Sometimes the most appropriate cost or consequence is progress with a setback. Sometimes it isn’t.

Finally, if you have a quick play excerpt of when you chose to apply it and then when you chose to not apply it, they may help further clarify things.

Appreciate it.

Consider a locked door, with an ogre on the other side. The ogre is not yet aware of the PCs. Attempting to break the door down is a case where progress with a setback might be an appropriate consequence for failure- you succeed in breaking the door down either way, but on a success you break it open before the ogre has time to react. On a failure, the ogre hears your attempts to break the door down and can prepare for your arrival. On the other hand, attempting to pick the lock might be a case where no progress is a more appropriate result of failure. Each attempt might take time (potentially bringing you closer to the next roll for random encounters), and on a failure you’ve spent that time but made no progress in getting the lock open.

 

[Voadam]

Example of using success with complications from a previous campaign I DMd.

Fighter herbalist character fails to ID some potion ingredients that a murderer left behind, takes success with complication and figures them out.

They go to the University and talk to a Jerry Lewis looking alchemy professor who develops military application alchemical drugs for the kingdom's war efforts. Picking up on the not stated Nutty Professor reference the Fighter offers the professor some nuts as a friendly way of aiding the party's persuasion check to get information. The persuasion is successful. As the professor starts talking about the potion ingredients and what they got used for in his work he starts to sweat then have trouble breathing, then go into anaphylactic shock from a nut allergy before he can give all the information he was about to.

While everyone else calls out for a doctor from the medical school, the fighter slips out of the university before the police arrive out of fear he will get charged with attempted murder by poison.

 

[Charlaquin]

Another example of progress with a setback I regularly use is the old “recall lore” check. On a success, I tell the player something interesting and useful to the current situation their character remembers about the subject. On a failure I just tell them something interesting their character remembers about the subject, and it’s up to them to make it useful if they can.

 

[Manbearcat]

Another example of progress with a setback I regularly use is the old “recall lore” check. On a success, I tell the player something interesting and useful to the current situation their character remembers about the subject. On a failure I just tell them something interesting their character remembers about the subject, and it’s up to them to make it useful if they can.

So mapping it to AW/DW except your failure is the 7-9.

Why did you choose that model vs failure being “Reveal an Unwelcome Truth?”

“Yes, you recollect correctly about thing x. But here is thing y that makes things suck. Deal with it.”

---

Good responses all. Keep them coming.

@tetrasodium and any others regarding poll. If you don’t like the SWC mechanics (either the math or the fact that there are no means to resist a complication or sonethubg) in 5e, that’s fine. Still, just choose “yes” and then clarify in a post. Basically what I’m looking for here is are you using FF or some instantiation of SwC.