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

[iserith]

"I'm going to try to use my tools to pick/unlock/etc the door" doesn't say how or which of the tools in the toolkit. Your calling bad GM wrongly. "Ok you pop the hinge pins and boom the door falls to the ground with a push" is an example of literally doing just that. "I attack with my sword" there are an endless list of places the GM is invited to describe trivialities
Alternately you've proven the point of just how boring the lock picking is "I pick the lock" "how" with my tools" "ok roll" " 18" "success"... combat in those conditions must be utterly tax time reminiscent. Providing drama and dramatic elements are parts of what the GM does.

It's on the players to liven up their descriptions where it pertains to the characters doing something if that is something the group desires. That doesn't fall on the DM at all because the DM's role doesn't include describing things the characters are doing.

As long as the player is describing the approach to the goal sufficiently for the DM to fairly adjudicate, additional details that don't impact the efficacy of the approach are not absolutely necessary. That said, I'd rather hear more interesting description too, but as DM, I can only set an example by giving rich descriptions of the environment and narrating results in a compelling way without saying what the character does (beyond perhaps restating what the player already established), and of course asking questions of the players to get the necessary amount of detail to adjudicate if it's lacking.

It's certainly a common approach for DMs to say what the character is doing, but there is no support for this in the game and I personally find it very annoying as a player when a DM overreaches by saying what my character does. I get to control one thing in the game, DM, could you just let me do that?

 

[Charlaquin]

"I'm going to try to use my tools to pick/unlock/etc the door" doesn't say how or which of the tools in the toolkit.

“I try to open the door by picking the lock” is a perfectly reasonable degree of specificity in my opinion. I don’t expect players to know how to pick locks, nor do I know myself beyond the very basic concept. As long as the fiction is clear and reasonably specific, the precise details don’t need to be delved into.

Your calling bad GM wrongly.

I don’t think anyone is calling anyone a bad GM.

"Ok you pop the hinge pins and boom the door falls to the ground with a push" is an example of literally doing just that. "I attack with my sword" there are an endless list of places the GM is invited to describe trivialities

Nowhere in the 5e rules that I’m aware of is the DM invited to describe the PCs’ actions. Nor should it, in my opinion. The players get control over only one thing, the DM shouldn’t be encroaching on that.

Alternately you've proven the point of just how boring the lock picking is "I pick the lock" "how" with my tools" "ok roll" " 18" "success"... combat in those conditions must be utterly tax time reminiscent. Providing drama and dramatic elements are parts of what the GM does.

The DM in this example is not filling their role as laid out in the How to Play rules. The DM is meant to describe the environment, which doesn’t seem to be happening here. Then the players describe what they want to do, which your example player does seem to be doing the best they can at when given next to nothing to work with. Then the DM is meant to describe the results of that action, calling for a roll to help determine the results if necessary. Your example DM seems to call for a roll but provide no actual description of the results. Finally, the DM is meant to start the pattern back over from step 1, describing the environment again, accounting for how it has changed as a result of the players’ actions. Your example DM doesn’t do this at all.

So, yes, if the DM fails to fulfill 3/4 of their role as laid out by the rules, the results do indeed tend to be quite boring.

 

[tetrasodium]

“I try to open the door by picking the lock” is a perfectly reasonable degree of specificity in my opinion. I don’t expect players to know how to pick locks, nor do I know myself beyond the very basic concept. As long as the fiction is clear and reasonably specific, the precise details don’t need to be delved into.

I don’t think anyone is calling anyone a bad GM.

Nowhere in the 5e rules that I’m aware of is the DM invited to describe the PCs’ actions. Nor should it, in my opinion. The players get control over only one thing, the DM shouldn’t be encroaching on that.

The DM in this example is not filling their role as laid out in the How to Play rules. The DM is meant to describe the environment, which doesn’t seem to be happening here. Then the players describe what they want to do, which your example player does seem to be doing the best they can at when given next to nothing to work with. Then the DM is meant to describe the results of that action, calling for a roll to help determine the results if necessary. Your example DM seems to call for a roll but provide no actual description of the results. Finally, the DM is meant to start the pattern back over from step 1, describing the environment again, accounting for how it has changed as a result of the players’ actions. Your example DM doesn’t do this at all.

So, yes, if the DM fails to fulfill 3/4 of their role as laid out by the rules, the results do indeed tend to be quite boring.

In case it's not yet obvious about locks I do know them and now you know at least a little after that earlier post with the examples.. your advocating for an extreme position of a highly passive gm and I dont think any explyi can give will avoid being held under z microscope to complain about some element so read about how a gm can develop skills creating drama with positive effects at the table by using transitions in this combat related blogpost.

How to Manage Combat Like a Motherf$&%ing Dolphin

Want to run a fast-paced, exciting combat? It comes down to two things. First, learn how to track initiative. Second, learn about dolphins. Yeah, you heard me.

theangrygm.com

Those methods can be applied well outside combat alone towards most anything else that the players do.

 

[Charlaquin]

Here's a trick that I started doing and I love it:

Even if there's no hope of success or no risk of failure, you can roll dice anyways, to determine the degree of success/failure.

This is something I’ve seen many, many DMs do, and I think it certainly patches holes if the DM is not fulfilling their role as laid out in the How to Play rules. But I find that the results are less satisfying than when the DM runs the game as the rules lay out. Your mileage may vary, of course.

It works because:
a) Players love rolling dice!

I find that this is often true when rolls are frequently called for despite failure having no meaningful consequence. However, if you only call for rolls when there is a meaningful consequence, it makes rolling the dice a tense and scary thing, which players will want to avoid having to do if possible. I prefer the latter dynamic.

b) It keeps ability scores and skill proficiencies relevent.

Ability scores and skill proficiencies are also relevant if rolls are only called for when failure has a meaningful consequence, as they act as much-welcome insurance against failure (and the consequences thereof).

c) It injects just a little uncertainty into an otherwise certain situation.

I’m not convinced that adding uncertainty to a situation that logically and/or dramatically ought to be certain is a desirable thing. Also, uncertainty of what exactly? If failure doesn’t have a meaningful consequence and the result of the roll only tells you how well you performed at the task... Is that actually uncertainty? Uncertainty of what, exactly?

 

[Charlaquin]

In case it's not yet obvious about locks I do know them and now you know at least a little after that earlier post with the examples..

Sure, that’s pretty tangential to the point though, which is that players and DMs shouldn’t be expected to have specialized knowledge like that to play the game. Reasonable specificity based on a layman’s understanding of the task at hand should suffice.

your advocating for an extreme position of a highly passive gm

I am doing exactly the opposite. The DM should be highly active in describing the environment and the effects of the player’s actions on it. If they are not, I agree that it leads to rather boring gameplay as the players lack sufficient information to make decisions and describe their characters’ actions. What I am advocating for is the DM not to step on the player’s toes by describing their actions for them.

and I dont think any explyi can give will avoid being held under z microscope to complain about some element so read about how a gm can develop skills creating drama with positive effects at the table by using transitions in this combat related blogpost.

How to Manage Combat Like a Motherf$&%ing Dolphin

Want to run a fast-paced, exciting combat? It comes down to two things. First, learn how to track initiative. Second, learn about dolphins. Yeah, you heard me.

theangrygm.com

I’ve read that article, it’s one of my favorites, and it’s advocating for exactly what I am advocating for. He completes the full pattern of play every round, describing the environment, the effects of the actions the players describe, and then describing the environment again. He does describe the PCs actions too much for my taste, but the basic principles are sound.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

I like some player facing wiggle room in action resolution. I also have replaced inspiration with Hero Points that are mostly identical to Star Wars Saga Force Points, but with additional narrative agency uses, like changing the context of a thing that has happened, mitigating a bad thing or making something more interesting.

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)?

used it in SWSE, 4e, The One Ring, and it's just part of the rules in Monster of The Week and some other games. I don't recall when we started using it for certain, but probably in Star Wars Saga Edition.

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

It's always available, but not everyone in the group has been with us that long, and some aren't used to it.

I also use a variation on the structure of certain downtime activities in Xanathar's (and maybe the DMG, I don't recall) that are basically skill challenges, to create a "success ladder" dynamic, where a task has a range of resolutions from Total Failure - Partial Failure - Partial Success - Total Success. The middle two results are basically fail forward and success with complication, so it's basically just using 3+ rolls and counting successes to give a bell curve to the system, and give us more to work with in determining the details. Ie, if you're doing crime, and you fail the deception check but pass the stealth and sleight of hand check, then we know that some part of the social engineering aspect of the score is what went wrong.

 

[Lanefan]

I believe gameplay and narrative are both important and each should serve the other to the best of their ability.

Obviously they’re never going to be 1:1, but that doesn’t mean ludonarrative harmony isn’t worth pursuing.

Fair enough. I think we more or less agree here in principle, just maybe not in specific practice....

For the fiction to reflect the roll result, a roll of a 2 must necessarily reflect 10% of what the character is potentially capable of.

....like this. The die roll has nothing to do with what the character is theoretically capable of; instead it shows the best the character is practically capable of, right here right now in this particular situation. Further, the result is binding until and unless something materially changes in the fiction.

Put another way, when a roll is called for and made, doing so commits both the player and the DM to allowing that roll to drive what comes next in the fiction.

Obviously the PCs don’t always act to the best of their ability, that’s (part of) the reason we roll dice when an action has a possibility of success, a possibility of failure, and a cost or consequence for failure.

Excatly - and this bolded bit is exactly why not to allow infinite rerolls. Otherwise you're assuming they always do act to the best of their ability, or will if given long enough.

Whether it’s logical is of little consequence compared to whether creates enjoyable gameplay. Now, what’s enjoyable will of course vary from person to person, but most people don’t enjoy the game grinding to a halt. If you do, knock yourself out.

I’m glad you had a good time doing that, but it sounds painfully boring to me.

It was fun trying to come up with off-the-wall ideas. Frustrating too, but that's the point.

That’s not what difficulty means.

A task requires both a goal (what you’re trying to do) and an approach (how you’re trying to do it). Picking a lock, breaking a door down, using a key, casting knock, and shouting at the door are all approaches to the same goal, therefore they are all different tasks. That was precisely my point - picking a lock was a poor example to use in support of your position that DCs should exist “in the wild” independently of character actions. The lock doesn’t have a static DC to pick it floating there, an attempt to open the lock by picking it is resolved with a check, which has a DC. That DC may vary based on circumstances and the particular approach being taken.

I don't see it that way. The lock has a DC, period. Variances due to circumstance and-or particular approach are reflected by granting bonuses or applying penalties to the roll*, not by changes to the DC.

* - yes this requires thinking outside the very limiting advantage-disadvantage box and actually applying hard plusses or minuses to the roll; no big deal to anyone from pre-5e days but a large step for those who started with 5e.

Yes there is, it’s boring. Maybe not for you, but for most players.

Gameplay can and does come to a halt when a failed check results in the inability to progress. It can of course be started back up again, but it does stall. And in my experience. most players don’t care for that. I certainly don’t.

Again, you're mixing up stalled story progress in the fiction with a stoppage in gameplay at the table. These are - I repeat - not the same thing.

But do your players care? I can tell you, if my players regularly had to take all night to get a door open, nobody would ever come back. And I wouldn’t blame them.

I would.

Players who can't handle a little frustration now and then aren't players I want to bother with.

It'd be like saying hey, let's watch the ballgame on TV and being told no, that's boring, just watch the 30-minute highlight show later. Sure that 30-minute highlight show has all the key moments; but clearly there was way more to the game than just those key moments, otherwise it wouldn't have taken three hours to play in real time.

Once again, you’re describing a task that has a consequence for failure and no consequence for success. I’m asking for an example of the opposite.

EDIT: Though I see now that I mistyped initially, so that’s an understandable mistake.

Now I've no idea what you want.

You asked for something where the only meaningful consequence was for success, and at least one other poster gave you that. Then you asked for something where the only meaningful consequence was for failure, and I gave you that. In each case you complained that it wasn't what you were looking for. Well, there's only four options: meaningful consequence for both, one, the other, or neither. "Neither" seems pointless. "Both" would be uncommon but it can certainly happen. And you've been given examples of the other two.

 

[Lanefan]

This is something I’ve seen many, many DMs do, and I think it certainly patches holes if the DM is not fulfilling their role as laid out in the How to Play rules. But I find that the results are less satisfying than when the DM runs the game as the rules lay out. Your mileage may vary, of course.

I find that this is often true when rolls are frequently called for despite failure having no meaningful consequence. However, if you only call for rolls when there is a meaningful consequence, it makes rolling the dice a tense and scary thing, which players will want to avoid having to do if possible.

This is a dynamic I'd rather avoid, in that there's many times when I don't want them knowing whether a given roll is or was relevant. So, I have them roll at all sorts of times, sometimes for no good reason other than gits and shiggles, just to keep them guessing.

For example, if there's something subtle to notice in one passageway out of six I'm going to get them to roll for all six, so as not to tip them off as to which passage has the secret. Five of those rolls are, intentionally, utterly meaningless. And I probably wouldn't even tell them why they're rolling until after the secret had been discovered (or after the adventure ends, if someone asks about it later).

I’m not convinced that adding uncertainty to a situation that logically and/or dramatically ought to be certain is a desirable thing. Also, uncertainty of what exactly? If failure doesn’t have a meaningful consequence and the result of the roll only tells you how well you performed at the task... Is that actually uncertainty? Uncertainty of what, exactly?

Uncertainty of ability is one: just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean you always will. Every ball player can hit a pitched baseball and every pitcher can get a strikeout, but nobody's ever batted 1.000 and no pitcher has ever struck out every batter he's faced.

That, and whether something "dramatically" ought to be certain is immaterial. Yes, as DM I might desperately want them to find that secret door so they don't miss half the adventure; but if they don't find it then they don't find it, and I've just gotta live with that. In cases like this, realism (and bad luck) wins out over plot.

 

[Charlaquin]

Fair enough. I think we more or less agree here in principle, just maybe not in specific practice....

....like this. The die roll has nothing to do with what the character is theoretically capable of; instead it shows the best the character is practically capable of, right here right now in this particular situation.

Tomato, tomahto. If I rolled less than I could have, the dice are indicating that I didn’t do as well as I could have. You’re free to rule that I can’t roll again, but it’s just factually incorrect to say it was my character’s best effort,

Further, the result is binding until and unless something materially changes in the fiction.

Only if you as DM decide that it is. And that would be a decision I would take issue with.

Put another way, when a roll is called for and made, doing so commits both the player and the DM to allowing that roll to drive what comes next in the fiction.

Obviously, that’s almost tautological. That isn’t just a rephrasing of the former statement though.

Excatly - and this bolded bit is exactly why not to allow infinite rerolls. Otherwise you're assuming they always do act to the best of their ability, or will if given long enough.

You can’t just brush over that “if given long enough” bit like it isn’t extremely significant. Adventurers should rarely if ever have the luxury of unlimited time and no other external pressure to do something. But in the rare cases that they do, sure, they should -eventually- be able to do it.

I don't see it that way. The lock has a DC, period. Variances due to circumstance and-or particular approach are reflected by granting bonuses or applying penalties to the roll*, not by changes to the DC.

* - yes this requires thinking outside the very limiting advantage-disadvantage box and actually applying hard plusses or minuses to the roll; no big deal to anyone from pre-5e days but a large step for those who started with 5e.

I figured you wouldn’t see it that way. Personally, I don’t see any benefit to doing it your way. Checks have DCs, obstacles in the game world don’t.

Again, you're mixing up stalled story progress in the fiction with a stoppage in gameplay at the table. These are - I repeat - not the same thing.

Of course they’re not the same thing. Story progress is not the thing I’m concerned with. Whatever happens in play is the story. When I say it stalls the gameplay I mean it causes the pattern of play (DM describes environment -> players describe what they want to do -> DM describes the results, calling for a check to resolve uncertainty in the results if necessary -> repeat from step 1) to break down or come to a halt.

I would.

Players who can't handle a little frustration now and then aren't players I want to bother with.

I’m not talking about frustration, I’m talking about boredom. If my players regularly had to spend hours of real-life time just trying to think of novel ways to open a door, they would be fully justified in never wanting to participate in that activity again (I hesitate to say “play that game again” because thinking of ways to open the door is not playing a game by any reasonable definition of those words.)

It'd be like saying hey, let's watch the ballgame on TV and being told no, that's boring, just watch the 30-minute highlight show later. Sure that 30-minute highlight show has all the key moments; but clearly there was way more to the game than just those key moments, otherwise it wouldn't have taken three hours to play in real time.

Well, sports are boring, so I’m not sure that analogy serves your argument well

Now I've no idea what you want.

You asked for something where the only meaningful consequence was for success, and at least one other poster gave you that. Then you asked for something where the only meaningful consequence was for failure, and I gave you that. In each case you complained that it wasn't what you were looking for. Well, there's only four options: meaningful consequence for both, one, the other, or neither. "Neither" seems pointless. "Both" would be uncommon but it can certainly happen. And you've been given examples of the other two.

@tetrasodium suggested that rather than a meaningful consequence for failure being a prerequisite for a roll to be called for, a meaningful consequence for failure and for success should be required. I meant to say that I struggle to imagine a case where success has a meaningful consequence but failure doesn’t, but like I said, I mistyped and accidentally requested an example of the opposite. That’s my fault, sorry for the confusion.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is a dynamic I'd rather avoid, in that there's many times when I don't want them knowing whether a given roll is or was relevant. So, I have them roll at all sorts of times, sometimes for no good reason other than gits and shiggles, just to keep them guessing.
For example, if there's something subtle to notice in one passageway out of six I'm going to get them to roll for all six, so as not to tip them off as to which passage has the secret. Five of those rolls are, intentionally, utterly meaningless. And I probably wouldn't even tell them why they're rolling until after the secret had been discovered (or after the adventure ends, if someone asks about it later).

This is, in my opinion, a very counter-productive practice. Rolls should always be relevant, otherwise they’re a waste of time. And the gameplay experience is more satisfying when players can make informed decisions. Calling for pointless rolls just to befuddle your players is... I’m trying to be polite here... the absolute antithesis of what I would consider good DMing practice.

Uncertainty of ability is one:

Uncertainty of ability is irrelevant. If you get it done, you get it done, doesn’t matter how well.

just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean you always will. Every ball player can hit a pitched baseball and every pitcher can get a strikeout, but nobody's ever batted 1.000 and no pitcher has ever struck out every batter he's faced.

This is a completely separate issue. I was responding to a comment about calling for rolls and using the result to determine how well the character accomplished something, not whether they accomplished it at all.

But yes, obviously you don’t hit every pitch thrown your way, that’s (part of) why individual attempts should be rolled for individually.

That, and whether something "dramatically" ought to be certain is immaterial. Yes, as DM I might desperately want them to find that secret door so they don't miss half the adventure; but if they don't find it then they don't find it, and I've just gotta live with that. In cases like this, realism (and bad luck) wins out over plot.

You’ve misunderstood me. When I say “dramatically ought to be (un)certain” I’m talking about dramatic tension, not about what I personally think would make a better story. Again, whatever happens in the game is the story, it’s not the DM’s role to try to nudge events in any particular direction. I have a strong preference for emergent storytelling in RPGs. But if there’s no dramatic stakes to a task (that is to say, nothing interesting or consequential will happen or fail to happen based on the results), there’s no dramatic uncertainty.