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

[Lanefan]

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

Look at it another way: instead of having you roll a dozen times this just bundles all those rolls into one. And yes, very intentionally, this in general reduces the odds of success. I'm quite happy with that.

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

The game decides this, not me. Or am I unusual in saying that rolls once made are binding?

You can’t just brush over that “if given long enough” bit like it isn’t extremely significant.

Well, yes I can, in that when I call for a roll when there is or seems to be no pressure I'm assuming they'll take however long they like before they get bored; and the roll represents the sum best effort during all that.

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.

Thus taking away from the PCs the option of giving up after 15 minutes of trying and deciding to look for plan B.

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.

And what sets those check DCs? That's right, the obstacle itself.

The setting is constant and consistent, and the mechanics (in this case, the DCs) reflect that. The conditions, PCs, etc. are variable, and the roll modifiers reflect that. Seems simple enough; and gives the players a more grounded setting to work with.

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.

Not at all. The pattern of play doesn't stop: the players describe what they want to try (not do, but try - a very big difference wich rulebook authors always seem to miss) -> [maybe there's a check or other mechanical intervention, if needed] -> the DM describes the results and-or what happens -> repeat from start.

The only difference in this situation is that for a while the DM's descriptions might consist of "No change, nothing happens". This does not break the loop.

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.)

I'm guessing you don't like puzzles or riddles in the game either, then?

@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,

Ah. That's in fact the most commonly seen of the four possibilities and is exactly what we're talking about above with the door: failure means no change, success means the PCs gain entry to whatever lies beyond (which, situationally dependent, may or may not be all that meaningful right away...).

but like I said, I mistyped and accidentally requested an example of the opposite. That’s my fault, sorry for the confusion.

No worries.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

I think it's excellent DMing practice. Why? Because it means the players can't meta-game "Ah, she's calling for a roll, there must be something significant here!". (which, if I didn't use dummy rolls, is what I'd get every freakin' time)

If you only call for rolls when there's something significant then in effect you're almost leading your players by the nose to each next significant thing: if they're in those six passages and unsure what to do next I want to make them work a bit; where in your method all they have to do is blunder around until you call for a roll, at which point they meta-know they're close to the way forward even if their characters haven't got a clue. (which comes back to your earlier points regarding ludonarrative consistency or whatever the term was, you know the one I mean)

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

I'm referring to uncertainty of ability to get it done at all, in this particular situation.

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 would sure slow things down...

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.

Ah. I thought you were referring more to plot progress in any direction, be it one desired by the DM or not.

 

[clearstream]

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.

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

Apologies, I voted "yes", but should have voted "no". You're primarily interested in whether one applies the guideline after "or", right? I only use the first part. For me, failing is always failing forward (along another path).

I tried the DMG Success with Complication and found it impractical in play, even after experimenting with other implementations of the same intent.

Is there any way to adjust our vote?

 

[Lanefan]

Is there any way to adjust our vote?

Huh. I could swear there used to be, but there doesn't seem to be now.

Maybe it's because it's one of those polls where everyone's vote is open to view?

I'll ask in Meta...

 

[Aldarc]

Thus taking away from the PCs the option of giving up after 15 minutes of trying and deciding to look for plan B.

Don't be so preposterous. Of course it doesn't take the option of looking for a plan B away.

 

[Lanefan]

Don't be so preposterous. Of course it doesn't take the option of looking for a plan B away.

If the DM decides that an action's going to auto-succeed given long enough and just narrates it so, that kinda skips over the whole "how long did it take" question, which in turn skips over the "did we get bored and give up instead" question.

Which, as a side note, might also explain a poor roll in a one-roll-represents-your-best-attempt system: you might have succeeded had you taken longer but after a lesser amount of time the rest of the party got bored of waiting.

 

[loverdrive]

There's also an interesting thing in Blades -- there, one of the triggers that calls for a roll is "the player wants to roll some dice". Thus, instead of only touching the dice when there's a meaningful risk, the rules offer you to create a meaningful situation when the dice are touched.

 

[Aldarc]

If the DM decides that an action's going to auto-succeed given long enough and just narrates it so, that kinda skips over the whole "how long did it take" question, which in turn skips over the "did we get bored and give up instead" question.

So you base this argument on a slippery slope then?

This assertion IMO ignores how rolls should frame the stakes and consequences, particularly when using fail forward. You can succeed, but what's at stake? What are the consequences of various forms of success and failure? If you are operating on a race against time, for example, then "how long did it take?" will be a highly important factor. Every one of these elongated successes will whittle away at precious time that the party may not have. If you are breaking into a vampire's lair during daylight, then the last thing you want may be for it to be night time by the time you reach their tomb. Or in secret, the GM advances a clock for a nasty monster or the completion of a evil cult's ritual. Or the GM may say, "you can succeed with enough time, but you know that the guards/monsters patrolling these halls will also have enough time to find you too." In other words, the success will likely require additional HP/spells/resources. It may be that the easiest or best way is to choose not to succeed but regroup instead and look for a Plan B.

An important part of the process is letting the PCs decide for themselves: yes, they can succeed with time, but is it worth the potential consequences?

Your counter-argument better not involve a little-to-no-consequence roll.

 

[iserith]

As I mentioned way upthread, the phantom rolls to throw players off the scent, rolling for players behind the screen, the "one and done" rolls... all of these are just tricks to prevent "metagaming" that are as old as the hills. Being judicious on when to call for automatic success versus rolling and using progress combined with a setback in some instances of failed checks completely obviates the need to do this. Not giving a flying flumph about how players arrive at decisions for their characters helps too, of course.

 

[Charlaquin]

Look at it another way: instead of having you roll a dozen times this just bundles all those rolls into one. And yes, very intentionally, this in general reduces the odds of success. I'm quite happy with that.

If every roll has a consequence for failure (as it should), bundling all the rolls into one makes the game easier because you have fewer opportunities to suffer those consequences.

The game decides this, not me. Or am I unusual in saying that rolls once made are binding?

That’s not what you said. You said it’s binding until and unless something materially changes in the fiction.

Well, yes I can, in that when I call for a roll when there is or seems to be no pressure I'm assuming they'll take however long they like before they get bored; and the roll represents the sum best effort during all that.

It isn’t up to you when a PC gets bored, or that they stop trying once they do. If I as a player decide my character just loves trying to do something and keeps it up until they succeed, or that they power through the boredom because they’re that committed to getting it done, that’s my right as a player to decide. And if there’s no time limit or other source of external pressure, then there shouldn’t be anything stopping my character from doing so if that’s what I want them to do.

Thus taking away from the PCs the option of giving up after 15 minutes of trying and deciding to look for plan B.

The player can decide to do that if they want to. I’ve never seen a player choose to do so, but they can.

And what sets those check DCs? That's right, the obstacle itself.

Wrong. The obstacle and the approach to solving it both play a role in that determination.

The setting is constant and consistent, and the mechanics (in this case, the DCs) reflect that. The conditions, PCs, etc. are variable, and the roll modifiers reflect that. Seems simple enough; and gives the players a more grounded setting to work with.

I agree that the setting should be constant and consistent so the players can have a grounded understanding of the world to work from. I just don’t see any sense in not rolling the modifiers in with the setting of the DC. Doing so makes the math easier for both the DM and the players so the focus can be on the fiction more than the mechanics.

Not at all. The pattern of play doesn't stop: the players describe what they want to try (not do, but try - a very big difference wich rulebook authors always seem to miss)

The possibility of failure is already accounted for in saying “what they want to do” rather than “what they do.” But whatever, if you prefer this phrasing, fine.

-> [maybe there's a check or other mechanical intervention, if needed] -> the DM describes the results and-or what happens -> repeat from start.

The only difference in this situation is that for a while the DM's descriptions might consist of "No change, nothing happens". This does not break the loop.

Players getting stuck and spending hours brainstorming what to do is not a part of that loop, so whatever you were doing for a whole session trying to get that door open, it wasn’t gameplay.

I'm guessing you don't like puzzles or riddles in the game either, then?

I love them.

Ah. That's in fact the most commonly seen of the four possibilities and is exactly what we're talking about above with the door: failure means no change, success means the PCs gain entry to whatever lies beyond (which, situationally dependent, may or may not be all that meaningful right away...).

Ah, good point. Yeah, in that case I adamantly maintain that a roll should not be called for if there isn’t a consequence for failure.

I think it's excellent DMing practice. Why? Because it means the players can't meta-game "Ah, she's calling for a roll, there must be something significant here!". (which, if I didn't use dummy rolls, is what I'd get every freakin' time)

If you only call for rolls when there's something significant then in effect you're almost leading your players by the nose to each next significant thing: if they're in those six passages and unsure what to do next I want to make them work a bit; where in your method all they have to do is blunder around until you call for a roll, at which point they meta-know they're close to the way forward even if their characters haven't got a clue. (which comes back to your earlier points regarding ludonarrative consistency or whatever the term was, you know the one I mean)

In my experience, doing things like this to curtail “metagaming” has only negative effects on gameplay

I'm referring to uncertainty of ability to get it done at all, in this particular situation.

Right, but that isn’t what @77IM was referring to, which is who I was responding to. That’s why I said it was a completely separate issue.

That would sure slow things down...

Not if you only call for checks when failure has a meaningful consequence.

Ah. I thought you were referring more to plot progress in any direction, be it one desired by the DM or not.

I wasn’t referring to plot progress at all. I’m not really a big fan of “plots,” such as they are, in D&D. As I’ve said a few times now, whatever happens during play is the story. I find D&D 5e lends itself better to location-based games than event-based (or “plot-based”) ones.