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

[doctorbadwolf]

Ok.

Right, so now we’re back to what I said before: you’re establishing that the cost that must be paid for the attempt is 6 months of downtime (or whatever the available amount of time is). As long as I am willing and able to pay that cost, I should be allowed to try again. Granted, since time is apparently limited, I obviously am not able to pay that cost again. So really, whatever is limiting my time is the actual consequence for failure in this case.

Semantics. Or if it isn’t semantics, please help me understand what is actually different at the table in a normal scenario that could actually happen.

Ok

Enough time should mean you just succeed without a roll, that’s my entire point.

Sometimes. Other times, failure is always possible regardless of time.
Sometimes the end of the montage leads to you reaching the top of the super hard wall you’ve been trying to climb throughout the montage because you just threw yourself at it and trained your muscles enough. Other times you reach the top only because you tried a different method or someone helped you think about the challenge differently. And in some rare cases, you just don’t get it. Ever.

Fine, but what about 12 months? What about a billion years? If time is unlimited and there is no other source of pressure, you should just (eventually) succeed. If time isn’t unlimited, clearly there’s a consequence for failure.

There is never infinite time to do anything.

Ok.

I think if you’ve been following my conversation with @Lanefan it should be clear that the differences are many and varied.

It’s not clear, though.

Neither do I, and if you got the impression that I did, you haven’t understood the nature of our disagreement at all.

Yep, same.

I wasn’t indicating disagreement. Edit: to be less short about it, I was just elaborating on how I run the game, to facilitate better understanding.

 

[Charlaquin]

Semantics. Or if it isn’t semantics, please help me understand what is actually different at the table in a normal scenario that could actually happen.

I don’t know what to tell you. I have no idea what part of “narrate success if there’s no consequence for failure” you’re struggling to understand looks like in actual play. I’ve given several examples throughout this conversation. If you have specific questions I can try and answer them.

Sometimes. Other times, failure is always possible regardless of time.

Sometimes the end of the montage leads to you reaching the top of the super hard wall you’ve been trying to climb throughout the montage because you just threw yourself at it and trained your muscles enough. Other times you reach the top only because you tried a different method or someone helped you think about the challenge differently. And in some rare cases, you just don’t get it. Ever.

Sure. For any given finite timeframe, it is possible that you might not succeed at a given task during that timeframe. Does that make telling a player they can’t open a lock over the course of 6 months because they failed one Dexterity check good gameplay? I don’t think so.

There is never infinite time to do anything.

Then there should never be a task that’s without cost or consequence. What’s preventing you from taking infinite time to do it? Whatever your answer is, that’s the cost or consequence that should be experienced if a character fails on a check when they’ve committed to keep at the task until they succeed. If that seems stupid (e.g. “on a success you open the lock. On a failure you die of old age first”), that’s probably a task you should narrate success on without calling for a check.

It’s not clear, though.

I don’t know how it could possibly be unclear - from my perspective they and I approach task resolution in ways that are absolute polar opposites. You’re going to have to help me understand what you find unclear about it because I can’t imagine how they could look even remotely similar.

I wasn’t indicating disagreement.

What were you indicating then?
EDIT: Saw you edit. Gotcha. I appreciate the attempt to help lend clarity to the argument, but I’m not sure an explanation of how you run the game will do much to clarify a discussion between Lanefan and I about how we each run it.

 

[Lanefan]

Emphasis added. So, seems to me like your motivation for your approach is that it’s easier for you as a DM, since it saves you from having to think of consequences for failed actions. That’s fair, I guess, but I have different priorities.

Partly, perhaps. Also it means the party's not always under pressure, which if (when) overdone just ends up feeling artificial.

I didn’t say it should be obvious. But, if the players reach the point where they feel like they have exhausted all of their options and have no inkling of how to proceed, that’s bad puzzle design. Puzzles are literally made to be solved, and a good puzzle gives you enough information to figure out how to solve it, though doing so may take some out of the box thinking. Feeling a bit stymied but still having some idea what else you might try is fine. Feeling like you’ve done everything you can think of and gotten nowhere isn’t.

Thing is, the same puzzle or riddle that one group might solve in under a minute could tie up another group for a session or more. There's no way for an author to predict this...or even a DM, for that matter.

 

[Lanefan]

I don’t know what to tell you. I have no idea what part of “narrate success if there’s no consequence for failure” you’re struggling to understand

For me it's the straight "narrate success" part if success isn't guaranteed. I don't care if it's what 4e or 5e or whatever e says to do, I don't accept it as good DM advice for running a believable game where people CAN fail even though the math says they shouldn't.

And the consequence of failing is always, of course, that you fail. Oftentimes that alone is consequence enough.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don’t know how it could possibly be unclear - from my perspective they and I approach task resolution in ways that are absolute polar opposites. You’re going to have to help me understand what you find unclear about it because I can’t imagine how they could look even remotely similar..

Actually you know what, @doctorbadwolf ? That isn’t fair of me. I understand how what @Lanefan and I do is different, you apparently don’t, it doesn’t make sense to ask you to try to articulate how they look similar to you. So, here’s my best shot at breaking down the differences.

• Lanefan frequently and intentionally calls for meaningless checks, just to sabotage his players’ ability to recognize which checks matter and which checks don’t. This is something I would NEVER do.
• When I call for a check, I tell the player what the DC is and what will happen on a success vs. a failure so that they understand what’s at stake and have an opportunity to take precautions to mitigate the risk, such as spending Inspiration. This is something Lanefan would NEVER do.
• I ask that my players describe their actions both in terms of what they hope to accomplish and what their character does in the fiction to try and bring that about (I don’t know if Lanefan does this, but I don’t think he does), and I use that information to determine if a check is needed to resolve that action, and if so, what the DC is. Lanefan sets static DCs for obstacles based on some criteria, I assume his own assessment of how difficult it would be to overcome, and if a player attempts to overcome that obstacle with an action, calls for a check, potentially applying modifiers based on the circumstances and the specifics of their approach.
• I try to design scenarios such that time is a precious resource - either the adventurers are on a clock, or there are checks for random encounters at set intervals (usually once per day or once per hour at base, with the possibility that additional checks will be triggered as a consequence for failure on certain actions), or there’s some other external source of pressure. Lanefan doesn’t always do this (I’m not certain if they ever do or how often).
• If for some reason an action a player attempts doesn’t seem to me to have any source of pressure making time a meaningful cost (which is rare given the above), or another consequence that follows naturally from the fiction, I just narrate success without calling for a roll. If that happens in Lanefan’s game (probably a much more common occurrence, since he does not necessarily design scenarios to have time pressure and also frequently calls for inconsequential rolls to befuddle the players’ understanding of what’s consequential), he calls for a check, and if it fails, he rules that the player can’t attempt that same action again.

I’m sure there’s more, but those are some of the big ones that I can identify off the top of my head.

 

[Charlaquin]

Thing is, the same puzzle or riddle that one group might solve in under a minute could tie up another group for a session or more. There's no way for an author to predict this...or even a DM, for that matter.

You can’t predict how much time it will take them, but a good puzzle designer can make pretty reliable predictions about whether or not they’ll reach the point where they are making blind guesses instead of relying on the information the puzzle itself provides them with to inform their attempts to solve it. Especially if the designer knows the audience who will be attempting to solve the puzzle, which many DMs will.

 

[Charlaquin]

For me it's the straight "narrate success" part if success isn't guaranteed. I don't care if it's what 4e or 5e or whatever e says to do, I don't accept it as good DM advice for running a believable game where people CAN fail even though the math says they shouldn't.

Difference of priorities. You care more about mechanically reflecting the possibility that a person just never succeeds at something they set out to do (“running a believable game” as you put it). I care more about keeping the pattern of play flowing (I might say “running an engaging game”)

And before you say it, I’m sure you would take issue with the implication that your games aren’t engaging. Just as I would take issue with the implication that my games aren’t believable. Again, it just comes down to different values. You find a game where you can spend a whole session trying to open one door plenty engaging, I find a game where you just succeed if there’s no significant consequence for failing plenty believable. It’s fine, we can like different things.

And the consequence of failing is always, of course, that you fail. Oftentimes that alone is consequence enough.

I vehemently disagree.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don’t know what to tell you. I have no idea what part of “narrate success if there’s no consequence for failure” you’re struggling to understand looks like in actual play. I’ve given several examples throughout this conversation. If you have specific questions I can try and answer them.

Sure. For any given finite timeframe, it is possible that you might not succeed at a given task during that timeframe. Does that make telling a player they can’t open a lock over the course of 6 months because they failed one Dexterity check good gameplay? I don’t think so.

Then there should never be a task that’s without cost or consequence. What’s preventing you from taking infinite time to do it? Whatever your answer is, that’s the cost or consequence that should be experienced if a character fails on a check when they’ve committed to keep at the task until they succeed. If that seems stupid (e.g. “on a success you open the lock. On a failure you die of old age first”), that’s probably a task you should narrate success on without calling for a check.

I don’t know how it could possibly be unclear - from my perspective they and I approach task resolution in ways that are absolute polar opposites. You’re going to have to help me understand what you find unclear about it because I can’t imagine how they could look even remotely similar.


What were you indicating then?
EDIT: Saw you edit. Gotcha. I appreciate the attempt to help lend clarity to the argument, but I’m not sure an explanation of how you run the game will do much to clarify a discussion between Lanefan and I about how we each run it.

Ah, I wasn’t aware that discussions ina thread are private conversations.

Forget I butted in.

 

[Charlaquin]

Ah, I wasn’t aware that discussions ina thread are private conversations.

Forget I butted in.

Sorry if I came off dismissively. For what it’s worth, I realized I was being unfair and tried to explain the differences between my and Lanefan’s DMing to the best of my understanding in another post. I left the original as-is rather than editing it in because it seemed dishonest to erase what I had said initially.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sorry if I came off dismissively. For what it’s worth, I realized I was being unfair and tried to explain the differences between my and Lanefan’s DMing to the best of my understanding in another post. I left the original as-is rather than editing it in because it seemed dishonest to erase what I had said initially.

Well, the misunderstanding is partly my fault. I didn’t realize I hadn’t made the point of contention clear. I wasn’t trying to comment on your disagreement with Lanefan, but instead to explore the whys and hows of single-roll resolution and how it can be used differently than it has been described.

I also disagreed with the specific point that single roll resolution is at odds with the fiction.

So, I should have made it clear in the first reply that I was starting a tangential discussion.