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

[doctorbadwolf]

Let me try another way.

The process is as follows;

1. Fiction (I want to silence the guard)
2. Mechanical resolution agreed upon by the group
3. Fiction (Based on the rolls XYZ occurred in the fiction)
4. Consequence drives path forward
5. Repeat

 

[Charlaquin]

I am not dodging anything.

Call it what you like, you keep not answering the question.

Only one thing has happened in the fiction. You spent two months working on a thing and didn’t manage to get it done.

Incorrect. The example I gave is that I spent one month working on a thing, rolled, and failed. Then, I spent another month working on the thing.

I understand that this wouldn’t happen in your game. What I’m trying to understand is why not. So far, the only reason I’ve been able to deduce is one that is completely removed from the fiction: specifically, the agreement between player and DM that you insist must be made about how long the character may spend on the activity.

The in fiction reason is that you already agreed that a month or less is the time you spend.

That isn’t a thing that happened in the fiction. You and I don’t exist in the fiction and therefore can’t make an agreement in it. We, in the real world, can make an agreement about what will happen in the fiction. What I’m trying to understand is what, if anything, in the fiction prevents the character from doing something other than what we agreed on. So far, it seems abundantly clear that the answer is nothing. The agreement alone prevents it. Which is why I say this ruling isn’t based in the fiction. It’s based in the social contract only.

There’s nothing wrong with that, of course. It just isn’t what I want out of D&D.

 

[Charlaquin]

Let me try another way.

The process is as follows;

1. Fiction (I want to silence the guard)
2. Mechanical resolution agreed upon by the group
3. Fiction (Based on the rolls XYZ occurred in the fiction)
4. Consequence drives path forward
5. Repeat

This isn’t the part we disagree on. This also describes how I handle action resolution.

 

[Lanefan]

Call it what you like, you keep not answering the question.

Incorrect. The example I gave is that I spent one month working on a thing, rolled, and failed. Then, I spent another month working on the thing.

Which, if I'm reading @doctorbadwolf correctly, merely means your first declaration of spending a month at the task is in effect retroactively determined to have meant two months instead.

Otherwise, the cynical SOB in me says a player doing it in increments this way is, rather than just accepting the original roll's results, trying to game the system in order to get extra rolls without doing anything different in the fiction.

 

[iserith]

Which, if I'm reading @doctorbadwolf correctly, merely means your first declaration of spending a month at the task is in effect retroactively determined to have meant two months instead.

Otherwise, the cynical SOB in me says a player doing it in increments this way is, rather than just accepting the original roll's results, trying to game the system in order to get extra rolls without doing anything different in the fiction.

First, why care how a player arrives at a decision for their own character? That's their business. All the DM need be concerned with is whether the approach to the goal has an uncertain outcome and/or a meaningful consequence for failure. If it has both, then some kind of roll is appropriate. The result of that roll can be success, failure, or progress combined with a setback.

Second, it's a simple matter of establishing a reason in the fiction why a given approach that failed cannot succeed with future attempts. I gave an example from the D&D 5e DMG upthread. The PC lied to a guard and got caught in the lie. That same lie has no chance of success. Some other approach will need to be employed. If such a reason is not established in the fiction - preferably before the roll - then one can understand why a player like @Charlaquin might not be satisfied, right?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Which, if I'm reading @doctorbadwolf correctly, merely means your first declaration of spending a month at the task is in effect retroactively determined to have meant two months instead.

Otherwise, the cynical SOB in me says a player doing it in increments this way is, rather than just accepting the original roll's results, trying to game the system in order to get extra rolls without doing anything different in the fiction.

I’m not as cynical in my view of it, sometimes it’s also hyperfixation, or just plain old frustration. But regardless, even when I do resolve a check as 1 action=1 check, I don’t allow retries without changing something or doing something to gain an advantage.

Recently a player chose to use a tiny amount (a few drops at most) of an etherealness potion to make the cover of the lock semi-transparent and gain new insight into the functioning of the lock. I let him make a slieght of hand check to make sure he didn’t use too much and waste it, and another character was able to use arcana to give the subsequent check advantage. He made a new attempt, with advantage, and succeeded. Had he failed again, it would mean that lock is just beyond him without further help, research, new tools, etc.

 

[Fenris-77]

So training for a month is gated behind a skill roll? Is that what we're talking about?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This isn’t the part we disagree on. This also describes how I handle action resolution.

It very strongly seemed like you weren’t getting that it described how I handle action resolution, so I clarified.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So training for a month is gated behind a skill roll? Is that what we're talking about?

Can you unpack this? Seems like a non-sequitor.

 

[Fenris-77]

Can you unpack this? Seems like a non-sequitor.

Sorry, I was the one who was looking for some unpacking. I was referencing the training check you guys were talking about just upstream.