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

[Charlaquin]

Doesn't matter which way it faces: the end result is exactly the same in that there's an assumption that the character will at some point roll well enough to succeed.

There is not such an assumption the way I (and 5e) rule it, as there is no assumption that a roll will be made at all.

The bolded is is where I have problems, in that there's NEVER no consequence for failure.

The consequence for failure is always, at the very least, not succeeding.

That’s not a consequence, it’s maintainence of the status quo.

 

[Lanefan]

There is not such an assumption the way I (and 5e) rule it, as there is no assumption that a roll will be made at all.

Another way to look at it: do you assume success unless failure is proven, or do you assume failure unless success is proven?

Me, I take the latter route.

That’s not a consequence, it’s maintainence of the status quo.

Indeed, with the consequence being that something else - success - did NOT happen.

 

[Aldarc]

The bolded is is where I have problems, in that there's NEVER no consequence for failure.

The consequence for failure is always, at the very least, not succeeding.

Another way to look at it: do you assume success unless failure is proven, or do you assume failure unless success is proven?

Me, I take the latter route.

Indeed, with the consequence being that something else - success - did NOT happen.

I don't think that "meaningful consequence" means what you think it means. You are so focused on a binary that sees everything in terms of "success" and "not success" that you seem incapable of rationalizing what a "meaningful consequence" means or could look like for failure apart from "not succeeding" and/or maintaining the status quo. This is an exceedingly restricted scope regarding the human experiences surrounding failure, success, and consequences.

 

[iserith]

I don't think so, as long as there's meaningful consequence for success. Failure, with or without consequence, is merely what happens if-when you don't succeed. And this is edition-agnostic; though I think 5e's advice here is very poor.

And in my view, success is either guaranteed (as in, no matter what you do you can't mess this up) or it isn't; and if it isn't guaranteed once then repeated tries also won't guarantee it - you can't turn something that would have needed a roll into a guaranteed success just by trying more times.

It's not "edition-agnostic." And it's not "advice." This is how D&D 5e works. You don't call for a roll unless there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. If one or both of those conditions are not present, the PC just succeeds or fails, no roll. The DM narrates the outcome accordingly.

I see it as far less of a kludge than anything resembling a take-20, which is really what @Charlaquin 's auto-success given long enough amounts to.

It's not Charlaquin's rule. It's the rule in D&D 5e. If the only cost to retrying is time, then multiple attempts can be made. To speed things along, the DM can just say that the PC is successful if the time spent on the task is 10 times longer than normal. This, however, cannot turn an impossible task into a successful one nor will it allow for an approach that cannot succeed once failed to succeed by trying it again (e.g. using the same lie on the guard twice).

If the DM isn't interested in speeding things along, perhaps because it's important to work things out on certain time intervals, these attempts can be handled individually. Let's say the DM establishes it takes 10 minutes to pick a lock. The DM also makes wandering monster checks every 10 minutes. The DC to pick a lock with thieves' tools in the current conditions is 20, which is within this PC's ability to achieve given a good enough roll. The player needs to decide if it's worth trying multiple times to unlock this door given the looming threat of wandering monsters. That is a meaningful decision in context.

Either of these situations is rooted in the fiction which is the important part to understanding why there can be or can't be retries. It's not just the DM saying "you can't try again because that was your best attempt and you can't get any better."

 

[Arilyn]

Another way to look at it: do you assume success unless failure is proven, or do you assume failure unless success is proven?

Me, I take the latter route.

I am not visiting a doctor in your world!

 

[Charlaquin]

Another way to look at it: do you assume success unless failure is proven, or do you assume failure unless success is proven?

No

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think that "meaningful consequence" means what you think it means. You are so focused on a binary that sees everything in terms of "success" and "not success" that you seem incapable of rationalizing what a "meaningful consequence" means or could look like for failure apart from "not succeeding" and/or maintaining the status quo. This is an exceedingly restricted scope regarding the human experiences surrounding failure, success, and consequences.

Not at all.

While I fully realize that there can be significant and meaningful consequences for failure (both in the game and in real life), the point I'm trying to get across is that there don't have to be; that sometimes - but not all the time - the only reason you're rolling is to try and gain the success. Other times your goal in rolling is to avoid the failure. Sometimes it's both at once.

 

[Lanefan]

It's not "edition-agnostic." And it's not "advice." This is how D&D 5e works. You don't call for a roll unless there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure.

So 5e simply gets it wrong, then. Not the first time a mistake's been made at the design level.

If one or both of those conditions are not present, the PC just succeeds or fails, no roll. The DM narrates the outcome accordingly.

Which as written, if there's no consequence for failure, just either a) hands success over uncontested or b) forces an auto-fail; even if success on its own has very significant consequences and achievement of such is in doubt.

Garbage design. And fixable by just a few additional words. If your line above read "You don't call for a roll unless there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for one or both of failure or success." I'd have no problem with it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think what @Lanefan is (correctly) pointing out is that the default 5e adjudication guidance leaves out circumstances where not succeeding just continues the status quo but succeeding changes it in your favor. Ie, situations wherein there is a consequences to success, but the consequence to failure is simply nothing changing.

 

[iserith]

So 5e simply gets it wrong, then. Not the first time a mistake's been made at the design level.

Which as written, if there's no consequence for failure, just either a) hands success over uncontested or b) forces an auto-fail; even if success on its own has very significant consequences and achievement of such is in doubt.

Garbage design. And fixable by just a few additional words. If your line above read "You don't call for a roll unless there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for one or both of failure or success." I'd have no problem with it.

Why is it "garbage design?" If there's no uncertain outcome and/or meaningful consequence for failure, why not just narrate the result and move along? "Seeing as picking the lock is within your capabilities and there is no danger, risk, or time pressure at play, you succeed after X minutes. The door is now unlocked. What do you do?"