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

[Aldarc]

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

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

It doesn’t leave those circumstances out at all. It instructs the DM to narrate success in those circumstances.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

A game’s rules can’t be wrong. They are by definition the right rules for that game. They might be the wrong rules for a different game, but that’s hardly an issue. They might be rules you dislike, in which case you might want to play a different game. They might even be rules that don’t serve their intended purpose well. As the only one of the two of us who has played D&D 5e by its own rules, I can tell you they do serve their intended purpose very well indeed.

Which as written, if there's no consequence for failure, just either a) hands success over uncontested

It does, yes. No good reason not to when failure doesn’t have any consequence. The alternative is just wasting everyone’s time.

Garbage design.

Heck off. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s without value.

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.

Frankly, I don’t care if you have a problem with it. You don’t even play 5e.

 

[Lanefan]

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?"

Because unless you want to end up with take-20 in everything but name (i.e. a binary yes or no as to whether your peak skill can beat this lock) there has to be some doubt as to whether your capabilities here, now, today, vs. this lock, are enough.

In other words: "Seeing as it seems you've got as long as you need, let's see if you're up to getting through this. Roll the die."

 

[Lanefan]

A game’s rules can’t be wrong. They are by definition the right rules for that game. They might be the wrong rules for a different game, but that’s hardly an issue. They might be rules you dislike, in which case you might want to play a different game. They might even be rules that don’t serve their intended purpose well. As the only one of the two of us who has played D&D 5e by its own rules, I can tell you they do serve their intended purpose very well indeed.

In your eyes perhaps. Which makes sense in one regard: from your general body of posts it seems you prefer a less challenging and-or frustrating game in general.

It does, yes. No good reason not to when failure doesn’t have any consequence. The alternative is just wasting everyone’s time.

Is it, though? Is asking the players to think of a different approach because this one accomplished nothing really a waste of time?

I sure hope not.

 

[Lanefan]

It doesn’t leave those circumstances out at all. It instructs the DM to narrate success in those circumstances.

Even if success isn't certain; and that's the core of the problem here.

If you can't or won't see that, we're at an impasse.

 

[iserith]

Because unless you want to end up with take-20 in everything but name (i.e. a binary yes or no as to whether your peak skill can beat this lock) there has to be some doubt as to whether your capabilities here, now, today, vs. this lock, are enough.

In other words: "Seeing as it seems you've got as long as you need, let's see if you're up to getting through this. Roll the die."

I'm still not seeing the issue. You criticized how D&D 5e handles it, then criticized "Take-20," but so far as I can tell haven't given any explanations as to why this is "garbage design." Given enough time and the willingness to retry, then "your capabilities here, now, today, vs. this lock" are irrelevant. Just keep trying until you succeed. Charge the PCs the time they spend on it and move on. If, however, there is a meaningful consequence for failure - you make noise and a wandering monster shows up, your lockpicks are damaged, you set off a trap on the doorknob, whatever - then "your capabilities here, now, today, vs. this lock" are relevant because failure carries weight other than time spent and thus a roll is appropriate.

 

[Charlaquin]

In your eyes perhaps. Which makes sense in one regard: from your general body of posts it seems you prefer a less challenging and-or frustrating game in general.

Less challenging? No. Less frustrating? Yes. More efficient (as in, get more done in the time spent playing)? Absolutely.

Is it, though? Is asking the players to think of a different approach because this one accomplished nothing really a waste of time?

I sure hope not.

When there’s no consequence for failure, yes, it is.

 

[Charlaquin]

Double post

 

[Charlaquin]

Even if success isn't certain; and that's the core of the problem here.

If you can't or won't see that, we're at an impasse.

I see that, it’s just not a problem. And we’ve been at an impasse from the jump here.