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

[Charlaquin]

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)

Again, it is functionally different from take 20 in meaningful ways that we have been over several times now.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

IMO that is leaving those circumstances out, because success is not actually assured in such circumstances, and not getting what you want changes the emerging story.

Anothwr way to look at it is; “You don’t get the thing you want” is a negative consequences.

 

[Charlaquin]

IMO that is leaving those circumstances out, because success is not actually assured in such circumstances, and not getting what you want changes the emerging story.

It isn’t leaving them out though. There are specific instructions for what to do in those situations. You may not like the way it addresses them, but it does address them.

Anothwr way to look at it is; “You don’t get the thing you want” is a negative consequences.

Of course, if there’s no consequence for failure, there’s nothing stopping you from spending as long as it takes to get what you want, so not (immediately) getting what you want really isn’t a consequence in such a situation.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It isn’t leaving them out though. There are specific instructions for what to do in those situations. You may not like the way it addresses them, but it does address them.

No, it is leaving them out. A rule saying, effectively, "Just ignore that circumstance and give the auto-win to the PC rather than actually engaging with it." is a rule that leaves that the circumstance in question. If you're just nitpicking the wording, feel free to disregard, because I don't care about semantics.

Of course, if there’s no consequence for failure, there’s nothing stopping you from spending as long as it takes to get what you want, so not (immediately) getting what you want really isn’t a consequence in such a situation.

There are things in the world that no amount of time will get you, if you don't possess the necessary skill and knowledge. That should be reflected in the rules.

 

[Charlaquin]

No, it is leaving them out. A rule saying, effectively, "Just ignore that circumstance and give the auto-win to the PC rather than actually engaging with it." is a rule that leaves that the circumstance in question. If you're just nitpicking the wording, feel free to disregard, because I don't care about semantics.

No, it’s saying “here’s what to do in these situations.” You just happen to dislike what it’s saying to do. Which is fine.

There are things in the world that no amount of time will get you, if you don't possess the necessary skill and knowledge. That should be reflected in the rules.

It is. You fail these things without a roll.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No, it’s saying “here’s what to do in these situations.” You just happen to dislike what it’s saying to do. Which is fine.

It is literally saying to skip them. Well, I adisagree that the rules actually do say that, but the rules as you are interpreting them are certainly saying to skip such situations and just hand them to the player. That any challenge where the stakes are positive change vs status quo is not worth dealing with as a challenge, which is garbage.

It is. You fail these things without a roll.

No, you roll to find out whether a thing is that sort of thing or not.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

It is literally saying to skip them. Well, I adisagree that the rules actually do say that, but the rules as you are interpreting them are certainly saying to skip such situations and just hand them to the player. That any challenge where the stakes are positive change vs status quo is not worth dealing with as a challenge, which is garbage.

It is the DM's prerogative whether to grant automatic success or not for any stated approach declared by a player for their PC. The dice only come out when there is a meaningful consequence to failure. "Nothing happens" is simply not meaningful to many people. If it is to you, have at it.

No, you roll to find out whether a thing is that sort of thing or not.

"Is a task so inappropriate or impossible-such as hitting the moon with an arrow-that it can't work?" is an actual example (DMG p237) of when not to ask for a roll. Your example:

There are things in the world that no amount of time will get you, if you don't possess the necessary skill and knowledge. That should be reflected in the rules.

is in the same category - hence it is covered by the rules. No roll required in 5e. Auto-fail: "Your PC fails to accomplish the task because they don't possess the necessary skill and knowledge. What else would you like to do?"

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It is the DM's prerogative whether to grant automatic success or not for any stated approach declared by a player for their PC. The dice only come out when there is a meaningful consequence to failure. "Nothing happens" is simply not meaningful to many people. If it is to you, have at it.

The bold is bad advice, without the addition of “or success” to the end.

It’s completely wacky to just give automatic success in every situation in which the PC wants something, there is a significant chance of failure, but the only consequence of failure is the PC not getting what they want.

"Is a task so inappropriate or impossible-such as hitting the moon with an arrow-that it can't work?" is an actual example (DMG p237) of when not to ask for a roll. Your example:

is in the same category - hence it is covered by the rules. No roll required in 5e. Auto-fail: "Your PC fails to accomplish the task because they don't possess the necessary skill and knowledge. What else would you like to do?"

This misses the point so hard it’s difficult to even know how to respond to it.

An accomplished safe-cracker should roll to try and crack a safe, even if there isn’t anything important in the safe. Failure just means you don’t get some bonus loot.

 

[Charlaquin]

It is literally saying to skip them. Well, I adisagree that the rules actually do say that, but the rules as you are interpreting them are certainly saying to skip such situations and just hand them to the player.

Right. It doesn’t “leave those situations out,” implying that it gives no advice for how to handle them. It tells you specifically how to handle them: narrate success.

That any challenge where the stakes are positive change vs status quo is not worth dealing with as a challenge, which is garbage.

If the only options are positive change or no change, that isn’t a challenge, it’s a missable bonus. And kindly don’t call the way other people like to play garbage. I expect that kind of nonsense from Lanefan, but not from you.

No, you roll to find out whether a thing is that sort of thing or not.

Not by (the way I and others interpret) the rules of D&D 5e. If you lack the knowledge or skills to do something, it isn’t possible, and therefore you fail to do it without a roll. If you have the knowledge or skills to do it, a roll might be called for, if failure is possible and has a meaningful consequence. Otherwise you succeed.

The bold is bad advice, without the addition of “or success” to the end.

It’s excellent advice. I have been playing by it for years and it has improved my games immeasurably since adopting it. I was skeptical at first, as I think most people are. It seems like it would make the game too easy. Like you’re giving something away for free. But in reality, it cuts through all the pointless rolls and keeps the game focused on meaningful, interesting challenges. It also encourages you to create challenges that are meaningful and interesting.

Maybe it wouldn’t be to your liking. If so, that’s fine. But it is definitely not bad advice.

It’s completely wacky to just give automatic success in every situation in which the PC wants something, there is a significant chance of failure, but the only consequence of failure is the PC not getting what they want.

Why? What’s the harm in letting them have it? If there’s no consequence for failure then getting it is the more interesting outcome anyway because at least then something happens.

This misses the point so hard it’s difficult to even know how to respond to it.

An accomplished safe-cracker should roll to try and crack a safe, even if there isn’t anything important in the safe. Failure just means you don’t get some bonus loot.

What a boring (non-)consequence for failure. Nothing has changed, nothing has been lost or gained.

This is why you have to disallow retries if you call for checks when there’s no consequence for failure. Because otherwise the roll would be literally nothing but a waste of time. By disallowing retries, what you’re doing is introducing a consequence for failure. That consequence being that success becomes impossible. That keeps the roll from being pointless, but it doesn’t actually make “nothing happens” an interesting outcome. Add in a guard who might find you if you take too long, now we have some actual dramatic stakes!

 

[loverdrive]

I'm really surprised someone actually advocates for boring games where nothing happens. Like, wtf?