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

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Yeah those are the same thing. IMO, it’s just semantics.

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.

That doesn’t follow. It’s an obstacle with stakes and a chance of failure.

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.

Yeah, we know that you and I handle this stuff differently.
If failure is meaningfully possible (not just technically possible), and success is meaningfully different from failure, then it should be rolled.

It’s excellent advice. I have been playing by it for years and it has improved my games immeasurably since adopting it.

I’ve played with it and run with it and IME it’s terrible. It noticeably reduces engagement, players view the world more like a video game that exists for their PCs, which is the opposite of what I want from the game.

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.

Rather, it forces the GM to morph the world around the arbitrary need for every scene to have dramatic stakes and and makes the world make less sense as a result. Meanwhile, my way leads to fun moments, leads to PCs finding alternate ways around obstacles, and encourages the DM to make even unimportant success states interesting.

It’s never going to matter that my character from a lost Fey kingdom found a song book from the apex of his people’s golden age, in Old High Sylvan, but it’s a fun moment that happened because the DM responded to us spending more time trying to get into the damn library room by adding something interesting to the room. Had I just shrugged and said, “well we don’t need in the library, I was just curious about it bc I’m a nerd and this guy is known to have a rad library. Let’s just move on.” I wouldn’t have lost anything, but I’m glad that I had to roll for it because;
A) I don’t want the world to exist for the benefit of my character.
B) It lead to a fun moment that doesn’t “matter”, but is interesting.

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

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.

Something happens either way. Failure is interesting. In-character frustration is interesting, both in itself and in terms of what it adds to success. A world that just rolls over when my character has nothing particular at risk is not, IMO, interesting. At all.

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

Sure it has. The characters and players know that room might have cool stuff, and they’ve been frustrating in getting to it. What do they do next? Do they leave it, or investigate other methods of gaining entry?

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.

Well, no. Success requires trying something different or otherwise changing the circumstance. And no, this doesn’t necessitate disallowing retries. I used to allow retries, but I still asked for rolls when success was uncertain but failure just meant the status quo was preserved.

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!

I very strongly dislike arbitrarily added drama. It’s up there with forcing a 6+ encounter adventuring day. I hate it as a player and as a GM. If there is a reason for there to be a guard there, great! If not, there isn’t one, no matter how dramatic it would be to add one.

 

[Aldarc]

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

Because "realism."

 

[Swarmkeeper]

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.

The bold is literally paraphrasing the rule in the 5e PHB. If you find it bad advice to follow the rules for when you call for an ability check, I don't know what to tell you. And adding "or success" to the rule does nothing except point out the obvious: if the roll succeeds, the player's PC accomplishes what they wanted to accomplish and avoided the consequence. It's implicit.

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.

Who said anything about giving "automatic success in every situation in which the PC wants something"? The DM can say "Yes" or "No". Making someone roll with the only failure state being "nothing happens" diminishes the role of the dice completely in 5e. Only roll when something interesting can happen, otherwise just say "Yes" or "No" and move on to the more exciting parts of the game. Of course, it calls upon the DM to have some exciting things planned or up their sleeve.

As @Charlaquin said above: "it also encourages you to create challenges that are meaningful and interesting."

"Nothing happens" does not fall into the "exciting" or "meaningful" or "interesting" categories.

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.

Yes, they should roll... if there is a meaningful consequence to failure. "The safe door remains locked" is not meaningful as it just gives the same result as an auto-fail except we've wasted time at the table with the charade of rolling. The fiction has not moved anywhere. Now, if you add in the consequence of wasting significant in-world time and/or causing noise and/or setting off an alarm and/or [add your own meaningful consequence here]... now we perhaps have a worthwhile dice roll to introduce where a failure causes potential difficulty for the PCs. The fiction has changed and the PCs have something new to deal with.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The bold is literally paraphrasing the rule in the 5e PHB. If you find it bad advice to follow the rules for when you call for an ability check, I don't know what to tell you. And adding "or success" to the rule does nothing except point out the obvious: if the roll succeeds, the player's PC accomplishes what they wanted to accomplish and avoided the consequence. It's implicit.

It obviously isn’t implicit to everyone, judging from the discussion I’ve been having with @Charlaquin about it.

Also, “it’s the rules” isn’t a compelling argument. Even if D&D 5e was a game that expects you to follow the rules as written rather than make the game your own, guidance on when to call for a roll is advice, regardless of what else you call it.

Now, let’s watch you directly contradict what you just said (that adding “or success” would be redundant) for the rest of your post.*

Who said anything about giving "automatic success in every situation in which the PC wants something"?

I don’t know. Certainly not me. The full statement I actually made is in the text you quoted, but missing from your incredulous quotation that follows.

The DM can say "Yes" or "No". Making someone roll with the only failure state being "nothing happens" diminishes the role of the dice completely in 5e. Only roll when something interesting can happen, otherwise just say "Yes" or "No" and move on to the more exciting parts of the game. Of course, it calls upon the DM to have some exciting things planned or up their sleeve.

Sure. When something interesting can happen, it’s worth rolling. Including when only one possible result has interesting or significant consequences.

As @Charlaquin said above: "it also encourages you to create challenges that are meaningful and interesting."

And I responded to that idea.

"Nothing happens" does not fall into the "exciting" or "meaningful" or "interesting" categories.

Okay.

Yes, they should roll... if there is a meaningful consequence to failure. "The safe door remains locked" is not meaningful as it just gives the same result as an auto-fail except we've wasted time at the table with the charade of rolling.

There is no charade. Success is in question, because failure is plausible and there are stakes. The entire idea that if the roll fails without some dramatic consequence it’s a waste of time is...fully incomprehensible, to me.

The fiction has not moved anywhere. Now, if you add in the consequence of wasting significant in-world time and/or causing noise and/or setting off an alarm and/or [add your own meaningful consequence here]... now we perhaps have a worthwhile dice roll to introduce where a failure causes potential difficulty for the PCs. The fiction has changed and the PCs have something new to deal with.

The consequence is not getting what they want. That’s a perfectly good negative consequence.

*So, maybe “or success” wouldn’t be redundant at all, and would in fact change the meaning of the guidance in the PHB.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah those are the same thing. IMO, it’s just semantics.

There’s a meaningful difference between rules not addressing a scenario at all and rules specifically addressing a scenario in a way you don’t like.

That doesn’t follow. It’s an obstacle with stakes and a chance of failure.

But if there’s no consequence for failure, it isn’t a challenge. “Missable bonus” describes with near-perfect accuracy where failure is possible but the only result of failure is not-success. Heck, you even called the scenario with the safe a bonus yourself.

Yeah, we know that you and I handle this stuff differently.
If failure is meaningfully possible (not just technically possible), and success is meaningfully different from failure, then it should be rolled.

“Should?” I disagree. By my understanding of 5e rules, a roll only “should” be called for if failure and success are both meaningfully possible and failure has a meaningful consequence. If you want to call for rolls in other situations you can, but I’ve found that only calling for rolls when they are necessary (as defined by the rules (as I understand them)) leads to significantly better gameplay. YMMV.

I’ve played with it and run with it and IME it’s terrible. It noticeably reduces engagement, players view the world more like a video game that exists for their PCs, which is the opposite of what I want from the game.

Interesting, that is quite the opposite of my own experience. It would seem that when we call for rolls is not the only variable at play here. I wonder what else we’re doing differently that is creating this disparity of results.

Rather, it forces the GM to morph the world around the arbitrary need for every scene to have dramatic stakes and and makes the world make less sense as a result.

I disagree that dangerous situations having meaningful stakes doesn’t make sense.

Meanwhile, my way leads to fun moments, leads to PCs finding alternate ways around obstacles, and encourages the DM to make even unimportant success states interesting.

Fun moments and finding alternate ways around obstacles seem to me to happen either way. “Making unimportant success states interesting” would seem to me to be the very arbitrarily added drama you detest. If you create interesting challenges, the outcomes will naturally be interesting. Making the outcome of an uninteresting scenario interesting seems artificial.

It’s never going to matter that my character from a lost Fey kingdom found a song book from the apex of his people’s golden age, in Old High Sylvan, but it’s a fun moment that happened because the DM responded to us spending more time trying to get into the damn library room by adding something interesting to the room.

This is something that could happen regardless of when you do or don’t call for checks.

Had I just shrugged and said, “well we don’t need in the library, I was just curious about it bc I’m a nerd and this guy is known to have a rad library. Let’s just move on.” I wouldn’t have lost anything, but I’m glad that I had to roll for it because;
A) I don’t want the world to exist for the benefit of my character.
B) It lead to a fun moment that doesn’t “matter”, but is interesting.

I don’t see how a roll being required directly lead to either A or B. A is a matter of worldbuilding, totally independent of when rolls are called for. B could have happened with or without a roll.

Something happens either way. Failure is interesting.

No, if there is no consequence for failure then by definition nothing happens on a failure. Failure results in the status quo being maintained - in other words, no change. In a very literal sense, nothing of consequence has happened. If you disagree, tell me what has actually happened as a result of a consequence-free failure.

In-character frustration is interesting, both in itself and in terms of what it adds to success.

In-character frustration is not mutually exclusive with consequences for failure.

A world that just rolls over when my character has nothing particular at risk is not, IMO, interesting. At all.

The world doesn’t just roll over, the game just doesn’t focus on inconsequential tasks.

Sure it has. The characters and players know that room might have cool stuff, and they’ve been frustrating in getting to it. What do they do next? Do they leave it, or investigate other methods of gaining entry?

Again, this outcome is not mutually exclusive with failure having meaningful consequences. On the contrary, consequences for failure make this decision more interesting because now both options are viable and present a risk-reward proposition.

Well, no. Success requires trying something different or otherwise changing the circumstance.

Sure. Point being, by doing this you are introducing a consequence for failure. In this case, the consequence is that you can’t succeed without changing your approach or the circumstances.

And no, this doesn’t necessitate disallowing retries. I used to allow retries, but I still asked for rolls when success was uncertain but failure just meant the status quo was preserved.

Yes, and I’d imagine the result was a whole lot of pointless rolls. “Oops, I failed. Oh, nothing is changed? Ok, I try again.” Rinse and repeat until you roll a success or get bored of throwing d20s at a no-stakes obstacle. I don’t blame you for not liking retries if you allowed them when failure just meant preserving the status quo. Narrating success when failure has no consequence is meant (among other things) specifically to avoid these kinds of meaningless rolls.

I very strongly dislike arbitrarily added drama. It’s up there with forcing a 6+ encounter adventuring day. I hate it as a player and as a GM. If there is a reason for there to be a guard there, great! If not, there isn’t one, no matter how dramatic it would be to add one.

It is within your power as DM to make there be a reason for there to be a guard there. Or if you don’t want there to be one, that’s fine. That just means it’s not a consequential scenario and can be moved on from quickly so you can get to the good stuff sooner.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

There’s a meaningful difference between rules not addressing a scenario at all and rules specifically addressing a scenario in a way you don’t like.

Stop reducing my arguments like this, please. I’m not treating you the same way.

But if there’s no consequence for failure, it isn’t a challenge. “Missable bonus” describes with near-perfect accuracy where failure is possible but the only result of failure is not-success. Heck, you even called the scenario with the safe a bonus yourself.

I don’t care about the bonus part. Claiming it isn’t a challenge is what I, well, challenged.

“Should?” I disagree. By my understanding of 5e rules, a roll only “should” be called for if failure and success are both meaningfully possible and failure has a meaningful consequence. If you want to call for rolls in other situations you can, but I’ve found that only calling for rolls when they are necessary (as defined by the rules (as I understand them)) leads to significantly better gameplay. YMMV.

Interesting, that is quite the opposite of my own experience. It would seem that when we call for rolls is not the only variable at play here. I wonder what else we’re doing differently that is creating this disparity of results.

It’s more likely, I begin to think, that the difference is more one of preferences about experiences. I think we would not have much fun if gaming together. Or reading fiction written by the other, if I’m recalling past conversations about story pacing and editing correctly.

I disagree that dangerous situations having meaningful stakes doesn’t make sense.

Okay, so do I. What do you think about what I said, though?

So you don’t have to go back and read it again, “Rather, it forces the GM to morph the world around the arbitrary need for every scene to have dramatic stakes and and makes the world make less sense as a result.” Nowhere in that is even a hint of an implication of a statement about “dangerous situations having stakes”.

Fun moments and finding alternate ways around obstacles seem to me to happen either way. “Making unimportant success states interesting” would seem to me to be the very arbitrarily added drama you detest. If you create interesting challenges, the outcomes will naturally be interesting. Making the outcome of an uninteresting scenario interesting seems artificial.

Disagree on every level. Making every situation either filled with dramatic tension or skipping past it as quickly as possible does, IMO/IME, lead to good storytelling. Some scenes are professors Hulk losing his tacos. Those are good scenes. They make the story better. When they involve something that could plausibly go multiple ways depending on how well someone does something, and the difference is potentially interesting, it should have a roll.

This is something that could happen regardless of when you do or don’t call for checks.

I don’t see how a roll being required directly lead to either A or B. A is a matter of worldbuilding, totally independent of when rolls are called for. B could have happened with or without a roll.

You don’t see how different play priorities and processes will encourage or discourage different play outcomes?

No, if there is no consequence for failure then by definition nothing happens on a failure. Failure results in the status quo being maintained - in other words, no change. In a very literal sense, nothing of consequence has happened. If you disagree, tell me what has actually happened as a result of a consequence-free failure.

The players...don’t get...what they want. That is a consequence.

In-character frustration is not mutually exclusive with consequences for failure.

Cool. Didn’t say it was.

The world doesn’t just roll over, the game just doesn’t focus on inconsequential tasks.

The game should focus on whatever the player characters want to focus on. The world should exist as if the players don’t matter, but gameplay should center on them.

Again, this outcome is not mutually exclusive with failure having meaningful consequences. On the contrary, consequences for failure make this decision more interesting because now both options are viable and present a risk-reward proposition.

Again, feel free to explain to me why you think I’ve said the two are mutually exclusive.

Sure. Point being, by doing this you are introducing a consequence for failure. In this case, the consequence is that you can’t succeed without changing your approach or the circumstances.

This has literally been my point this entire time. Failure to get what you want is a consequence.

Yes, and I’d imagine the result was a whole lot of pointless rolls. “Oops, I failed. Oh, nothing is changed? Ok, I try again.” Rinse and repeat until you roll a success or get bored of throwing d20s at a no-stakes obstacle. I don’t blame you for not liking retries if you allowed them when failure just meant preserving the status quo. Narrating success when failure has no consequence is meant (among other things) specifically to avoid these kinds of meaningless rolls.

It is within your power as DM to make there be a reason for there to be a guard there. Or if you don’t want there to be one, that’s fine. That just means it’s not a consequential scenario and can be moved on from quickly so you can get to the good stuff sooner.

Yeah no. We just have entirely incompatible outlooks on most aspects of good gameplay and good storytelling, it seems.

“Get to the good stuff sooner”...I just...no. Even at my most linear, I’m not in a hurry to get to “the good stuff”. The whole game is the good stuff. The small quiet moments, the silly moments that don’t matter, the half hour of the PCs wasting time chasing their own tails, and the moments of dramatic tensions are all the good stuff.

Less is less, and cutting every scene that doesn’t move the plot forward is bad editing and bad storytelling.

 

[Charlaquin]

It obviously isn’t implicit to everyone, judging from the discussion I’ve been having with @Charlaquin about it.

Also, “it’s the rules” isn’t a compelling argument. Even if D&D 5e was a game that expects you to follow the rules as written rather than make the game your own, guidance on when to call for a roll is advice, regardless of what else you call it.

So, these are related things. 5e being a hand that expects you to make it your own makes it implicit in the rules that you can call for a roll whenever you see fit to. Just as you can add, modify, or remove any other rule you see fit to. However, the rules do still present a baseline to work from (otherwise what are we paying for?). Deviating from that baseline can have unforeseen consequences. So, yeah, you can call for rolls whenever you want to, but doing so will change the experience in ways that may clash with other parts of the system. In my experience, the system works very well when run exactly as written. But if you don’t like the way it runs as written, or you prefer the way it runs with your changes, do what you like.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

It obviously isn’t implicit to everyone, judging from the discussion I’ve been having with @Charlaquin about it.

Also, “it’s the rules” isn’t a compelling argument. Even if D&D 5e was a game that expects you to follow the rules as written rather than make the game your own, guidance on when to call for a roll is advice, regardless of what else you call it.

Now, let’s watch you directly contradict what you just said (that adding “or success” would be redundant) for the rest of your post.*

I don’t know. Certainly not me. The full statement I actually made is in the text you quoted, but missing from your incredulous quotation that follows.

Sure. When something interesting can happen, it’s worth rolling. Including when only one possible result has interesting or significant consequences.

And I responded to that idea.

Okay.

There is no charade. Success is in question, because failure is plausible and there are stakes. The entire idea that if the roll fails without some dramatic consequence it’s a waste of time is...fully incomprehensible, to me.

The consequence is not getting what they want. That’s a perfectly good negative consequence.

*So, maybe “or success” wouldn’t be redundant at all, and would in fact change the meaning of the guidance in the PHB.

Not seeing the contradiction you claim to be pointing out. You simply must not be comprehending the play style that arises out of the rules. Took me a while, too, when I first started playing 5e but being open to advice here has significantly moved the needle for smooth and enjoyable play at our table. YMMV as you’ve made clear that you don’t care that “it’s the rules.”

Disagree that a PC “not getting what they want” alone is at all meaningful. It’s been made very clear by me and others. Not interested in going around in circles with you on that.

But, heck, if you are having fun, you must be doing something right. For you and your table.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Not seeing the contradiction you claim to be pointing out. You simply must not be comprehending the play style that arises out of the rules. Took me a while, too, when I first started playing 5e but being open to advice here has significantly moved the needle for smooth and enjoyable play at our table. YMMV as you’ve made clear that you don’t care that “it’s the rules.”

Disagree that a PC “not getting what they want” alone is at all meaningful. It’s been made very clear by me and others. Not interested in going around in circles with you on that.

But, heck, if you are having fun, you must be doing something right. For you and your table.

Lol yeah I just don’t understand the game. Sure bud.

I don’t need to have the same conversation simultaneously with two people.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Lol yeah I just don’t understand the game. Sure bud.

I don’t need to have the same conversation simultaneously with two people.

That interpretation is all yours - not what I said. You understand the game differently, which is fine if you are having fun with it.