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

[Charlaquin]

To the extent that I recall the conversation, @Charlaquin showed why that is way upthread.

Multiple times now, in fact.

To be fair though, I would characterize what I’ve shown as “why it might be dissatisfying for some.” Clearly there are those who don’t find it dissatisfying at all, and you know, if it works for them, great. Doesn’t work for me though, and there are many others who agree with me.

 

[Charlaquin]

Of course there are.

But so what? The only thing that matters is what you did roll; and if you want to beat yourself up over what you could have rolled then have fun with that, but for me what's done is done.

As I said to Maxperson, if you can’t see the inherent contradiction between “one roll represents your character’s best effort,” “you could have rolled higher,” and “your character’s best effort couldn’t have been better,” I don’t know what to tell you.

Just like handing in a school exam: you can beat yourself up afterwards over the questions you should have got right but blew; or you can say screw it, it's done now and can't be undone, and move on.

That analogy doesn’t track because how well I did on the exam isn’t the result of a random number generator.

 

[iserith]

Multiple times now, in fact.

To be fair though, I would characterize what I’ve shown as “why it might be dissatisfying for some.” Clearly there are those who don’t find it dissatisfying at all, and you know, if it works for them, great. Doesn’t work for me though, and there are many others who agree with me.

Yeah, and it just seems to me that anyone concerned about keeping things in the fiction, not "metagaming," and "immersion," would see the issues with the "one and done" approach. It does not seem in line with these concerns to me.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, and it just seems to me that anyone concerned about keeping things in the fiction, not "metagaming," and "immersion," would see the issues with the "one and done" approach. It does not seem in line with these concerns to me.

Agreed! I suspect those folks folks simply consider avoiding giving anything up to the players “for free” a higher priority, and are willing to rationalize the incongruity with the fiction rather than let players succeed at anything without having to roll for it.

 

[Lanefan]

Only if modeling reality is your goal. It’s not mine, and I find the swingyness desirable.

Perhaps oddly, modelling reality is to some extent my goal and I still find the swinginess desirable.

Perhaps I see reality as more swingyand-or less predictable than some do?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Far more satisfactory than having the same player re-roll, in that having someone else join in means a different approach is occurring in the fiction. Therefore, reroll.

Your comment seems out of context but yes, if the other player is proposing a new approach to the situation maybe we have a situation where the DM calls for a new roll.

 

[Lanefan]

As I said to Maxperson, if you can’t see the inherent contradiction between “one roll represents your character’s best effort,” “you could have rolled higher,” and “your character’s best effort couldn’t have been better,” I don’t know what to tell you.

I see the contradiction, but not the problem.

Sure, your character's best effort could - on a different day or under different circumstances - have been better; but today it wasn't, and the roll represents the best effort you've got in you at the moment.

That I could have rolled higher but didn't is immaterial.

That analogy doesn’t track because how well I did on the exam isn’t the result of a random number generator.

Clearly you've never seen me write an exam.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, and it just seems to me that anyone concerned about keeping things in the fiction, not "metagaming," and "immersion," would see the issues with the "one and done" approach.

Au contraire; keeping things non-metagame and immersive/believable is in fact part of why I prefer one-and-done.

It does away with the metagame of "I rolled poorly, so I'll try again" (as opposed to in the fiction where the character assumes she's putting forth her best effort but for whatever reason isn't, this time).

It also keeps things believable in that results aren't guaranteed when they shouldn't be; and even something you succeed at on one occasion might still defeat you - undder the same conditions and circumstances - on another; and that someone wiht little chance can occasionally do what someone with much greater chance just failed to do, as in my opening of stuck jars example way upthread.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Agreed! I suspect those folks folks simply consider avoiding giving anything up to the players “for free” a higher priority, and are willing to rationalize the incongruity with the fiction rather than let players succeed at anything without having to roll for it.

Nope. I give players a bonus feat at level 1, +1 to a stat when they gain a feat from their class, and everyone but bards and rogues gets one extra skill, just for a start.

Givinf things for free during play is likewise quite easy for me. I’ve replaced Inspiration with half level d6 Hero Points that can be used to redirect something that has happened and change the result, or to add to or subtract from a roll. I just gave a PC a familiar that can turn into a combat pet when Summon beast is cast on it, and it can be large if desired (it’s a stone bear), and a sword that casts Summon Beast at level 3 once per day, because it added to the impact of a story beat.

I don’t make players roll for things their character is super good at and that aren’t hard, unless they’re under stress.

So, while meta gaming isn’t a major priority for me, it is for some folks at my table, and I do try to limit it. I don’t find any incongruity. It’s like HP and AC. For many tasks, I find a single roll a weird way to model what’s happening, and my group and I find multiple checks more fun, but it’s all abstractions. I don’t see one as less abstract than the other.

 

[Charlaquin]

Nope. I give players a bonus feat at level 1, +1 to a stat when they gain a feat from their class, and everyone but bards and rogues gets one extra skill, just for a start.

Givinf things for free during play is likewise quite easy for me. I’ve replaced Inspiration with half level d6 Hero Points that can be used to redirect something that has happened and change the result, or to add to or subtract from a roll. I just gave a PC a familiar that can turn into a combat pet when Summon beast is cast on it, and it can be large if desired (it’s a stone bear), and a sword that casts Summon Beast at level 3 once per day, because it added to the impact of a story beat.

I don’t make players roll for things their character is super good at and that aren’t hard, unless they’re under stress.

So, while meta gaming isn’t a major priority for me, it is for some folks at my table, and I do try to limit it. I don’t find any incongruity. It’s like HP and AC. For many tasks, I find a single roll a weird way to model what’s happening, and my group and I find multiple checks more fun, but it’s all abstractions. I don’t see one as less abstract than the other.

I don’t get the impression that you’re someone who is overly “concerned about keeping things in the fiction, not ‘metagaming,’ and ‘immersion” as Iserith put it, so I figured it went without saying that I was not referring to you. It’s pretty clear to me that your reasons for using this “one and done” resolution method are quite different than the reasons folks like Lanefan use it.