D&D 5E Assaying alternative rules for Success at a Cost and Degrees of Failure

[Fanaelialae]

Let me arrange it this way

Fail Forward == Parity Outcome
------------------------------------
Success == Success (even roll that is at least the DC)
Fail Forward == Success with complication (odd roll that is at least the DC)
Fail == Fail with no complication (even roll lower than the DC)
Botch == Failure with complication (odd roll lower than DC)

Example, climbing
S == progress
FF == progress, with complication - we're spotted scaling the treasury wall
F == no progress
B == we fall (or it could be something else, but the most obvious is fall)


EDIT Contrast with

Fail Forward == Parity Outcome
------------------------------------
Success == Success (even roll that is at least the DC)
Succeed Forward == Success with complication (odd roll that is at least the DC)
Fail Forward == Fail that is interpreted to be success with complication (odd roll that is at least the DC)
Fail == Fail with no complication (even roll lower than the DC)
Botch == Failure with complication (odd roll lower than DC)

You can see that SF and FF are identical.

That's not how fail forward works.

Let's say the DC is 10.

Your proposed system:
Success (roll 10+ and roll is even)
Success with complication (roll 10+ and roll is odd)
Failure (roll 9- and roll is even)
Failure with complication (roll 9- and roll is odd)

Contrast that with Fail Forward:
Success (roll 10+)
Success with complication (roll 9-)

Can you see how these two are not the same? There is no actual failure state in fail forward. Fail Forward is intended so that progress isn't halted by a bad roll.

Your proposal has nothing to do with fail forward. It's not really degrees of success either (because that would arguably require being able to do better than just a success with no complications). It simply adds the potential for complications.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

The decision to make 'getting an odd result' just bad is going to interact in odd ways with some mechanics. Someone with a bardic inspiration die might well spend it just for a 50/50 chance at not getting stuck with the 'odd results are bad' penalty. Rogues high enough level for reliable talent will need to play with bonuses so that their total when they 'treat a roll of less than ten as a roll of ten' doesn't always result in a penalty for any skills they use routinely.

I'm also not clear on what this is supposed to accomplish, other than making things generally more difficult for characters that use skills.

 

[clearstream]

That's not how fail forward works.

Let's say the DC is 10.

Your proposed system:
Success (roll 10+ and roll is even)
Success with complication (roll 10+ and roll is odd)
Failure (roll 9- and roll is even)
Failure with complication (roll 9- and roll is odd)

Contrast that with Fail Forward:
Success (roll 10+)
Success with complication (roll 9-)

Can you see how these two are not the same? There is no actual failure state in fail forward. Fail Forward is intended so that progress isn't halted by a bad roll.

I'm not duplicating fail forward, I am including fail forward among other outcomes.

Success with complication == Success with complication
(roll 10+ and roll is odd) =/= (roll 9-)

What changes are the odds, but we were changing the odds anyway. That is intentional.

Your proposal has nothing to do with fail forward. It's not really degrees of success either (because that would arguably require being able to do better than just a success with no complications). It simply adds the potential for complications.

Such little faith. Where does one start? With the whole rocket, or a test engine?

 

[clearstream]

The decision to make 'getting an odd result' just bad is going to interact in odd ways with some mechanics. Someone with a bardic inspiration die might well spend it just for a 50/50 chance at not getting stuck with the 'odd results are bad' penalty. Rogues high enough level for reliable talent will need to play with bonuses so that their total when they 'treat a roll of less than ten as a roll of ten' doesn't always result in a penalty for any skills they use routinely.

This is where the question of - should it be the roll, or should it be the result - comes in. Were it the roll, making the roll 10 guarantees no drawback. Were it the result, making it 10 is problematic because on odd ability check modifiers the rogue is punished. Hence perhaps it must be the roll. Same question for Bardic Inspiration. If it is the roll, then using inspiration seems okay.

Bottom line, it probably must be the roll. That accords better with looking for natural 20s, so perhaps ends up okay.

I'm also not clear on what this is supposed to accomplish, other than making things generally more difficult for characters that use skills.

That's not the overall intent. It's only the starting point. If parity can be successfully used this way, then that might be crafted into a more nuanced mechanic.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'm not duplicating fail forward, I am including fail forward among other outcomes.

Success with complication == Success with complication
(roll 10+ and roll is odd) =/= (roll 9-)

What changes are the odds, but we were changing the odds anyway. That is intentional.


Such little faith. Where does one start? With the whole rocket, or a test engine?

I see, you're not using fail forward according to its standard usage, you're just using it to be synonymous with "success with a complication".

To be clear, under the standard usage of that term, there is no fail state as it is normally defined in D&D. Failure becomes a success with complication. Because your proposal allows for the possibility of failure, it isn't fail forward in the sense of how the term is normally used.

 

[clearstream]

I see, you're not using fail forward according to its standard usage, you're just using it to be synonymous with "success with a complication".

To be clear, under the standard usage of that term, there is no fail state as it is normally defined in D&D. Failure becomes a success with complication. Because your proposal allows for the possibility of failure, it isn't fail forward in the sense of how the term is normally used.

I agree with your framing. Looking at the outcome we include an outcome synonomous with fail forward. Looking at other aspects of the mechanic, for sure it differs.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I agree with your framing. Looking at the outcome we include an outcome synonomous with fail forward. Looking at other aspects of the mechanic, for sure it differs.

How do you figure?

There are four outcomes under your system:
Success
Success with complication
Failure
Failure with complication

Under fail forward there are two possible outcomes:
Success
Success with complication

Or do you just mean that your proposal includes the outcomes that fail forward allows for?

If so, I think I should point out that fail forward is distinguished by what it excludes. Specifically, it excludes failure. You can include all kind of success states in fail forward (exceptional success) and it is still fail forward. But once you introduce an actual fail state (failure) it no longer is.

 

[aco175]

I believe I started the fail forward usage. In my usage it means success with complication, or that is how I used it to mean, but only only to the amount before you actually failed. If you missed the DC by less than 5 you fail forward and if you missed by more then you just fail. I never mean that there is no chance to not fail. This is more how I play, but we are discussing even/odd rolling.

I also seemed to think that this system has success as separate than succeed with complication. I thought that if you succeed, even if you roll odd, then you succeed and never have a complication. My interpretation though.

 

[clearstream]

How do you figure?

There are four outcomes under your system:
Success
Success with complication
Failure
Failure with complication

Under fail forward there are two possible outcomes:
Success
Success with complication

Or do you just mean that your proposal includes the outcomes that fail forward allows for?

If so, I think I should point out that fail forward is distinguished by what it excludes. Specifically, it excludes failure. You can include all kind of success states in fail forward (exceptional success) and it is still fail forward. But once you introduce an actual fail state (failure) it no longer is.

How do you figure?

There are four outcomes under your system:
Success
Success with complication
Failure
Failure with complication

Under fail forward there are two possible outcomes:
Success
Success with complication

Or do you just mean that your proposal includes the outcomes that fail forward allows for?

If so, I think I should point out that fail forward is distinguished by what it excludes. Specifically, it excludes failure. You can include all kind of success states in fail forward (exceptional success) and it is still fail forward. But once you introduce an actual fail state (failure) it no longer is.

Actually, you are right. I was mistaken. Thanks!

Or perhaps not, if @aco175 is

 

[jayoungr]

Some D&D modules already have complications written in if you fail a check by more than 5 or succeed by less than 5. That seems like a way to handle it that is easy to use, doesn't crop up too often, and harmonizes with D&D's general way of resolving things.