Good. We are agreed then that in vanilla-PHB, failing an ability check comes with a consequence. That's why we called for a check in the first place.
My word, but this is splitting hairs. Yes, if your rope could be consumed or will become unavailable for several sessions, then it can become a cost as well as a requirement.
Solid criticism. What that points to is that it is correct to have drawbacks on odds for both failure and success. Else all that happens is we dilute the cost of failure (roughly halving the wager).
Something is at stake. I mean, one does not say in gamlbing that nothing is at stake because I might not lose. Roughly, the method can be said to halve the wager. Where loss on a fail was guaranteed, now it is guaranteed half the time. On the other hand, sometimes I now pay a price with success. There is no abandoning of stakes, only a rearrangement of how they fall.
I understand that coming to this from vanilla-PHB, one feels like "success with a cost" isn't "failing forward" even though the outcomes are isomorphic. And that we're used to success being unadorned succes - I got what I wanted, no drawbacks - and failure to always have a drawback. In intent, that is what the DMG options do. "Fail" by 5 or less? No drawback. "Fail" by 2 or less? Actually that's a success, but here's a drawback. The list of outcomes implementing the DMG options puts on offer, is the same as the list of outcomes with this method. Even while the methods and probabilities differ.
I don't dismiss the importance of semantics, but in designing mechanics I am thinking about what the mechanic genuinely does. Success at a cost == success at a cost even if in the past we might have called that a "failure" that turns into a success with a cost.
That's true, the stake in this proposed system is equivalent to a half wager (in terms of risk analysis). However, risk analysis isn't the be all end all.
If you look at what the mechanic genuinely does, you see that on a failed even roll it does nothing.
It would be as if you and I were playing a hand of poker. You win the hand, but then we have to flip a coin to see whether you actually get to keep the pot, or whether we play a second hand to decide the outcome. If you keep winning and the coin flip keeps saying we play another hand, we might have to play a third, fourth, fifth, or even more hands. That's not fun or interesting. It's just stalling out the game and rendering the previous hands meaningless.
I could maybe see this having an application in very specific scenarios. You're already climbing and I want you to have both a chance of failing to make progress (because there are hobgoblin archers aiming at you) and a chance of falling. That said, I would either use the total result of the climb check to determine that, or ask for a second climb check if the first failed. The benefit of both of these is that, rather than being up to a coin toss, they both take into account the character's actual skill at climbing when determining whether they stall out or fall on a failed check.
If you look at what the mechanic genuinely does, you see that on a failed even roll it does nothing.
It would be as if you and I were playing a hand of poker. You win the hand, but then we have to flip a coin to see whether you actually get to keep the pot, or whether we play a second hand to decide the outcome. If you keep winning and the coin flip keeps saying we play another hand, we might have to play a third, fourth, fifth, or even more hands. That's not fun or interesting. It's just stalling out the game and rendering the previous hands meaningless.
A substantive criticism here is a concern for stalling or protracting. I can fail to achieve what I attempted while paying no cost, so the situation is static. That is (only) where there is no up front cost.
Another poster cited Progressive Failures and Rising Tension.
1st Failure: No progress
2nd Failure: Unable to advance without help or change.
3rd Failure: Consequences
An underlying rule I have in my campaign that I had not reflected on until now, is "If a check fails, it usually can’t be reattempted until conditions change—such as with a new approach, improvement in modifiers, or increased proficiency". That is similar to 2nd Failure in Progressive Failures.
I could maybe see this having an application in very specific scenarios. You're already climbing and I want you to have both a chance of failing to make progress (because there are hobgoblin archers aiming at you) and a chance of falling. That said, I would either use the total result of the climb check to determine that, or ask for a second climb check if the first failed. The benefit of both of these is that, rather than being up to a coin toss, they both take into account the character's actual skill at climbing when determining whether they stall out or fall on a failed check.
Working through the example. Failing has a possible cost, which is the probability of being hit by the archers. Say they all miss? Then the outcome turned out to be static. It is worth reflecting on why we don't object to that? Is it that the chance of the situation ending static in that case seems small, so we are okay with it? If yes, then the criticism not so much leaving costs down to chance, but to too high a chance? Or if not, then what is the practical difference in outcomes that concerns us?
It may be that we simply want the narrative to progress, but then nothing prevented a DM from progressing the narrative. Jay attempts to disarm the trap. They fail. The trap is not disarmed, but nothing bad happened to Jay. "What do you do now?" asks the DM. Is this really a static situation? Or just one in which the players will need to find another approach.
If you look at what the mechanic genuinely does, you see that on a failed even roll it does nothing.
In my DMing experience, an unadorned fail is never static: it never "does nothing". The players are just forced to think of another approach. It feels worth spelling out that if there is truly no cost - no up front cost, no consequential costs, or repeats are permitted without changing approach - then a DM shouldn't be calling for a check in the first place.
What I think was left unexplained, and needed explaining, is that repeats are not envisioned to be permitted without changing approach. OP edited!
A substantive criticism here is a concern for stalling or protracting. I can fail to achieve what I attempted while paying no cost, so the situation is static. That is (only) where there is no up front cost.
Another poster cited Progressive Failures and Rising Tension.
1st Failure: No progress
2nd Failure: Unable to advance without help or change.
3rd Failure: Consequences
An underlying rule I have in my campaign that I had not reflected on until now, is "If a check fails, it usually can’t be reattempted until conditions change—such as with a new approach, improvement in modifiers, or increased proficiency". That is similar to 2nd Failure in Progressive Failures.
Working through the example. Failing has a possible cost, which is the probability of being hit by the archers. Say they all miss? Then the outcome turned out to be static. It is worth reflecting on why we don't object to that? Is it that the chance of the situation ending static in that case seems small, so we are okay with it? If yes, then the criticism not so much leaving costs down to chance, but to too high a chance? Or if not, then what is the practical difference in outcomes that concerns us?
It may be that we simply want the narrative to progress, but then nothing prevented a DM from progressing the narrative. Jay attempts to disarm the trap. They fail. The trap is not disarmed, but nothing bad happened to Jay. "What do you do now?" asks the DM. Is this really a static situation? Or just one in which the players will need to find another approach.
In my DMing experience, an unadorned fail is never static: it never "does nothing". The players are just forced to think of another approach. It feels worth spelling out that if there is truly no cost - no up front cost, no consequential costs, or repeats are permitted without changing approach - then a DM shouldn't be calling for a check in the first place.
What I think was left unexplained, and needed explaining, is that repeats are not envisioned to be permitted without changing approach. OP edited!
Yes, that is a relevant detail. It means that you actually don't have failure without consequences. Being forced to mosify your approach is certainly a consequence. You might not be able to come up with an alternative, and be forced to alter course entirely, or the alternative might be a less desirable choice. So you actually do still have a consequence on failure, although you might or might not have a complication in addition.
As for why it matters that you stalled even if the archers miss? It matters because it changes that later exchange. The archers would probably have advantage to attack you while climbing. If they had hit you, you might have needed to make a check to avoid falling. Whereas if you finished the climb and reached the top, those stakes would be completely different (you might even be out of range). I mean, if you're really going to posit that this is meaningless, then we may as well hang up our dice bags and play diceless, because then little or nothing of chance matters. I don't believe that, and I'd be rather surprised if you did.
It's kind of like asking what's the point of the fighter knocking the orc prone if the rogue then misses with advantage? Well, he still had advantage. It made the rogue's attack much more likely to hit. Without advantage, the rogue might well have done something different. Just because something has a chance of failure doesn't make it pointless.
It's only pointless if the chance of failure is meaningless.
Yes, that is a relevant detail. It means that you actually don't have failure without consequences. Being forced to modify your approach is certainly a consequence. You might not be able to come up with an alternative, and be forced to alter course entirely, or the alternative might be a less desirable choice. So you actually do still have a consequence on failure, although you might or might not have a complication in addition.
I think the '20 is a great success' (crit basically) is OK. Given that the GM decides how many and when checks happen, this isn't really doing much work anyhow. You may get to avoid another check due to big success, but there's some undefined number of more checks to accomplish your goal either way, so it is hard to say it was really beneficial. Obviously that will depend on the GM and how he feels about the situation, but this is kind of a general flaw in the way 5e's check system and GM adjudication works, but that is a whole other discussion...
I would say it's exactly the strength of the 5e system, but mileage always varies.
What is germaine to this discussion in this paragraph, though, is that part of the benefit of using degrees of success is putting things more into the hands of the player. I would never propose a system that makes dnd into a system that isn't a conversation*, but I think that the desired outcomes of the OP can be generated a little differently to put more of the resolution process into the player's hands.
Firstly, attacks are the only checks in 5e that would be difficult to switch over to a success ladder. How would that work?
You roll d20+mod, and on a total result of 2-9, you fail, but can still get something out of the action (fail forward). 10-19, you succeed with consequence or complication. 20+ is a total success. 20+ due to a natural 20 is success with a bonus.
What about more complex situations? This is where you can take a page from Xanathar's Guide, and apply it to a different part of the game.
Crime
Sometimes it pays to be bad. This activity gives a character the chance to make some extra cash, at the risk of arrest.
Resources. A character must spend one week and at least 25 gp gathering information on potential targets before committing the intended crime.
Resolution. The character must make a series of checks, with the DC for all the checks chosen by the character according to the amount of profit sought from the crime.
The chosen DC can be 10, 15, 20, or 25. Successful completion of the crime yields a number of gold pieces, as shown on the Loot Value table.
To attempt a crime, the character makes three checks: Dexterity (Stealth), Dexterity using thieves’ tools, and the player’s choice of Intelligence (Investigation), Wisdom (Perception), or Charisma (Deception).
If none of the checks are successful, the character is caught and jailed. The character must pay a fine equal to the profit the crime would have earned and must spend one week in jail for each 25 gp of the fine.
If only one check is successful, the heist fails but the character escapes.
If two checks are successful, the heist is a partial success, netting the character half the payout.
If all three checks are successful, the character earns the full value of the loot.
Loot Value
DC
Value
10
50 gp, robbery of a struggling merchant
15
100 gp, robbery of a prosperous merchant
20
200 gp, robbery of a noble
25
1,000 gp, robbery of one of the richest figures in town
Complications. A life of crime is filled with complications. Roll on the Crime Complications table (or create a complication of your own) if the character succeeds on only one check. If the character’s rival is involved in crime or law enforcement, a complication ensues if the character succeeds on only two checks.
Crime Complications
d8
Complication
1
A bounty equal to your earnings is offered for information about your crime.*
2
An unknown person contacts you, threatening to reveal your crime if you don’t render a service.*
3
Your victim is financially ruined by your crime.
4
Someone who knows of your crime has been arrested on an unrelated matter.*
5
Your loot is a single, easily identified item that you can’t fence in this region.
6
You robbed someone who was under a local crime lord’s protection, and who now wants revenge.
7
Your victim calls in a favor from a guard, doubling the efforts to solve the case.
8
Your victim asks one of your adventuring companions to solve the crime.
*Might involve a rival
Now, the three checks in the above do rely on the DC mechanic, but we can work around that, or we can embrace it, and just say, complex tasks use a different mechanic.
To work around it, we simply have to make three checks with three skills or other proficiencies, and compare number of successes, and then use degree of success to determine complications. Each check is with a particular skill, and skills can have known complications and consequences, and benefits, that the player can have printed out in front of them during play. So if you get a 9 on the investigate check to scout the scene, the complication isrelated to you not catching something. If you get a nat20 on the stealth check, you might find something you weren't even there to find, that is useful or profitable to you, or get in and out so smoothly that no one notices the theft for long enough that you can easily create a viable alibi and/or set up a rival to take the fall, etc.
In a fight, nat20 stealth might have a benefit option that is "you move at your full speed, and can dash, without penalty to stealth, while you are hidden."
The big thing is, the player knows the list of complications and benefits, and on a success gets to choose what happens. On a failure (even partial), the DM chooses, but the player still knows what the options are, and thus has some idea what to expect.
*(even 4e features this dynamic, as the DM frames the world, the complexity of skill challenges, etc. My group also treats 4e skills as having descriptive examples of the types of things you can do, rather than them prescribing exactly what you can do in a relatively exhaustive list, but I can't recall if that is RAW or not)
What is germaine to this discussion in this paragraph, though, is that part of the benefit of using degrees of success is putting things more into the hands of the player. I would never propose a system that makes dnd into a system that isn't a conversation*, but I think that the desired outcomes of the OP can be generated a little differently to put more of the resolution process into the player's hands.
Firstly, attacks are the only checks in 5e that would be difficult to switch over to a success ladder. How would that work?
You roll d20+mod, and on a total result of 2-9, you fail, but can still get something out of the action (fail forward). 10-19, you succeed with consequence or complication. 20+ is a total success. 20+ due to a natural 20 is success with a bonus.
I would likely want to bring AC in as an additional modifier, so that you have
Roll d20+mod-(AC-10)
<2 fail with a complication, 2-9 fail, 10-19 succeed with complication, 20+ total success, 20+ with nat 20 success with bonus
Say in tier 2 our fighter has +3 from Str or Dex and +4 prof. for +7. Foe has AC 15. Rolling 10 they have 10+7-5 = 12, succeed with complication. They roll damage and...
...when it comes to complications, what might those include?
You roll d20+mod, and on a total result of 2-9, you fail, but can still get something out of the action (fail forward). 10-19, you succeed with consequence or complication. 20+ is a total success. 20+ due to a natural 20 is success with a bonus.
What about more complex situations? This is where you can take a page from Xanathar's Guide, and apply it to a different part of the game.
I will respond about the XGE 'SC' method, but first following on from the attacks suggestion. For ability checks say we have
DC is set as a modifier
Roll d20+mod-(DC-10)
<2 fail with a complication, 2-9 fail, 10-19 succeed with complication, 20+ total success, 20+ with nat 20 success with bonus
So in this case our rogue has +3 from Dex and +4 prof. for +7. Lock has DC 5. Rolling 10 they have 10+7+5 = 22, total success. (DC-10=-5, and subtracting a negative integer means add.) Another day, they face a tougher lock, DC 18. Rolling 10 they have 10+7-8 = 9, fail.
Thus AC and DC are handled the same way, and results are converted to our constant scale for nuanced outcomes. Summoning @AbdulAlhazred can you take a look at the above. Does it work?! Note that AC and DC can work in exactly the same way i.e. AC-10, DC-10, so the method could apply to combat and ability checks equally.
I would likely want to bring AC in as an additional modifier, so that you have
Roll d20+mod-(AC-10)
<2 fail with a complication, 2-9 fail, 10-19 succeed with complication, 20+ total success, 20+ with nat 20 success with bonus
Say in tier 2 our fighter has +3 from Str or Dex and +4 prof. for +7. Foe has AC 15. Rolling 10 they have 10+7-5 = 12, succeed with complication. They roll damage and...
...when it comes to complications, what might those include?
I will respond about the XGE 'SC' method, but first following on from the attacks suggestion. For ability checks say we have
DC is set as a modifier
Roll d20+mod-(DC-10)
<2 fail with a complication, 2-9 fail, 10-19 succeed with complication, 20+ total success, 20+ with nat 20 success with bonus
So in this case our rogue has +3 from Dex and +4 prof. for +7. Lock has DC 5. Rolling 10 they have 10+7+5 = 22, total success. (DC-10=-5, and subtracting a negative integer means add.) Another day, they face a tougher lock, DC 18. Rolling 10 they have 10+7-8 = 9, fail.
Thus AC and DC are handled the same way, and results are converted to our constant scale for nuanced outcomes. Summoning @AbdulAlhazred can you take a look at the above. Does it work?! Note that AC and DC can work in exactly the same way i.e. AC-10, DC-10, so the method could apply to combat and ability checks equally.
It's simply approaching the ideas of the DMG options and the Level Up degrees from an angle that may be more streamlined. All aim to deliver more differentiated outcomes from a d20 roll. Ease of use is a concern, and your suggestion offers a straightforward rubric:
20+total success
10+success with complication
2+fail
1-fail with complication
Natural 1s and 20s have extra significance
DCs and ACs might be rewritten in the form -5 (easy), 0 (normal), +5 (hard) etc. A breastplate gives +4 AC. A shield still gives +2. That allows:
Roll d20+mod-DC
Roll d20+mod-AC
What is gained is something PbtA does not have, which is more range in the inputs. I am leaning toward it being preferable to my OP. Seeing as the die-mechanic for DCs and ACs is identical, neither seems more complex. (I might misunderstand what you find "more complex".)
It's simply approaching the ideas of the DMG options and the Level Up degrees from an angle that may be more streamlined. All aim to deliver more differentiated outcomes from a d20 roll. Ease of use is a concern, and your suggestion offers a straightforward rubric:
20+total success
10+success with complication
2+fail
1-fail with complication
Natural 1s and 20s have extra significance
DCs and ACs might be rewritten in the form -5 (easy), 0 (normal), +5 (hard) etc. A breastplate gives +4 AC. A shield still gives +2. That allows:
Roll d20+mod-DC
Roll d20+mod-AC
What is gained is something PbtA does not have, which is more range in the inputs. I am leaning toward it being preferable to my OP. Seeing as the die-mechanic for DCs and ACs is identical, neither seems more complex. (I might misunderstand what you find "more complex".)
