D&D 5E What is your "Sweet Spot" of Success? (poll)

[UngainlyTitan]

Yes, exactly. If it's worse than a coin-flip, and you invested in it, and would be considered "good at it", then what are you even doing? Imagine if characters in movies/TV/books who were "good at" stuff were worse than a coin-flip at that stuff? Lord of the Rings where every time Aragorn or Legolas tries anything that would be considered difficult they fail at it 60% of the time lol. And yet people are actively asking for that! It would be a farce. People are advocating for farce!

Monty Python is a helluva drug I guess.

Exactly, McGwyver never fails at opening a lock even if he is picking it with a paper clip and an old spoon.

 

[CleverNickName]

Yes, exactly. If it's worse than a coin-flip, and you invested in it, and would be considered "good at it", then what are you even doing? Imagine if characters in movies/TV/books who were "good at" stuff were worse than a coin-flip at that stuff? Lord of the Rings where every time Aragorn or Legolas tries anything that would be considered difficult they fail at it 60% of the time lol. And yet people are actively asking for that! It would be a farce. People are advocating for farce!

Monty Python is a helluva drug I guess.

Aragorn is protected by plot armor in all of the Lord of the Rings films.
McGeyver is protected by plot armor in every episode of McGeyver.
Buffy is protected by plot armor in every episode of Buffy: the Vampire Slayer.
And so on.

These are films, books, and television shows--not games. The heroes in books and movies aren't rolling dice or taking any risks, since their success has already been scripted by the author of the work. (Unlike the success of players in a D&D game, which depends on measured risk vs. reward and a randomly-generated outcome). If the outcome of a situation in the game has been scripted and the players' actions don't matter, it isn't really a "success." It's just one more Thing That Happened^TM in the long narrative that the DM is reading to the players.

 

[Reynard]

I voted "greater than 90%" by which I meant "100%" but let me explain what I mean:

When a PC is going to perform a difficult and important task, they want to succeed. Their preferred chance of success is, therefore, 100%. However, there's no dramatic tension if the outcome is certain -- especially if it just means success without a cost -- so players often want to FEEL like there is only a slim chance of success. It's a disconnect that is responsible for a lot of problems for both players and designers/GMs.

This is where I think meta-currencies shine: with enough bennies or drama points or hero points or whatever, you can succeed at that vital thing your character is good at -- but it might cost you if luck goes against you. It's especially helpful if the met-currency is also used for things like character advancement because it means the cost is real.

A failed roll being succeeding at a cost is important to, especially for tasks that would otherwise derail the game if outright failed. This can be used to good effect in combination with meta-currency use, but doesn't have to be.

Of course, this all assumes that the task is actually consequential, and not just an illusionary wall.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Aragorn is protected by plot armor in all of the Lord of the Rings films.
McGeyver is protected by plot armor in every episode of McGeyver.
Buffy is protected by plot armor in every episode of Buffy: the Vampire Slayer.
And so on.

These are films, books, and television shows--not games. The heroes in books and movies aren't rolling dice or taking any risks, since their success has already been scripted by the author of the work. (Unlike the success of players in a D&D game, which depends on measured risk vs. reward and a randomly-generated outcome). If the outcome of a situation in the game has been scripted and the players' actions don't matter, it isn't really a "success." It's just one more Thing That Happened^TM in the long narrative that the DM is reading to the players.

I understand it is a game and that there must be the risk of failure, but we demand a level of failure from adventures that we would not tolerate from any professional (or most amateurs) in real life. And we demand that failure all the time, not just in the high stakes play.
We are not satisfied that the thief has a 20% chance of picking the door to the sanctum of The Clockmaker a fiendishly clever fellow renowned in 5 kingdoms for complex locks and puzzle traps but a similar failure rate from every damn door and garden gate along the way.

I find that very amusing.

 

[Yaarel]

It's kind of funny to me that so many people are picking such extremely low numbers, because that results in terrible gameplay in practice, because it explains why spells, which don't need to make a check, just arbitrarily do something, are so much more powerful than skills. Honestly, anyone picking 40% or below, you're part of why spellcasters are so dominant in the two non-combat pillars, especially at level 5+. The idea that someone "good" should just fail 60% of the time, whereas a spell should fail 0% of the time is deeply problematic, design-wise.

Also, if spells had a similar fail rate to skills, which they probably should, I bet we'd see very different numbers being picked by the same people.

I picked 65% and 70% which are, I see also pretty popular (interesting), based on my experience with RPGs. If you invest in something, to the point where you're good, and still fail the majority of the time, the message your giving the player is "your decisions were worthless". Again especially in D&D where spells and many abilities just work 100% of the time.

The solution is to write spells whose effects rely on various skill checks.

Need to charm someone? The spell makes a Persuasion check.
Need to frighten someone? The spell makes an Intimidation check.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

The solution is to write spells whose effects rely on various skill checks.

Need to charm someone? The spell makes a Persuasion check.
Need to frighten someone? The spell makes an Intimidation check.

Great ideas but you are now running face first into the legacy of the game where there were spells that just did that thing.

 

[Yaarel]

Great ideas but you are now running face first into the legacy of the game where there were spells that just did that thing.

Yeah. But in that same 1e legacy, skills didnt exist!

Now that skills do exist, those spells make less sense, and need to update to take the skill mechanics into account.

For example. Once upon a time, in 1e, Legend Lore was a notable spell. But today in 5e, it is a worthless spell.

1e Legend Lore at level 9 (!) ≈ 5e History skill check at level 1



Many legacy spells are now obsolete today in 5e.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Yeah. But in that same 1e legacy, skills didnt exist!

Now that skills do exist, those spells make less sense, and need to update to take the skill mechanics into account.

For example. Once upon a time, in 1e, Legend Lore was a notable spell. But today in 5e, it is a worthless spell.

1e Legend Lore at level 9 (!) ≈ 5e History skill check at level 1



Many legacy spells are now obsolete today in 5e.

Yup but I am not the one that will complain if this appeared in a playtest document.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I should add that with regard to Legend Lore, I would use the spell to tell the caster something no could possibly know about the thing in question.

 

[Gammadoodler]

McGwyver

McGeyver

MacGyver