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

[aco175]

I presume that you would be a bit more creative than this, but let's just presume you're not feeling well and your creative juices are on empty. There are a bunch of locked doors I have to pick, and each time I get a complication my tools break. Around the second or third time that happens, I'd look at you and calmly ask if there's anywhere in your campaign world where I can purchase a set of tools that isn't made by Fisher Price. Because, IMO, it could easily get ridiculous pretty fast. PbtA partly gets around this by not requiring that the complication have any direct relationship to what you are doing (you're trying to pick the lock and something happens!) but, depending on your players, that might not go over as well in a D&D group. The expectations are different.

Now we are introducing masterwork picks or mithral picks as a mechanic. Players would want it to get around the penalty and other penalties would have the same thing like, instead of picks keeping breaking, maybe hinges make a lot of noise to alert the bad guys. Not I have oil and tell the DM every door that I'm oiling them.

I'm not sure if a chart of failures would help with rolling a d10 and reroll for each failure that has been negated. I do not think that a masterwork pick tracking failures chart is good, but maybe advantage to a save from breaking. Not sure how big the rabbit hole would be.

Is there a simpler way to fail forward? Do you ask the player what happens? Is it just a time penalty to keep simple such as 10 minutes per point missed by.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Now we are introducing masterwork picks or mithral picks as a mechanic. Players would want it to get around the penalty and other penalties would have the same thing like, instead of picks keeping breaking, maybe hinges make a lot of noise to alert the bad guys. Not I have oil and tell the DM every door that I'm oiling them.

I'm not sure if a chart of failures would help with rolling a d10 and reroll for each failure that has been negated. I do not think that a masterwork pick tracking failures chart is good, but maybe advantage to a save from breaking. Not sure how big the rabbit hole would be.

Is there a simpler way to fail forward? Do you ask the player what happens? Is it just a time penalty to keep simple such as 10 minutes per point missed by.

It's not really a fail forward system (unless I missed something). If you roll below the DC you still fail, it's just that if the roll is odd you also get a complication.

Fail forward would be to allow the failure to be a success, for the price of a complication. For example, you fail the DC to pick the lock but rather than failing outright (and being unable to pass the door) you instead succeed at picking the lock just as an enemy patrol spots you (which wouldn't have happened had you actually passed the DC).

Something like masterwork picks doesn't really help. Okay, you dropped your masterwork pick in a crack and it fell to who knows where. Now you're out even more gold than you would have been with a regular set of tools. But moreover, it's that using those kinds of complications regularly isn't ideal IMO. It can easily get silly. It's certainly not how I've ever seen PbtA games run. Ideally, IMO, you want to have the flexibility to run it as a disassociated mechanic (you roll a complication doing X and unrelated thing Y happens!). However, that can be a tough pill to swallow for some D&D groups, because D&D doesn't work this way normally so it can feel like the DM is cheating and making stuff up to make your life harder. Which is exactly how a PbtA game is supposed to run, but a player who is only familiar with D&D isn't going to know that.

 

[OptionalRule]

This is pretty cool. I generally tend to go with a system of Progressive Failures and Rising Tension because I feel like the variability of a d20 makes scale on a single roll too chaotic. I also find those systems run the risk of devolving either into a yes to everything (in which case, what's the point) or players always expecting to succeed.

 

[clearstream]

It's not really a fail forward system (unless I missed something). If you roll below the DC you still fail, it's just that if the roll is odd you also get a complication.

Fail forward would be to allow the failure to be a success, for the price of a complication. For example, you fail the DC to pick the lock but rather than failing outright (and being unable to pass the door) you instead succeed at picking the lock just as an enemy patrol spots you (which wouldn't have happened had you actually passed the DC).

That depends on your view of success with cost, right? What I mean is - isn't success with cost the same as failing that turns out to be success with cost? How do those differ?

Success with cost = fail forward. Or can we articulate the difference?

 

[clearstream]

This is pretty cool. I generally tend to go with a system of Progressive Failures and Rising Tension because I feel like the variability of a d20 makes scale on a single roll too chaotic. I also find those systems run the risk of devolving either into a yes to everything (in which case, what's the point) or players always expecting to succeed.

Progressive rolls look well worth trying.

I felt his stealth example doesn't work so well, as stealth so far in my campaign has worked best following the advice that the roll rides until broken. He must be thinking about rolling against a specific guard, but what if there are multiple creatures with differing passive Perceptions? You don't have a straight fail to work with. The climb example makes more sense.

I'll have to think more on this idea. Currently in my campaign, fail is fail until you come up with a new approach, or somehow change your odds (levelling up will do, for e.g., or casting a spell like guidance).

 

[Fanaelialae]

That depends on your view of success with cost, right? What I mean is - isn't success with cost the same as failing that turns out to be success with cost? How do those differ?

Success with cost = fail forward. Or can we articulate the difference?

Perhaps I missed something. What about this makes a failure into a success with a cost?

I see four possible states in your original proposal:
Success (even roll that is at least the DC)
Success with complication (odd roll that is at least the DC)
Failure (even roll lower than the DC)
Failure with complication (odd roll lower than DC)

Fail Forward is interpreting a failure as a success with a complication.

 

[clearstream]

Perhaps I missed something. What about this makes a failure into a success with a cost?

I see four possible states in your original proposal:
Success (even roll that is at least the DC)
Success with complication (odd roll that is at least the DC)
Failure (even roll lower than the DC)
Failure with complication (odd roll lower than DC)

Fail Forward is interpreting a failure as a success with a complication.

Huh? Fail forward means that you "fail", but lo! In fact, your "fail" is interpreted to mean you succeeded and have a complication. What is the real difference in outcome between failing that is 'interpreted' to be success at a cost, and success that is interpreted to be success at a cost?

What does change is what we take the roll we need to hit the DC to mean. Prior, the roll I need to hit the DC is my threshold between success and the drawback of failing. After, the roll I need to hit the DC is still my threshold for success, but it is not my threshold for avoiding drawbacks.

 

[clearstream]

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.

 

[dave2008]

I'd like more nuance in the outcomes of ability checks, and am dissatisfied with needing to deduct 2 or 5 from the DC and compare that with the result as suggested in the DMG. I've tried the DMG method and for me it's fiddly to apply during the heat of play.

Success at a Cost, Failure with a Drawback​

A result that is an odd number on an ability check indicates that your success comes at a cost or failure comes with a drawback.

Enhanced Success​

A roll of a natural 20 that is a success, becomes an enhanced success. The DM will describe an opportunity to gain an added benefit.

Here are some examples, Rolling a 7, the rogue springs the trap they failed to disarm. Rolling a 6, the rogue avoids springing the trap even though they failed to disarm it. Rolling a 9, the rogue makes some tremendous clatter while disarming the trap. Rolling a 10, the rogue disarms the trap and they're good: no costs or drawbacks.

To give a sense of the odds, say a tier 2 rogue has +4 PB and +3 from ability scores, for +7. Our trap DC is 15. They fail with drawback 20% of the time. Straight fail 15% of the time. Succeed with drawback 30% of the time. Straight succeed 35% of the time. My reading of the advantage/disadvantage rules suggests they interact neutrally with this (you must discard lowest/highest roll.)

I plan to playtest this shortly in my campaign. I'd welcome criticisms, refinements or alternatives if you have any?


[EDIT Added 'enhanced success' based on feedback. Also improved example, and identified need for guidance on complications.]

I don't know about the DMG variant, but PF2 is built around degrees of success / failure at -10/+10 of a successful roll. I haven't heard any issues with people having difficulty to implement it in PF2. Perhaps the issue is values used. It is easy to remember +10/-10?

 

[OptionalRule]

Progressive rolls look well worth trying.

I felt his stealth example doesn't work so well, as stealth so far in my campaign has worked best following the advice that the roll rides until broken. He must be thinking about rolling against a specific guard, but what if there are multiple creatures with differing passive Perceptions? You don't have a straight fail to work with. The climb example makes more sense.

I'll have to think more on this idea. Currently in my campaign, fail is fail until you come up with a new approach, or somehow change your odds (levelling up will do, for e.g., or casting a spell like guidance).

Works for me. I think this is more a testament of having multiple tools on your toolset and picking the right one for the right situation. I'm all for it.