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

[clearstream]

From my post in another thread. I take a step back and think about the features of dice resolution methods.

• Number of cognitive steps (to really get into this, one could size the burden of each step)
• Avatar input into success rate
• Environment (including foes) input into success rate
• Understanable probabilities
• Pleasing feel

Spoiler: PHB method

The PHB method has

• 1) locate DC, 2) read d20 roll, 3) add modifiers, 4) compare with DC
• -3 to +11 & advantage/disadvantage
• -5 to -30 & advantage/disadvantage
• each +/-1 is 5%
• subjective; many attest to enjoying advantage/disadvantage

Spoiler: DMG method

The DMG optional method has

• 1) locate DC, 2) read d20 roll, 3) add modifiers, 4) compare with DC (for success), 5) compare with DC-2, 6) conceive drawback, 7) compare with DC-5
• Rest as above

Spoiler: OP method

The method in the OP of my thread has

• 1) locate DC, 2) read d20 roll, 3) add modifiers, 4) compare with DC, 5) check d20's parity, 6) conceive a drawback
• Rest as above

Spoiler: Alternative method

The method discussed in the body of my thread has

• 1) locate DC, 2) read d20 roll, 3) add modifiers, 4) subtract DC, 5) compare with rubric, 6) conceive a drawback
• Rest as above

Spoiler: dFudge method

A method where a dFudge is rolled alongside d20

• 1) locate DC, 2) read d20, 3) add modifiers, 4) compare with DC, 5) read dFudge, 6) conceive a drawback
• Rest as above

Spoiler: [USER=6704184]@doctorbadwolf[/USER]'s method

A d12 + d6s dice pool method has

• 1) locate #dice, 2) read d12 + d6s, 3) compare with rubric, 4) conceive a drawback
• +0-5 d6s
• none
• generally not understandable
• subjective; many attest to enjoying throwing a bunch of dice (I know I do)

I want to expressly compare cognitive steps, guessing size using Fibonacci values in [].

Step 1 - locate DC [2] or locate #dice [1]
Step 2 - read d20 [1] or read pool [2]
Step 3 - add modifiers [2] or compare with rubric [3]
Step 4 - compare with DC [1] or subtract DC [2] or conceive drawback [2]
Step 5 - check parity [2] or compare with rubric [3] or read dFudge [1] or compare with DC-2 [2]
Step 6 - conceive drawback [2]
Step 7 - compare with DC-5 [2]

PHB method = [6]
DMG method = [11]
OP method = [10]
Alt method = [12]
dFudge method = [9]
Dr's method = [8] albeit, I think Dr's method if modified to have DCs will add about [2] so call it [10]

If I exclude the DMG and alt methods as too costly, and allow for 2 points of fuzziness, the prices paid are

• OP method gains differentiated outcomes [2-6]
• dFudge method gains differentiated outcomes [1-5]
• Dr's method gains differentiated outcomes [2-6] at the extra cost of giving up understandable probabilities

What is a fair price for differentiated outcomes?

 

[clearstream]

For completeness, PbtA in DW

• 1) locate move [2], 2) read 2d6 [1], 3) apply mods [1], 4) consult move [3], 5) conceive outcome [2]
• -3 to +3
• -3 to +3
• Probabilities understandable with mild effort
• Subjective

So possibly a cognitive burden of [9].

I feel like locate move could be [1], but it feels comparable for me with locating a DC so either both are [1] or both are [2]: I left it at [2] because there is scope for doubt (multiple options with equal justification) and some memory demand (or referring to books). Each move has a rubric, so here again I felt either consult move and compare with rubric are both [2], or both are [3]: I left at [3] because of the diversity of rules within moves.

In play, DW is shedding a number of mechanics that are preserved in PHB, so there are efficiencies there that can deliver a faster flowing conversation (at the cost, of course, of the guiderails and crunch those mechanics might have offered).

 

[Numidius]

The goal isn't to go all the way to DW, but rather to pull in a few changes that might make D&D better. It might be that the rate of complications is too high: potentially as low as 1 - a botched result - will turn out to be right.


Agreed that one wouldn't really just want to always break their thieves' tools. Alternatively, one might decide that a set of thieves' tools contains a dozen lockpicks, and it is a single lockpick that breaks.


Others have suggested using a DFudge. It could well be that a 50/50 of a complication is too high, albeit there is a confound that this perhaps depends on what the complication is. The work to do might well be to give better guidance on that.

Regarding enhanced successes, perhaps the following -
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.

Just chiming in to say that on Dfudge the chance is 33% of complication, nada, or boon.

To me is especially useful when assessing 1 and 20, so a 1 with a plus on Dfudge is still a botch, but either Dm is lenient in describing, or Player comes up with something to alleviate the failure.
Otherwise a 1 with minus is a terrible failure, eg: in combat the barbarian hurts herself and loses the weapon for good.

Bear in mind I use this for B/X OSE, to spice up things in combat with maneuvers/deeds and when casting spells.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Fail forward doesn't mean "success with complication," although it might include that. What it means is that failure doesn't stop everything -- that, even in failure, there is still a path forward. A hard use of fail forward would be that the intended goal of the PC is either no longer achievable or is deeply complicated now, but there's still options available, eg that you have failed to stop the ritual and now demons are pouring through the BBEG's rift, but now you have the less optimal options to try to close the rift or deal with the demons directly. This is fail forward. Alternatively, a softer version would be success with complication -- you fail your check/action/whatever to stop the ritual and so the ritual is disrupted but not before X demons come through and now you have to deal with them. This lets the PC achieve their goal, but adds a cost. This is also fail forward.

The idea that fail forward MUST include success is not correct -- it's right there in the name "fail" forward. You can use lots of techniques to absolutely enforce a failure state but still have a path forward for the game to follow. Forward here doesn't mean towards the players' intended goals, but instead means that the game can still progress -- it isn't stopped. This applies from finding clues to mysteries to campaign high points, like the rituals above.

Fail forward is just the concept that play doesn't stop on a failure -- a closed door leads to an open window. It isn't never failing, or just succeed at cost. Those are just possible tools in the kit. I don't know where this widespread concept of fail forward being success with complication came from, but that's like saying that tall people are always men.