D&D 5E Do you use the Success w/ Complication Module in the DMG or Fail Forward in the Basic PDF

[Charlaquin]

Well, the misunderstanding is partly my fault. I didn’t realize I hadn’t made the point of contention clear. I wasn’t trying to comment on your disagreement with Lanefan, but instead to explore the whys and hows of single-roll resolution and how it can be used differently than it has been described.

Oh, ok. I see where you’re coming from now. That would probably be a much more productive discussion than the one I’ve been having with Lanefan. His values and mine are just too diametrically opposed, any argument either of us makes is a complete non-starter for the other. But your perspectives I generally find quite reasonable and interesting, even if we ultimately come to different conclusions a lot of the time, so if anyone can make “single roll resolution*” make sense for me, maybe it’s you.

*maybe not the most accurate word for it since many (indeed, probably most) actions are resolved with a single roll in my games as well. But I know what you mean by it, so it works.

I also disagreed with the specific point that single roll resolution is at odds with the fiction.

I don’t think anyone will ever be able to convince me that “that’s your character’s best effort” makes a lick of sense when the die is sitting there clearly displaying that I got 2 out of a possible 20. I can accept that it’s a concession some people are willing to make in service of some gameplay preference, but no, 2 out of 20 is objectively not my character’s best effort.

Maybe I’m the crazy one and this is one of those things like when some folks can’t accept that hit points are abstract because they’re stuck on the words “hit” and “damage”. But I simply do not see how any reasonable person can call a roll in the bottom 10% of possible results “the character’s best effort.”

So, I should have made it clear in the first reply that I was starting a tangential discussion.

C'est la vie. Sorry for letting myself get frustrated and brushing you off. I hope we can start this line of discussion fresh with a clearer understanding of each other’s positions and have more productive results.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Oh, ok. I see where you’re coming from now. That would probably be a much more productive discussion than the one I’ve been having with Lanefan. His values and mine are just too diametrically opposed, any argument either of us makes is a complete non-starter for the other. But your perspectives I generally find quite reasonable and interesting, even if we ultimately come to different conclusions a lot of the time, so if anyone can make “single roll resolution*” make sense for me, maybe it’s you.

Yeah I’d say I’m a mix of what you and he have been arguing for. I definitely don’t share the “skilled play” priorities that drive @Lanefan (unless I’m mistaken)‘s methodology, but some aspects of task resolution I agree with them on.
I think you and I use narrated success mostly the same, with the main difference being that “unlimited or nearly unlimited time” isn’t necessarily something that drives me toward narrated success, unless it’s something that is obviously so far within the character’s skills that it’s narratively or realistically silly to not just narrate success. In my game, there are things that a character might never succeed at, and will just have to circumvent in order to get past.

*maybe not the most accurate word for it since many (indeed, probably most) actions are resolved with a single roll in my games as well. But I know what you mean by it, so it works.

Yeah it’s a bad term for it, but the best one I could figure at the moment.

I don’t think anyone will ever be able to convince me that “that’s your character’s best effort” makes a lick of sense when the die is sitting there clearly displaying that I got 2 out of a possible 20. I can accept that it’s a concession some people are willing to make in service of some gameplay preference, but no, 2 out of 20 is objectively not my character’s best effort.

Maybe I’m the crazy one and this is one of those things like when some folks can’t accept that hit points are abstract because they’re stuck on the words “hit” and “damage”. But I simply do not see how any reasonable person can call a roll in the bottom 10% of possible results “the character’s best effort.”

Yeah to me, the die result doesn’t only represent anything like a percentage of how well the character can do at a thing. Often failure is narrated in ways that don’t even relate directly to the character not performing well, at least in part.

So a 2 on a check that represents many attempts over the available time can be an “off day”, or it can be distraction, stress, etc, or it can be unfamiliarity with the lock or some other knowledge gap, or not having quite the right tools on hand, or something about the thing being interacted with making it harder, etc. It’s not the best you could ever do, it’s just how well you did, taking all attempts in aggregate.

But I do think that using multiple checks to both simulate the complexity of the task and to create a range of non-binary task results goes a long way to soften the sting of single-roll resolution (now the term is even worse! ) You might flub the thieves tools check, but knock the investigation and sleight of hand checks out of the park, and we have a success with a setback, consequence, or price to pay, or other form of partial success.

C'est la vie. Sorry for letting myself get frustrated and brushing you off. I hope we can start this line of discussion fresh with a clearer understanding of each other’s positions and have more productive results.

Hell yeah. I wonder if a new thread would be appropriate, by the way. We are only very tangentially on topic.

 

[Aldarc]

Stop right there. If you're assuming I use, or would ever use, fail-forward you're in error.

Believe me, NO ONE is making that assumption, especially not me after who knows how many discussions with you on this topic.

Even without that, it's the other way around IMO: the rolls don't frame the stakes and consequences, as those are in theory already in place before the roll is even called for. Instead, the roll - IF meaningful - simply a by-product of the presence of stakes and consequences.

You're being a little overly pedantic about my meaning here, and it's not particularly helpful at all.

My point is that even if you're not in a race against time, it's only reasonable to think that some characters (not necessarily players, but in-fiction characters) will have a lower boredom threshold than others and won't be willing to wait the half-hour or however randomly long it takes the Thief to finally figure out the lock if she doesn't get it right away.

Guess what? If that's the case, those low boredom threshold folks can look for a Plan B, which is precisely what you were claiming would not be the case.

Why not? I've already explained upthread why these are a useful tool in the box.

And people have explained how they are not useful and, if anything, can be detrimental to both roleplaying and fun gameplay.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I have no investment in getting you to budge, I know you’re already set in your ways. Debating the matter with you just gives me the opportunity to present arguments in favor of my methods to anyone more amenable to new ideas who may be reading.

1000x this. The gameplay at our table improved dramatically after I joined the forums 3 1/2 years ago. And that is directly from reading 5e tips from you and others with shared styles, @Charlaquin. Thank you!

The four biggest tips for 5e DMs I've picked up here that have elevated our play seem so simple in retrospect:

1. Follow the How to Play game loop on page 6 of the PHB (really it all boils down to this one)
2. Don't try to approach 5e, in whole or part, like it is a prior edition
3. The DM and players should stick to their roles - especially that the player determines what their PC says, thinks, and attempts to do
4. The sooner you throw worry about metagaming to the curb, the smoother your session will run

I think if you’ve been following my conversation with @Lanefan it should be clear that the differences are many and varied.

Yes, and, to point out the obvious: @Lanefan is critiquing 5e gameplay through the lens of a 1e fanatic who doesn't actually play 5e. Nothing wrong at all with being a 1e fan but it is not surprising that some of what comprises effective 5e gameplay seems alien to them in that context.

 

[Lanefan]

Allow me to clarify my take a little - you're more or less close, but there's some subtleties missing...

So, here’s my best shot at breaking down the differences.

• Lanefan frequently and intentionally calls for meaningless checks, just to sabotage his players’ ability to recognize which checks matter and which checks don’t. This is something I would NEVER do.

Close enough, OK.

• When I call for a check, I tell the player what the DC is and what will happen on a success vs. a failure so that they understand what’s at stake and have an opportunity to take precautions to mitigate the risk, such as spending Inspiration. This is something Lanefan would NEVER do.

Not quite. If something's fairly obvious to the characters (or should be) I'll tell the players; though often enough they can figure it out for themselves at least in general terms before I have to say much. This includes failure consequences, success consequences, and external factors; general degree of difficulty sometimes comes in under external factors. I don't always give a hard DC (or equivalent) mostly because many times the roll will allow me to narrate a sliding scale of results rather than a binary pass-fail; except when the game itself gives a target number (e.g. the "bend bars/lift gates" % roll) for something that really is binary, I'll use that.

What I never do is use meta-currency points e.g. Inspiration, as I think that whole concept should be taken out back and repeatedly fireballed.

• I ask that my players describe their actions both in terms of what they hope to accomplish and what their character does in the fiction to try and bring that about (I don’t know if Lanefan does this, but I don’t think he does), and I use that information to determine if a check is needed to resolve that action, and if so, what the DC is. Lanefan sets static DCs for obstacles based on some criteria, I assume his own assessment of how difficult it would be to overcome, and if a player attempts to overcome that obstacle with an action, calls for a check, potentially applying modifiers based on the circumstances and the specifics of their approach.

Lots in here. First, I also want the players to tell me what they're doing and what they're trying to accomplish by doing it; though I suspect at both our tables it's just not that formalized in the general give-and-take of play. I should point out the check mechanics I use (there's different types based on various factors) are very much not how 5e does it, but the general idea is the same: you're rolling to beat a number - usually by getting UNDER it - with the roll sometimes modified by the situation.

The big difference between us, I think, is you modify the DC where I modify the roll.

• I try to design scenarios such that time is a precious resource - either the adventurers are on a clock, or there are checks for random encounters at set intervals (usually once per day or once per hour at base, with the possibility that additional checks will be triggered as a consequence for failure on certain actions), or there’s some other external source of pressure. Lanefan doesn’t always do this (I’m not certain if they ever do or how often).

Sometimes there's time pressure, sometimes there isn't. If, for example, I used wandering monsters 1/4 as much as you seem to do I'd wipe my parties out before long; my game isn't nearly as generous with overnight hit point recovery as 5e is and cures don't help much if you've been below 0 recently (death's at -10), meaning there's times - particularly at low level - when they either need to rest for days in order to recover or get into one very steep death spiral.

This might be because as a player I really don't like adventuring to a deadline all the time. There's enough deadlines in real life, thanks.

• If for some reason an action a player attempts doesn’t seem to me to have any source of pressure making time a meaningful cost (which is rare given the above), or another consequence that follows naturally from the fiction, I just narrate success without calling for a roll. If that happens in Lanefan’s game (probably a much more common occurrence, since he does not necessarily design scenarios to have time pressure and also frequently calls for inconsequential rolls to befuddle the players’ understanding of what’s consequential), he calls for a check, and if it fails, he rules that the player can’t attempt that same action again.

More broadly: if success is in doubt if you try something once, in my view that puts success in doubt no matter how many times you try it. The lack of time pressure or other external factors will not (usually) turn what would have been a roll into an auto-success.

I’m sure there’s more, but those are some of the big ones that I can identify off the top of my head.

 

[Lanefan]

The four biggest tips for 5e DMs I've picked up here that have elevated our play seem so simple in retrospect:

1. Follow the How to Play game loop on page 6 of the PHB (really it all boils down to this one)
2. Don't try to approach 5e, in whole or part, like it is a prior edition

What happened to all the playtest-era hype about 5e being able to emulate any prior edition?

3. The DM and players should stick to their roles - especially that the player determines what their PC says, thinks, and attempts to do

This might surprise you but I pretty much completely agree with 1. and 3. here.

4. The sooner you throw worry about metagaming to the curb, the smoother your session will run

Provided you're not looking for any sort of setting simulation and-or much character immersion. Metagaming tends to butcher both these concepts.

Yes, and, to point out the obvious: @Lanefan is critiquing 5e gameplay through the lens of a 1e fanatic who doesn't actually play 5e. Nothing wrong at all with being a 1e fan but it is not surprising that some of what comprises effective 5e gameplay seems alien to them in that context.

Thing is, of the above four points you listed, two (1. and 3.) are germaine and applicable to any edition; and one (point 4.) is IMO bad advice for any edition. Play is play.

 

[Charlaquin]

What happened to all the playtest-era hype about 5e being able to emulate any prior edition?

It was all smoke and mirrors.

Provided you're not looking for any sort of setting simulation and-or much character immersion. Metagaming tends to butcher both these concepts.

Not in my experience. In fact, it can actually help immersion.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah I’d say I’m a mix of what you and he have been arguing for. I definitely don’t share the “skilled play” priorities that drive @Lanefan (unless I’m mistaken)‘s methodology, but some aspects of task resolution I agree with them on.
I think you and I use narrated success mostly the same, with the main difference being that “unlimited or nearly unlimited time” isn’t necessarily something that drives me toward narrated success, unless it’s something that is obviously so far within the character’s skills that it’s narratively or realistically silly to not just narrate success. In my game, there are things that a character might never succeed at, and will just have to circumvent in order to get past.

I want to address the bit I bolded at the bottom specifically. In my game there are things a character might never succeed at too. For those things, I don’t call for a roll either. I just narrate failure. To my mind, if something is near enough within a character’s skill set that a roll is worth making for it once, then it’s near enough that a roll is worth making again, provided the fictional positioning makes it possible to do so, and they’re willing to risk the consequences of failure again.

Yeah it’s a bad term for it, but the best one I could figure at the moment.

Eh, as long as we understand each other, it serves its purpose.

Yeah to me, the die result doesn’t only represent anything like a percentage of how well the character can do at a thing. Often failure is narrated in ways that don’t even relate directly to the character not performing well, at least in part.

So a 2 on a check that represents many attempts over the available time can be an “off day”, or it can be distraction, stress, etc, or it can be unfamiliarity with the lock or some other knowledge gap, or not having quite the right tools on hand, or something about the thing being interacted with making it harder, etc. It’s not the best you could ever do, it’s just how well you did, taking all attempts in aggregate.

So, it’s the “taking all attempts in aggregate” part that doesn’t work for me. I’m fine with the reason a character’s performance was the less than the best they could have done being any of these things - distraction, stress, knowledge gap, whatever. But whatever time they just spent doing it, if the fictional positioning allows them to do that again, I believe they should be able to roll again. If I spent 10 minutes trying something and failed because I was too stressed, why can’t I take a few deep breaths, clear my mind, and spend another 10 minutes going at it again? If it’s because I don’t have another 10 minutes, fine, that makes sense to me. But if it’s just because the DM says I can’t, that’s where I have a problem.

But I do think that using multiple checks to both simulate the complexity of the task and to create a range of non-binary task results goes a long way to soften the sting of single-roll resolution (now the term is even worse! ) You might flub the thieves tools check, but knock the investigation and sleight of hand checks out of the park, and we have a success with a setback, consequence, or price to pay, or other form of partial success.

So I think this is a difference in our styles. One of my guiding principles is “don’t call for multiple checks to resolve something when one will do.” For me, a task’s complexity alone isn’t enough reason to break it up into multiple checks. No “this lock is so complex it requires three thieves’ tools checks to open,” but you might try and fail your first two checks to try and open it and succeed on your third. But each of those failed checks will have had some consequence - likely the time ticking closer to the next roll for complications. I don’t do the old 4e “X successes before Y failures” type of skill challenges, but I might set up challenges where there are multiple obstacles that need resolving at once, and each failure incurs a consequence.

Hell yeah. I wonder if a new thread would be appropriate, by the way. We are only very tangentially on topic.

Maybe. I worry that a thread dedicated to this subject specifically would quickly break down into the same old arguments and get nowhere.

 

[iserith]

There is a case to be made for a task that, once failed, cannot be retried, but that has to do with the approach no longer being viable. The example the DMG gives, as I recall, is that if you lie to a guard and fail your Charisma (Deception) check, the same lie used again has no chance of success. This doesn't prevent the PC from trying the same lie on this guard again, but if the PCs does that, the DM rules outright failure (no roll) and narrates accordingly. A different approach will be needed to have a chance at success.

Progress combined with a setback in this case can also be helpful. The guard knows the PC is lying and lets on that he knows it, then demands a bribe of sufficient gold that it stings a bit in order to get past him.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I want to address the bit I bolded at the bottom specifically. In my game there are things a character might never succeed at too. For those things, I don’t call for a roll either. I just narrate failure.

Wait why would you narrate failure for something that it is possible they might never figure out?

To my mind, if something is near enough within a character’s skill set that a roll is worth making for it once, then it’s near enough that a roll is worth making again, provided the fictional positioning makes it possible to do so, and they’re willing to risk the consequences of failure again.

I guess I just don’t have any instinctive or philosophical impulse to tie the die roll that strongly to a singular action. To me, it’s “I try to do XYZ” and then “okay roll this skill(s) for it”, and the roll or rolls represents the overall attempt to do the thing.

If I think that it’s something where enough time will lead inevitably to success, then the roll is just there to determine how long it takes.

Eh, as long as we understand each other, it serves its purpose.

So, it’s the “taking all attempts in aggregate” part that doesn’t work for me. I’m fine with the reason a character’s performance was the less than the best they could have done being any of these things - distraction, stress, knowledge gap, whatever. But whatever time they just spent doing it, if the fictional positioning allows them to do that again, I believe they should be able to roll again. If I spent 10 minutes trying something and failed because I was too stressed, why can’t I take a few deep breaths, clear my mind, and spend another 10 minutes going at it again? If it’s because I don’t have another 10 minutes, fine, that makes sense to me. But if it’s just because the DM says I can’t, that’s where I have a problem.

For me, playing that way slows things down, and is less interesting and engaging than requiring a change in circumstance or approach. I might allow one “I go do something else, eat a snack, clear my head, and try again, but if that doesn’t work, it doesn’t feel right to me to just keep rolling until it works. It doesn’t match my experience of life, nor what we want from telling stories together.

So I think this is a difference in our styles. One of my guiding principles is “don’t call for multiple checks to resolve something when one will do.” For me, a task’s complexity alone isn’t enough reason to break it up into multiple checks. No “this lock is so complex it requires three thieves’ tools checks to open,” but you might try and fail your first two checks to try and open it and succeed on your third. But each of those failed checks will have had some consequence - likely the time ticking closer to the next roll for complications. I don’t do the old 4e “X successes before Y failures” type of skill challenges, but I might set up challenges where there are multiple obstacles that need resolving at once, and each failure incurs a consequence.

I find that for my group, rolling investigation, thieves tools, and sleight of hand, makes the resolution more interesting that a single binary roll.

It also reduces the “only the person with the best modifier to X skill should attempt the task” dynamic by opening up more mechanical approaches.

Picking a lock is going to involve thieves tools, but the artificer, rogue, or the monk with thieves tools from background, all have a good chance of getting past the lock, using different combinations of proficiencies.

That, and since I want a success ladder of sorts, and the d20 is very swingy, it’s a good way to get more of a curve of results.

Oddly, part of my motivation is the same as yours. I don’t want extraneous rolls. The situation determines whether non-binary results will be more interesting, which determines whether it’s a single check or a set of them, but I strongly prefer to just have one resolution of the task. If it’s a thing where the character would just keep trying, then it’s possible the roll determines time rather than success/failure, but either way I just want to do the resolution once.

Maybe. I worry that a thread dedicated to this subject specifically would quickly break down into the same old arguments and get nowhere.

Yeah fair