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

[Charlaquin]

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

Oh, sorry, I mean to say I narrate failure if it isn’t possible that they’ll figure it out.

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.

I think we’re getting too far into philosophy and too far removed from actual play here. Yes, the roll represents the overall attempt to do the thing. But once the roll has been resolved and the overall attempt to do the thing has failed, what’s stopping the player from declaring exactly the same action? If it’s a tangible thing in the fiction (like if you don’t have enough time, or some necessary tool has been rendered unusable as a consequence of failure, or the NPC has caught on to your tricks, whatever), fine. But if the only reason is “that roll already represented your best effort,” I don’t buy it. Maybe that means it’s good practice to make sure there is something tangible in the fiction that prevents you from trying again. In fact, I would say it absolutely does.

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.

Cool, we’re on the same page there.

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.

Interesting. So you haven’t had the experience where after working at something and getting stuck, you take a break, try at it again, and make more progress?

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

I don’t find rolls interesting in and of themselves, so making more checks with different skills wouldn’t make resolution more interesting for me. What’s interesting is the tension created by the consequences for failure, and “you can’t try again” isn’t a very interesting consequence in my opinion.

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.

I prefer to encourage varied approaches. Sure, picking a lock will always involve thieves’ tools, but there are many other ways to open a door, some of which may play better to your character’s skills, or even circumvent the need to make a roll entirely.

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.

That makes sense. A success ladder is not something I generally want out of D&D, and also not something I think it does particularly well (because of the binary nature of skill checks combined with the swingyness of the d20.)

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.

Ok, interesting. So, I see the value in using the dice to determine how long a task takes (provided time is somehow limited or under pressure), but due to the binary nature of skill checks, I don’t think that’s easily doable in just one roll. You can make it take a certain amount of time on a success and take a different, longer amount of time on a failure (for example, “make a DC 15 Dexterity check. On a success you’ll get it open right away, but on a failure it will take you 10 minutes”) but that doesn’t leave any room for granularity - it takes one amount of time or the other amount of time, with no room in-between. Alternatively, you can have one roll represent a certain amount of time, with success meaning you complete the task in that timeframe and failure meaning you don’t, and allow multiple checks (for example, “it’ll take 10 minutes and a successful DC 15 Dexterity check to open”). I use both of these options in different contexts, depending on if the additional granularity of the latter option is desirable. Generally I favor the latter in situations like dungeon exploration where every minute matters and the former for more abstract time intervals (I would be more likely to say “on a failure conseqence X will happen before you finish” than “you’ll get it done in X minutes”).

A third option might be to tie each roll result to a specific amount of time - for example, maybe it’s instantaneous on a natural 20 and each point lower adds an extra minute to the time. Or maybe you do something more like how @lovedrive does it, where on a result of X-Y you succeed right away, on a roll of N-R you succeed after a certain amount of time, and on a result of A-B you spend that amount of time and still fail. Or something like that. I don’t care for these options because they’re rather significant exceptions to the way skill checks generally work in D&D and in my view unnecessarily complicate an otherwise very simple, elegant system.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don’t find rolls interesting in and of themselves, so making more checks with different skills wouldn’t make resolution more interesting for me. What’s interesting is the tension created by the consequences for failure, and “you can’t try again” isn’t a very interesting consequence in my opinion.

I can’t dig into the whole post right now, I’ve only got 10 minutes, but this part I figured I could address real quick.
So, it’s not that the roll itself is interesting, it’s that multiple rolls with different skills means that any given combined result will mean something different, which is then up to the player to decide the details of. Did a pick break? Did the PC misunderstand the nature of the device? Did they use a tool to listen to the internals of the device but mishear it?

If pit fighting, it allows someone to say they are analyzing their enemy, or using superior size and mass, or using the opponents momentum against them, taking different approaches and using different skills than someone else would, and leads to more interesting narrations from players of what went right/wrong.

 

[dave2008]

Not a lot of respondents, but the poll is much more even than I expected. I honestly expected @Hussar's "catastrophic" failure on checks to be more common.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Oh, sorry, I mean to say I narrate failure if it isn’t possible that they’ll figure it out.

Ah, okay. Yeah, same.

I think we’re getting too far into philosophy and too far removed from actual play here. Yes, the roll represents the overall attempt to do the thing. But once the roll has been resolved and the overall attempt to do the thing has failed, what’s stopping the player from declaring exactly the same action? If it’s a tangible thing in the fiction (like if you don’t have enough time, or some necessary tool has been rendered unusable as a consequence of failure, or the NPC has caught on to your tricks, whatever), fine. But if the only reason is “that roll already represented your best effort,” I don’t buy it. Maybe that means it’s good practice to make sure there is something tangible in the fiction that prevents you from trying again. In fact, I would say it absolutely does.

If a check represents your overall attempt, that means you have tried again. It’s your overall attempt, not an attempt.

The point is, the parameters are set before the roll is made, I often ask how much time a character is willing to spend doing soemthing, and you roll for that amount of time spent trying. If you roll very well, we might agree that it took you less time, but otherwise we stick to it. That pre-roll determination includes all the attempts you make before either succeeding, trying a different approach, or giving up.

Cool, we’re on the same page there.

Interesting. So you haven’t had the experience where after working at something and getting stuck, you take a break, try at it again, and make more progress?

Sure, and if you take some sort of rest, I might allow a second roll. If you try to do that again, you’ll have to describe an actual change in approach or circumstance, or the roll is the roll.

I prefer to encourage varied approaches. Sure, picking a lock will always involve thieves’ tools, but there are many other ways to open a door, some of which may play better to your character’s skills, or even circumvent the need to make a roll entirely.

Me too. When the approach is chosen, I also tend to call for more than one roll, often with multiple proficiencies, and a lot of player agency wrt what proficiencies can be used.

That makes sense. A success ladder is not something I generally want out of D&D, and also not something I think it does particularly well (because of the binary nature of skill checks combined with the swingyness of the d20.)

I agree about the d20, but D&D doesn't require binary results, and groups of checks eliminate that swing.

Ok, interesting. So, I see the value in using the dice to determine how long a task takes (provided time is somehow limited or under pressure), but due to the binary nature of skill checks, I don’t think that’s easily doable in just one roll. You can make it take a certain amount of time on a success and take a different, longer amount of time on a failure (for example, “make a DC 15 Dexterity check. On a success you’ll get it open right away, but on a failure it will take you 10 minutes”) but that doesn’t leave any room for granularity - it takes one amount of time or the other amount of time, with no room in-between. Alternatively, you can have one roll represent a certain amount of time, with success meaning you complete the task in that timeframe and failure meaning you don’t, and allow multiple checks (for example, “it’ll take 10 minutes and a successful DC 15 Dexterity check to open”). I use both of these options in different contexts, depending on if the additional granularity of the latter option is desirable. Generally I favor the latter in situations like dungeon exploration where every minute matters and the former for more abstract time intervals (I would be more likely to say “on a failure conseqence X will happen before you finish” than “you’ll get it done in X minutes”).

A third option might be to tie each roll result to a specific amount of time - for example, maybe it’s instantaneous on a natural 20 and each point lower adds an extra minute to the time. Or maybe you do something more like how @lovedrive does it, where on a result of X-Y you succeed right away, on a roll of N-R you succeed after a certain amount of time, and on a result of A-B you spend that amount of time and still fail. Or something like that. I don’t care for these options because they’re rather significant exceptions to the way skill checks generally work in D&D and in my view unnecessarily complicate an otherwise very simple, elegant system.

I’ll dig more into how I solve for this, and post a play by play of an advwnturing day that is all ability checks and RP with no combat, later.

 

[Charlaquin]

If a check represents your overall attempt, that means you have tried again. It’s your overall attempt, not an attempt.

Philosophically, sure, but how does that play out at the table in actual play, when my character has tried and failed to do something, and nothing concrete in the fiction is preventing my character from keeping at it? What prevents me as a player from simply declaring exactly the same action again?

The point is, the parameters are set before the roll is made, I often ask how much time a character is willing to spend doing soemthing, and you roll for that amount of time spent trying.

Ok, but again, what if I don’t want to set a limit on how long I’m willing to spend? What if I say “as long as it takes”?

If you roll very well, we might agree that it took you less time, but otherwise we stick to it. That pre-roll determination includes all the attempts you make before either succeeding, trying a different approach, or giving up.

The thing is, I want giving up to be my decision. Unless there’s something concrete in the fiction preventing me from keeping at it until I get it, I should have that option.

Sure, and if you take some sort of rest, I might allow a second roll. If you try to do that again, you’ll have to describe an actual change in approach or circumstance, or the roll is the roll.

Seems arbitrary to me. Why can’t I try again as many times as I want? I know, I know, “you already did try again.” Well, unless something concrete in the fiction is stopping me, I want to try again again.

Me too. When the approach is chosen, I also tend to call for more than one roll, often with multiple proficiencies, and a lot of player agency wrt what proficiencies can be used.

Eh, alright. Not my thing, personally.

I agree about the d20, but D&D doesn't require binary results, and groups of checks eliminate that swing.

No, D&D certainly doesn’t require binary checks. But usually it does employ binary checks, and the exceptions are usually just trinary or quarternary. It tends to be either pass/fail/fail by X or more, or pass by X or more/pass by less than X/fail by less than Y/fail by Y or more. And the more of these exceptions you make, the more you complicate an otherwise simple, elegant system. The binary nature of checks in D&D is, in my opinion, one of its greatest strengths. It keeps task resolution very streamlined and easy to use - and you can still make exceptions here and there where it makes sense to do so.

As for the swingyness, I think that’s a strength too. If I’m only calling for checks when success and failure are both realistic possibilities and failure has meaningful dramatic stakes, I want there to be a decent amount of swing. If that swing is undesirable, there’s a good chance it isn’t a task that should be resolved via a check.

I’ll dig more into how I solve for this, and post a play by play of an advwnturing day that is all ability checks and RP with no combat, later.

Cool, looking forward to reading it!

 

[Charlaquin]

The point is, the parameters are set before the roll is made, I often ask how much time a character is willing to spend doing something, and you roll for that amount of time spent trying. If you roll very well, we might agree that it took you less time, but otherwise we stick to it.

This is really the biggest sticking point for me, so I’m going to try attacking it from a different angle. You say you stick to the agreed upon amount of time the player said they were willing to spend on the thing. Fair enough, I think people should stick to their agreements. But, is that agreement the only thing that’s keeping the character from trying for longer than the player said they would be willing to try for? If so, that’s a problem for me. That agreement has no fictional backing to it. Yes, the player should uphold their end of the agreement, but speaking purely in terms of the fiction, the character should be able to change their mind, right? For that matter, why make the player decide that in advance? Why can’t the character try for a bit, see how it goes, and decide whether or not to continue based on how well they’re doing so far?

Also, what reason might I as a player have to commit to one time frame or another? Do I get a bonus on the roll if I decide to spend enough time at it, or am I just wasting my character’s time if I decide to try for longer than the minimum amount of time required? If I get a bonus for spending longer, what are the limits of it? Can I take long enough that my bonus exceeds the DC?

 

[Lanefan]

Philosophically, sure, but how does that play out at the table in actual play, when my character has tried and failed to do something, and nothing concrete in the fiction is preventing my character from keeping at it? What prevents me as a player from simply declaring exactly the same action again?

Nothing. You can declare it all day long if you like.

However, as your roll's already been made you don't get to re-roll; thus re-declaring the same action isn't going to get you anywhere unless something's changed somehow.

 

[Charlaquin]

Nothing. You can declare it all day long if you like.

However, as your roll's already been made you don't get to re-roll; thus re-declaring the same action isn't going to get you anywhere unless something's changed somehow.

Yeah, that doesn’t work for me.

 

[robus]

On the other hand, if the outcome of the action is certain - it has no chance of success, or no chance of failure, or failure has no meaningful consequence - I think rolling the dice anyway would be adding uncertainty, which I don’t think would be desirable.

This makes me think of classic wtf moment when a barbarian fails to break down the door with a too low roll and then the wizard has a go and easily beats the DC. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[Charlaquin]

This makes me think of classic wtf moment when a barbarian fails to break down the door with a too low roll and then the wizard has a go and easily beats the DC. Garbage in, garbage out.

Right, which comes from a combination of failure resulting in no progress and disallowing repeated attempts. If the DM used progress with a setback (maybe the Barbarian broke the door down but injured themselves in the process or something), this sort of nonsense wouldn’t even have the opportunity to happen. Alternatively, if the failure had resulted in no progress and a meaningful consequence (maybe the noise of battering the door attracted a monster or something) and the Barbarian was allowed to give it another go (at the risk of another consequence), the Barbarian would still be the best choice for who should try to break the door down.