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

[Charlaquin]

IMO, that is just how the game works. I honestly don’t see how one could interpret the rules as anything but abstractions.

Sure, the rules are abstractions. But they reflect concrete activity in the fiction.

Let’s not do the “play something else if you disagree with me” thing, please. I’m familiar with a variety of systems. 5e works best for my group.

Sorry, that wasn’t my intent. Play whatever you want however you want to play it. It just seems to me like the way you’re describing playing D&D is far enough removed from how the rules say it’s played that, were I in a similar position, I would probably look for a different system I didn’t have to modify as much. But if it works for you, feel free.

Well, I didn’t comment on it. That doesn’t mean I agree. I’ve explained why you can’t.

Right, you’ve explained that there is nothing based in the fiction preventing multiple attempts - i.e. it’s arbitrary.

Sure they are. I consistently allow a single check.

You’re applying the rules in an internally consistent way, yes, but that way isn’t consistent with the fiction.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sure, the rules are abstractions. But they reflect concrete activity in the fiction.

What does an attack roll reflect? Certainly not a single attack. What does AC reflect? HP? Intelligence? Proficiency in a saving throw?

They all reflect abstractions that are easy for the players to translate into fiction. None of them directly reflect the fiction.

the same is true of how I adjudicate out of combat task resolution.

Sorry, that wasn’t my intent. Play whatever you want however you want to play it. It just seems to me like the way you’re describing playing D&D is far enough removed from how the rules say it’s played that, were I in a similar position, I would probably look for a different system I didn’t have to modify as much. But if it works for you, feel free.

It’s really not a significant modification. The player tells me what they want to do, I tell them what to roll to do it (if a roll is both possible and required), and they roll, then we narrate the results, and move on to the next thing.

It’s the same thing as the FF and SwC adjudication in the DMG, with a better bell curve of results.

Right, you’ve explained that there is nothing based in the fiction preventing multiple attempts - i.e. it’s arbitrary.

It’s not arbitrary, it’s just based on things other than what you prefer to base resolution on, in terms of how fiction translates to mechanical results and vice versa.

You’re applying the rules in an internally consistent way, yes, but that way isn’t consistent with the fiction.

Sure. I’m not any kind of simulationist. Then again, it is consistent with the fiction, just not via a method you prefer.

 

[Charlaquin]

What does an attack roll reflect?

Someone attacking someone else, usually with a weapon.

Certainly not a single attack.

No, not usually. Multiple attacks are still a concrete thing in the fiction.

What does AC reflect?

The difficulty of dealing a potentially lethal blow to the target.

HP?

The ability to turn a potentially lethal blow into a superficial one.

Intelligence?

Ugh, nothing meaningful, which is why I think it has no place in the game.

Proficiency in a saving throw?

Heck if I know. I would much rather skill and tool proficiencies be applicable to saving throws instead.

They all reflect abstractions that are easy for the players to translate into fiction. None of them directly reflect the fiction.

Who said “directly”?

the same is true of how I adjudicate out of combat task resolution.

But, you don’t have an answer for what in the fiction prevents a character from trying again after a roll has been failed.

It’s not arbitrary, it’s just based on things other than what you prefer to base resolution on, in terms of how fiction translates to mechanical results and vice versa.

Then can you tell me what it is based on?

Sure. I’m not any kind of simulationist. Then again, it is consistent with the fiction, just not via a method you prefer.

Doesn’t seem consistent to me, based on what you’ve told me.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Except things like this happen all the time in reality.

I mean, I can't count the number of times I've seen someone with a strong grip fail to open a stuck jar and then someone with a much weaker grip pick it up right after and open it no problem.

 

[Aldarc]

Except things like this happen all the time in reality.

I mean, I can't count the number of times I've seen someone with a strong grip fail to open a stuck jar and then someone with a much weaker grip pick it up right after and open it no problem.

This is clearly what we should be modeling D&D to emulate: people opening jars.

 

[iserith]

This is clearly what we should be modeling D&D to emulate: people opening jars.

Keoghtom's ointment is a real pain to get open.

 

[Lanefan]

This is clearly what we should be modeling D&D to emulate: people opening jars.

Or breaking down doors, or lifting gates, or picking locks......it's all the same thing in the end, that being task resolution.

The jars simply provide a real-life example we're probably all familiar with, where a less-likely person succeeds at a task right after the more-likely one fails, and points out that such occurrences do have a basis in reality.

But if you just want to quibble over the example, that's up to you.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Someone attacking someone else, usually with a weapon.

No, not usually. Multiple attacks are still a concrete thing in the fiction.

The difficulty of dealing a potentially lethal blow to the target.

The ability to turn a potentially lethal blow into a superficial one.

Ugh, nothing meaningful, which is why I think it has no place in the game.

Heck if I know. I would much rather skill and tool proficiencies be applicable to saving throws instead.

Who said “directly”?

But, you don’t have an answer for what in the fiction prevents a character from trying again after a roll has been failed.

I do and I’ve provided it several times, you just reject it so completely that you act like I never said it!

In the fiction, you already tried. If your character would spend the next month working the problem, then you either did or didn’t take that long based on the roll, whereas if you’d only try a few times and leave it for later if you couldn’t get it, then the roll reflects success or failure on all the attempts you made during that time. Either way, it’s one roll, or set of rolls. You make a check to represent whatever effort you put in to the task, overall. There is no “again”, because you can’t add to “overall”, it’s inherently part of it.


The only difference between what you do and what I do is that I (and the player) determine the fiction, in part, after the check is made. This leads to more consistent fiction and, IME, better gameplay.

Then can you tell me what it is based on?

It’s based on the same fiction, translated slightly differently via the mechanics.

Doesn’t seem consistent to me, based on what you’ve told me.

Then I am probably going to have to just give up. I don’t know how I can explain it any more clearly.

 

[Charlaquin]

I do and I’ve provided it several times, you just reject it so completely that you act like I never said it!

No, you haven’t. You get so far, and then when I ask the follow-up question I’m about to ask again, you dodge it. So let’s try one more time.

In the fiction, you already tried. If your character would spend the next month working the problem, then you either did or didn’t take that long based on the roll, whereas if you’d only try a few times and leave it for later if you couldn’t get it, then the roll reflects success or failure on all the attempts you made during that time.

Ok. So let’s say we determine I do spend the next month working on it. We roll the dice. I fail. Then I decide, I’m actually gonna spend another month working on it. If I don’t get another roll, I don’t see how you can call that mechanic consistent with the fiction. The same thing has now happened twice in the fiction and been treated two different ways by the mechanics.

If there was some in-fiction reason I couldn’t spend another month working on it, I would get it. But you refuse to give me any in-fiction reason I couldn’t, and when I say “sounds like it isn’t based in the fiction then” you insist that it is.

Either way, it’s one roll, or set of rolls. You make a check to represent whatever effort you put in to the task, overall. There is no “again”, because you can’t add to “overall”, it’s inherently part of it.

Right, so your basis for when a roll is called for is not rooted in the fiction. It’s an agreement made between the players and the DM, not something caused by what the characters are doing in the imagined world.

The only difference between what you do and what I do is that I (and the player) determine the fiction, in part, after the check is made.

Ok. So your process is not derived from the fiction, the fiction is derived from the results of your process. That I can understand. Lots of games have similar mechanics. Man, this would have been a much shorter conversation if you had put it this way sooner.

This leads to more consistent fiction and, IME, better gameplay.

In your experience, sure. In mine the opposite is the case. But that’s fine, we can have different preferences.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No, you haven’t. You get so far, and then when I ask the follow-up question I’m about to ask again, you dodge it. So let’s try one more time.

I am not dodging anything.

Ok. So let’s say we determine I do spend the next month working on it. We roll the dice. I fail. Then I decide, I’m actually gonna spend another month working on it. If I don’t get another roll, I don’t see how you can call that mechanic consistent with the fiction. The same thing has now happened twice in the fiction and been treated two different ways by the mechanics.

Only one thing has happened in the fiction. You spent two months working on a thing and didn’t manage to get it done. Or, you established that you’re willing to spend as much time as it takes, we agreed on an absolute outside possibility for how long it could reasonably take, and you rolled to see how close to that outer limit it took you to get it done. Either way, if nothing has changed, it’s one task, and thus one roll (or set of rolls).

If there was some in-fiction reason I couldn’t spend another month working on it, I would get it. But you refuse to give me any in-fiction reason I couldn’t, and when I say “sounds like it isn’t based in the fiction then” you insist that it is.

The in fiction reason is that you already agreed that a month or less is the time you spend. The fiction is established first. If you then change your mind because you don’t like the result, then the fiction is changed and we have to start over.

Fiction-process-fiction.

Right, so your basis for when a roll is called for is not rooted in the fiction. It’s an agreement made between the players and the DM, not something caused by what the characters are doing in the imagined world.

Ok. So your process is not derived from the fiction, the fiction is derived from the results of your process. That I can understand. Lots of games have similar mechanics. Man, this would have been a much shorter conversation if you had put it this way sooner.

No. The fiction and process inform eachother, always starting with the fiction.

In your experience, sure. In mine the opposite is the case. But that’s fine, we can have different preferences.

Sure.