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

[doctorbadwolf]

Call it what you like, you keep not answering the question.

This is very frustrating.

I will try again.

Nothing stops your character from doing any given thing. How your character’s actions are resolved works a certain way. That way does not stop your character from doing anything. It simply determines success or failure.

Incorrect. The example I gave is that I spent one month working on a thing, rolled, and failed. Then, I spent another month working on the thing.

No. You tried to get around the agreed upon action resolution system to auto win a skill check, or you tried to retcon the fiction after the fact. Either way, that isn’t allowed at my table. If your character wants another crack at it, they can either change the situation, their approach, their understanding of the task, or something else that would make it actually a fresh attempt.

I understand that this wouldn’t happen in your game. What I’m trying to understand is why not. So far, the only reason I’ve been able to deduce is one that is completely removed from the fiction: specifically, the agreement between player and DM that you insist must be made about how long the character may spend on the activity.

It really doesn’t seem like you understand what I’m saying. Again. You declare action and approach. I declare what check or checks, if any, must be done. You do the checks. We narrate the results. That is it. Period. No take-backs, no retcons because the player doesn’t like the result, no holding up the game to re-litigate action resolution that has already occurred. If you want to narrate that your character bonks their head against the wall until someone pulls them away in stubborn refusal to admit defeat, go ahead, it doesn’t change the result.

That isn’t a thing that happened in the fiction. You and I don’t exist in the fiction and therefore can’t make an agreement in it. We, in the real world, can make an agreement about what will happen in the fiction. What I’m trying to understand is what, if anything, in the fiction prevents the character from doing something other than what we agreed on. So far, it seems abundantly clear that the answer is nothing. The agreement alone prevents it. Which is why I say this ruling isn’t based in the fiction. It’s based in the social contract only.

Yes, it is. We already narrated how the character approaches the task. That already happened. We have established the result. That’s it.

The fiction has been established, and it is that your character cannot open the lock. What is left is to imagine why that is, and if the lock is important or you just really wanna, establish what they do to change the circumstance.

 

[Charlaquin]

I’m not as cynical in my view of it, sometimes it’s also hyperfixation, or just plain old frustration. But regardless, even when I do resolve a check as 1 action=1 check, I don’t allow retries without changing something or doing something to gain an advantage.

Again, 1 action = 1 check is not the thing I’m hung up on here. I’m perfectly comfortable with some checks representing more than a single action (like an attack roll being multiple swings of the weapon). I’m less keen on a single action taking multiple rolls, but it seems like that’s not something you care for either. This keeps popping up and distracting us from the actual point of contention, the lack of something concrete in the fiction preventing the action or actions you are disallowing a roll for.

Recently a player chose to use a tiny amount (a few drops at most) of an etherealness potion to make the cover of the lock semi-transparent and gain new insight into the functioning of the lock. I let him make a slieght of hand check to make sure he didn’t use too much and waste it,

Seems like a great call! Clear stakes, possibility of success and failure, consequence for failure. What a beautiful action resolution.

and another character was able to use arcana to give the subsequent check advantage.

Neat! I assume the arcana user described what their character was doing to help and you determined an Arcana check was needed to resolve that action too, based on what I understand of how you resolve actions. But I’m not trying to nitpick the example, and the precise details of that action declaration aren’t relevant here. So far I’m still onboard with you,

He made a new attempt, with advantage, and succeeded.

You’ve only described one attempt so far, but just so I’m clear, it sounds like maybe you’re saying he failed one attempt without advantage, and then the arcana user’s action changed the circumstances enough that you allowed a new attempt, with advantage? Interesting if so.

Had he failed again, it would mean that lock is just beyond him without further help, research, new tools, etc.

Well, hang on. I thought you said if he failed he would have spilled too much of the potion and wasted it? I would think that would be the thing preventing him from trying again. Spilled too much potion, not enough left for a second (or third? I’m not entirely clear) attempt. That would be a thing in the fiction preventing another attempt, so the inability to try again wouldn’t bother me at all.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is very frustrating.

For both of us, yes.

No. You tried to get around the agreed upon action resolution system to auto win a skill check, or you tried to retcon the fiction after the fact. Either way, that isn’t allowed at my table. If your character wants another crack at it, they can either change the situation, their approach, their understanding of the task, or something else that would make it actually a fresh attempt.

Yes, I get that! Stop telling me how it works in your game and answer my question!

It really doesn’t seem like you understand what I’m saying. Again. You declare action and approach. I declare what check or checks, if any, must be done. You do the checks. We narrate the results. That is it. Period. No take-backs, no retcons because the player doesn’t like the result, no holding up the game to re-litigate action resolution that has already occurred. If you want to narrate that your character bonks their head against the wall until someone pulls them away in stubborn refusal to admit defeat, go ahead, it doesn’t change the result.

I fully understand what you’re saying. What I am trying to do is form a better understanding of why you rule this way, by asking you to answer a question that is outside the scope of how you rule. I know that in your game you decide either before or after the roll how long the character spent on the activity, and that decision is upheld. I understand that you can’t say “wait, I actually want to spend another month on it” after it has already been established that you spent only one month. I get it, I really do. You can stop trying to explain it to me.

What I am trying to do is a thought experiment that explores a hypothetical exception to how you rule, in order to figure out whether or not there is anything in the fiction, independent of your agreement with the player about how long the character spent on the action, that would make it impossible for the character to repeat that action.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sorry, I was the one who was looking for some unpacking. I was referencing the training check you guys were talking about just upstream.

Ah, IIRC I mentioned the possibility of narrating a months spent to accomplish a task as including training or research to figure out what you’re missing.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What I am trying to do is a thought experiment that explores a hypothetical exception to how you rule, in order to figure out whether or not there is anything in the fiction, independent of your agreement with the player about how long the character spent on the action, that would make it impossible for the character to repeat that action.

Okay, let’s start over. Can you please restate the question, in cases I have misunderstood what the question is?

 

[Fenris-77]

Ah, IIRC I mentioned the possibility of narrating a months spent to accomplish a task as including training or research to figure out what you’re missing.

I was more specifically interested in the adjudication of that task. Are you calling for one roll, or a linked series of rolls? I ask because one binary roll on that time scale just isn't my cup of tea, but I'm always open to other interpretations.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Again, 1 action = 1 check is not the thing I’m hung up on here. I’m perfectly comfortable with some checks representing more than a single action (like an attack roll being multiple swings of the weapon). I’m less keen on a single action taking multiple rolls, but it seems like that’s not something you care for either. This keeps popping up and distracting us from the actual point of contention, the lack of something concrete in the fiction preventing the action or actions you are disallowing a roll for.

Seems like a great call! Clear stakes, possibility of success and failure, consequence for failure. What a beautiful action resolution.

Neat! I assume the arcana user described what their character was doing to help and you determined an Arcana check was needed to resolve that action too, based on what I understand of how you resolve actions. But I’m not trying to nitpick the example, and the precise details of that action declaration aren’t relevant here. So far I’m still onboard with you,

You’ve only described one attempt so far, but just so I’m clear, it sounds like maybe you’re saying he failed one attempt without advantage, and then the arcana user’s action changed the circumstances enough that you allowed a new attempt, with advantage? Interesting if so.

Sorry, I assumed that the initial failed attempt was built into the context of the discussion. Yes, he failed at first, and then decided to use the oil of etherealness to figure out how the lock worked.

Well, hang on. I thought you said if he failed he would have spilled too much of the potion and wasted it?

As in, it’s a precious resource. A bad roll would result in dumping a significant portion, probably making it insufficient to cover even a small creature, rather than a basically full bottle.

I would think that would be the thing preventing him from trying again. Spilled too much potion, not enough left for a second (or third? I’m not entirely clear) attempt. That would be a thing in the fiction preventing another attempt, so the inability to try again wouldn’t bother me at all.

If you want to think of it that way, cool. But what actually prevents it is that he has already made the roll, and has then gained insight into the inner workings of the device with the help of another character, and still failed. This means that he just isn’t going to get it. Best effort.

Here’s the thing. If you roll a 2 or roll an 20, neither represents how good you are at picking locks. Your bonus does that. It represents whether you are able to pick this lock. That’s it.

Let’s say you first roll a 2, and then get a second chance by changing the situation and roll a 20.

The 2 means that your skill wasn’t enough to overcome some aspect of the obstacle. Changing the situation and then trying again, and succeeding, the 20 would represent figuring out what blocked you before and circumventing it.

Neither represents your skill, both represent your ability to overcome this specific obstacle.

 

[Charlaquin]

Okay, let’s start over. Can you please restate the question, in cases I have misunderstood what the question is?

I mean, the fundamental question is “after my character has performed an action or series of actions that you deem require a check to resolve, and I fail that check, is there anything concrete in the fiction that prevents my character from performing the exact same action or sequence of actions again? If so, what? If not, why does performing the exact same action or sequence of actions not require a check to resolve this time?”

I believe, based on our conversation so far, that the way that you resolve actions - where you agree upon the terms and roll only once to resolve the complete activity - actually prevents the character from performing the exact same action or sequence of actions. It has been agreed upon and established in the fiction that the character is now done with that activity, so deciding to perform the same action or sequence of actions again isn’t a valid option, as it violates the established fiction that the character ended the activity after completing the agreed-upon terms.

This is a perfectly fine explanation of what happens in your game, but it leaves the fundamental question unanswered. I can surmise that there isn’t really anything in the fiction preventing the character from performing the same action or sequence of actions again, only the agreement between player and DM that the character will not do so. But you keep telling me it is rooted in the fiction, so I’m trying to understand if I’m misinterpreting your explanation of how it works. In order to do so, I proposed a thought experiment:

Set aside the agreement between player and DM for a moment and imagine that the character did perform the exact same action or sequence of actions again. Is there some purely in-fiction reason this wouldn’t be possible? I know the “real” answer is that this couldn’t happen, because it has already been established within the fiction that the character didn’t do that. What I’m interested in is trying to figure out if the character could, hypothetically, repeat the exact same action or sequence of actions again, or if there is something in the fictional scenario, removed from the context of gameplay, that would make it impossible for the character to do this.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I was more specifically interested in the adjudication of that task. Are you calling for one roll, or a linked series of rolls? I ask because one binary roll on that time scale just isn't my cup of tea, but I'm always open to other interpretations.

I’d probably make it multiple checks, but I also might not have a roll at all for the training montage, and instead just let it be what allows another attempt at the task, with advantage.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sorry, I assumed that the initial failed attempt was built into the context of the discussion. Yes, he failed at first, and then decided to use the oil of etherealness to figure out how the lock worked.

Oh, ok, that makes sense.

As in, it’s a precious resource. A bad roll would result in dumping a significant portion, probably making it insufficient to cover even a small creature, rather than a basically full bottle.

Cool, gotcha.

If you want to think of it that way, cool. But what actually prevents it is that he has already made the roll, and has then gained insight into the inner workings of the device with the help of another character, and still failed. This means that he just isn’t going to get it. Best effort.

Right, so the bolded statement is precisely my problem with this method. That what “actually prevents it” isn’t something in the fiction that makes it impossible for him to do, but a rules conceit (which I would describe as arbitrary) that says once you’ve tried and failed, you aren’t allowed to try again the same way.

Here’s the thing. If you roll a 2 or roll an 20, neither represents how good you are at picking locks. Your bonus does that. It represents whether you are able to pick this lock. That’s it.

That’s what it means in a game that employs “single-roll resolution” or whatever we called it, yes. I simply cannot accept this conceit, because if there are 18 possible higher numbers I could have rolled, there was objectively a 90% chance I could have been better at picking this lock.

As I said earlier, maybe I’m the crazy one. Maybe this is exactly like those people who get hung up on the words “hit” and “damage” and can’t accept abstract HP because of it. But you can’t tell me a 2 represents my best attempt and expect me to just accept that the other 90% of the numbers I could have rolled are meaningless. Words are malleable, they can mean a lot of things depending on how they’re used, but numbers mean what they mean no matter what you call them.