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

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Okay, so, your question comes at the situation from a different direction than from where I approach the situation, in a way that makes answering it difficult.

That is, the “ignore the agreement” scenario is incompatible with how my resolution method reflects the fiction. I can’t answer your question without changing how I resolve tasks and tie fiction to mechanics.

This is legitimately really hard.

Okay...so again it comes down to what the check represents. In the fiction the character can retry. Mechanically it is represented by the same roll unless soemthing changes. The check does not represent an action, it represents an approach-attempt. If the player changes what the attempt is in terms of actions, that changes what the roll reflects in the fiction.

 

[Charlaquin]

Okay, so, your question comes at the situation from a different direction than from where I approach the situation, in a way that makes answering it difficult.

That is, the “ignore the agreement” scenario is incompatible with how my resolution method reflects the fiction. I can’t answer your question without changing how I resolve tasks and tie fiction to mechanics.

This is legitimately really hard.

Understood. That’s kind of the point. The question doesn’t really work within your action resolution framework, which to me, is a fundamental flaw with your action resolution framework. The thought experiment is meant to illustrate that.

Okay...so again it comes down to what the check represents. In the fiction the character can retry. Mechanically it is represented by the same roll unless soemthing changes. The check does not represent an action, it represents an approach-attempt. If the player changes what the attempt is in terms of actions, that changes what the roll reflects in the fiction.

This still doesn’t answer the question. You’re trying to re-frame what I’m asking in terms of your action resolution framework. I’m trying to get you to break out of your action resolution framework and see where I’m coming from with this.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Oh, ok, that makes sense.

Cool, gotcha.

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 possible 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.

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.

I don’t think you’re crazy, but it is like HP and damage. It’s the foundational understanding of what an ability check roll is. We understand them differently.

The other 18 numbers on the die don’t represent anything. There’s just the number you rolled.

And I mean...I can’t fathom how the other way would even work. You only tried 2 hard? You only used 2 of your skill? How? Why? People aren’t that swingy. In order to view rolls that way I would have to have a bell curve, that somehow trends toward the upper end of results if proficient and the low-middle if untrained but naturally decent.

Yeah, I think that really is too fundamental a disagreement for us to ever get anywhere on the subject.
Interesting discussion, though, so I thank you for riding out the frustration until we figured out why we can’t see eye to eye, here.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

nevermind. The discussion is as resolved as it will get.

 

[Lanefan]

Understood. That’s kind of the point. The question doesn’t really work within your action resolution framework, which to me, is a fundamental flaw with your action resolution framework. The thought experiment is meant to illustrate that.

This still doesn’t answer the question. You’re trying to re-frame what I’m asking in terms of your action resolution framework. I’m trying to get you to break out of your action resolution framework and see where I’m coming from with this.

Conversely, I'd like you to come up with a framework that doesn't allow for (time permitting) infinite retries; where there's no such thing as take-20 or narrated auto-success when success isn't guaranteed on any single try.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don’t think you’re crazy, but it is like HP and damage. It’s the foundational understanding of what an ability check roll is. We understand them differently.

Yeah, turn of phrase, but I think this is the key.

The other 18 numbers on the die don’t represent anything. There’s just the number you rolled.

Yeah, that’s not something I can accept.

And I mean...I can’t fathom how the other way would even work. You only tried 2 hard? You only used 2 of your skill? How? Why? People aren’t that swingy. In order to view rolls that way I would have to have a bell curve, that somehow trends toward the upper end of results if proficient and the low-middle if untrained but naturally decent.

It’s not really about the numbers on the die for me, it’s about the odds of success. In my games, when a player declares an action that could succeed or fail and has meaningful stakes, I tell them the DC and the cost of the attempt or consequence of failure so they know what’s at stake and how likely it is that they’ll have to pay it, and then they can decide to go through with it or not. If you’re willing to take that risk again, you’re more than welcome to, as long as it’s still possible within the fiction and you’re willing to pay the cost or suffer the consequences again.

In that sense, you can think of a check in my games as a gamble. The simplest example is an attack roll. You have a resource - actions - and when you declare an attack, you’re betting one action that you’ll be able to roll higher than the target’s AC. If you win, you get to deal damage. If you lose, you lost that action and didn’t get anything in return for it. That’s a simple case with stakes that are well codified within the rules, but other actions work the same way. When you try to pick the lock, you’re betting the time it takes you to try and pick it that you can roll above the DC. When you try to bribe the guard, you’re betting his goodwill. etc.

Yeah, I think that really is too fundamental a disagreement for us to ever get anywhere on the subject.
Interesting discussion, though, so I thank you for riding out the frustration until we figured out why we can’t see eye to eye, here.

Absolutely! Thanks for a good (if frustrating at points) talk!

 

[Charlaquin]

nevermind. The discussion is as resolved as it will get.

I thought we really got somewhere by the end there. Have a good one!

 

[Charlaquin]

Conversely, I'd like you to come up with a framework that doesn't allow for (time permitting) infinite retries; where there's no such thing as take-20 or narrated auto-success when success isn't guaranteed on any single try.

This seems like an odd question to me. I feel like I’ve summarized the framework doctorbadwolf uses pretty well, and that framework meets your criteria.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah, turn of phrase, but I think this is the key.

Yeah, that’s not something I can accept.

It’s not really about the numbers on the die for me, it’s about the odds of success. In my games, when a player declares an action that could succeed or fail and has meaningful stakes, I tell them the DC and the cost of the attempt or consequence of failure so they know what’s at stake and how likely it is that they’ll have to pay it, and then they can decide to go through with it or not. If you’re willing to take that risk again, you’re more than welcome to, as long as it’s still possible within the fiction and you’re willing to pay the cost or suffer the consequences again.

In that sense, you can think of a check in my games as a gamble. The simplest example is an attack roll. You have a resource - actions - and when you declare an attack, you’re betting one action that you’ll be able to roll higher than the target’s AC. If you win, you get to deal damage. If you lose, you lost that action and didn’t get anything in return for it. That’s a simple case with stakes that are well codified within the rules, but other actions work the same way. When you try to pick the lock, you’re betting the time it takes you to try and pick it that you can roll above the DC. When you try to bribe the guard, you’re betting his goodwill. etc.


Absolutely! Thanks for a good (if frustrating at points) talk!

The mostly deleted post was just a rehash of what you’re replying to here! Totally extraneous.

Anyway, yeah I actually have a clearer understanding of my own preferences after this discussion, so it’s a win overall!

 

[iserith]

Conversely, I'd like you to come up with a framework that doesn't allow for (time permitting) infinite retries; where there's no such thing as take-20 or narrated auto-success when success isn't guaranteed on any single try.

What's missing here in a D&D 5e context is the meaningful consequence for failure. It's not enough that the outcome is uncertain. There must also be a meaningful consequence for failure. Only then is a roll appropriate. A player can only retry to the extent they are willing to pay that price. If they are willing to suffer that consequence infinitely, the consequence isn't meaningful. No meaningful consequence, no roll - the DM just narrates the result.

If you have system where the DM calls for an ability check without the meaningful consequence for failure, this is where you run into issues. This is probably why, in part, you implement the kludge of "one and done" rolls in whatever game it is you are playing.