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

[doctorbadwolf]

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

Yes, absolutely! I don’t mean that in a negative way at all.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Oh, by the by, Dungeon World (and, you know, every other PbtA game) kind of has this with its system of 2d6 + ability modifier (which usually range between -3 and +3). 10+ is a success, 7-9 is a partial success or success with a complication, 6- is a failure (usually also with a complication).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Oh, by the by, Dungeon World (and, you know, every other PbtA game) kind of has this with its system of 2d6 + ability modifier (which usually range between -3 and +3). 10+ is a success, 7-9 is a partial success or success with a complication, 6- is a failure (usually also with a complication).

Oh for sure. It’s a really good resolution mechanic. Monster of The Week really made me think about success ladders and what they do for making fiction and mechanics feed into eachother in a loop.

 

[robus]

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.

My point was that given enough chances to roll someone is guaranteed to get a high enough number and thus make the challenge pointless, because the DM is not tying each attempt to a meaningful consequence of failure.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

I don't think so, as long as there's meaningful consequence for success. Failure, with or without consequence, is merely what happens if-when you don't succeed. And this is edition-agnostic; though I think 5e's advice here is very poor.

And in my view, success is either guaranteed (as in, no matter what you do you can't mess this up) or it isn't; and if it isn't guaranteed once then repeated tries also won't guarantee it - you can't turn something that would have needed a roll into a guaranteed success just by trying more times.

This is probably why, in part, you implement the kludge of "one and done" rolls in whatever game it is you are playing.

I see it as far less of a kludge than anything resembling a take-20, which is really what @Charlaquin 's auto-success given long enough amounts to.

 

[Lanefan]

My point was that given enough chances to roll someone is guaranteed to get a high enough number and thus make the challenge pointless, because the DM is not tying each attempt to a meaningful consequence of failure.

Which is just using longer words to describe take-20; a system that (wrongly!) assumes a character will always be at its absolute best within a pretty short span of time And sure, given literally an infinite amount of time this would eventually become true; but an hour? A day? A week? Not at all guaranteed.

And the consequence of failure is failure: you're forced to try a different approach, or if none presents then you're forced to turn back.

Which I suppose raises a tangential question: how often - or do you ever - allow your parties to get into a position where they have no choice but to abandon a mission or a goal and turn back?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Which is just using longer words to describe take-20; a system that (wrongly!) assumes a character will always be at its absolute best within a pretty short span of time And sure, given literally an infinite amount of time this would eventually become true; but an hour? A day? A week? Not at all guaranteed.

And the consequence of failure is failure: you're forced to try a different approach, or if none presents then you're forced to turn back.

Which I suppose raises a tangential question: how often - or do you ever - allow your parties to get into a position where they have no choice but to abandon a mission or a goal and turn back?

There is no player-facing Take 20 in 5e. A DM can grant auto success, however, if the approach to the specific task warrants it. Which is... not the same as Take 20.

 

[Charlaquin]

I see it as far less of a kludge than anything resembling a take-20, which is really what @Charlaquin 's auto-success given long enough amounts to.

It does not, and I’ve explained why several times before. Take 20 is player-facing, “my rule” (which is really D&D 5e’s rule) is DM-facing. Take 20 compares 20 + the character’s modifier to a DC that exists independently of any action taken by the character, “my rule” simply narrates success if there is no consequence for failure, with no need for action-independent DCs.

 

[Charlaquin]

Which I suppose raises a tangential question: how often - or do you ever - allow your parties to get into a position where they have no choice but to abandon a mission or a goal and turn back?

That’s entirely up to the players. I try to design challenges, not solutions. If the players can’t come up with a solution to a challenge, they can always choose to abandon it and pursue something else.

 

[Lanefan]

It does not, and I’ve explained why several times before. Take 20 is player-facing, “my rule” (which is really D&D 5e’s rule) is DM-facing.

Doesn't matter which way it faces: the end result is exactly the same in that there's an assumption that the character will at some point roll well enough to succeed.

Take 20 compares 20 + the character’s modifier to a DC that exists independently of any action taken by the character, “my rule” simply narrates success if there is no consequence for failure, with no need for action-independent DCs.

The bolded is is where I have problems, in that there's NEVER no consequence for failure.

The consequence for failure is always, at the very least, not succeeding.