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

[doctorbadwolf]

That interpretation is all yours - not what I said. You understand the game differently, which is fine if you are having fun with it.

Dude you literally told me that I don’t understand what I’m arguing about, rather than recognizing it as a difference of preference.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So, these are related things. 5e being a hand that expects you to make it your own makes it implicit in the rules that you can call for a roll whenever you see fit to. Just as you can add, modify, or remove any other rule you see fit to. However, the rules do still present a baseline to work from (otherwise what are we paying for?). Deviating from that baseline can have unforeseen consequences. So, yeah, you can call for rolls whenever you want to, but doing so will change the experience in ways that may clash with other parts of the system. In my experience, the system works very well when run exactly as written. But if you don’t like the way it runs as written, or you prefer the way it runs with your changes, do what you like.

The weird thing about this argument is like, we are talking about rolling or not rolling for things that don’t really matter to the plot. We aren’t talking about what a roll means anymore, or like whether or not to use plot point type mechanics, or some other actually big deal difference.

We are talking about a preference wrt how to deal with situations wherein the stakes are getting something vs not getting the thing.

IMO, it’s better to just not have that safe exist in the game world than it is to narrate success opening it. I don’t call for rolls when the PCs competence makes it implausible that they’d failed or impossible to succeed.
Otherwise, it literally hurts nothing to roll for it, and having success and failure in such situations adds to the verisimilitude of the world. Just like having some stuff of import happen around them with no way for them to influence it, or otherwise having things happen completely irrespective of them makes the world and the story better.

Scenes that don’t actually matter but which have some small stakes and uncertainty make stories better.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Dude you literally told me that I don’t understand what I’m arguing about, rather than recognizing it as a difference of preference.

Except... I did acknowledge the difference of preference. Anyway, I’ll step out so you need not have the conversation with two people. Happy gaming.

 

[Charlaquin]

Stop reducing my arguments like this, please. I’m not treating you the same way.

You said that (the way I interpret) the 5e rules “leaves out” those scenarios. I don’t know how else to interpret that argument than that it doesn’t address them. It does address them, and it is not a semantic argument to say so.

I don’t care about the bonus part. Claiming it isn’t a challenge is what I, well, challenged.

A missable bonus is not the same thing as a challenge. That’s my point.

It’s more likely, I begin to think, that the difference is more one of preferences about experiences. I think we would not have much fun if gaming together. Or reading fiction written by the other, if I’m recalling past conversations about story pacing and editing correctly.

I don’t recall such a conversation about story pacing and editing, but I suppose it’s possible. At any rate, D&D is a game; what I think makes for good gameplay is not the same as what I think makes good story pacing. Though, you’re probably right that we have different gameplay preferences, and it may also be the case that we have different preferences in fiction.

More importantly, you said you felt that (the way I interpret) the 5e rules for when to call for rolls makes players treat it like a video game. My experience is that frequently calling for checks when there aren’t dramatic stakes makes players treat it like a video game. Either we have different ideas of what “like a video game” means, or there’s something else we’re each doing that is causing this discrepancy, besides just when we call for rolls.

Okay, so do I. What do you think about what I said, though?

So you don’t have to go back and read it again, “Rather, it forces the GM to morph the world around the arbitrary need for every scene to have dramatic stakes and and makes the world make less sense as a result.” Nowhere in that is even a hint of an implication of a statement about “dangerous situations having stakes”.

Well, I don’t think every scene needs dramatic stakes (but I don’t think those that don’t have them should require dice to resolve), and I don’t think that having dramatic stakes makes the world less believable. So, I pretty much disagree with your entire statement.

Disagree on every level. Making every situation either filled with dramatic tension or skipping past it as quickly as possible does, IMO/IME, lead to good storytelling. Some scenes are professors Hulk losing his tacos. Those are good scenes. They make the story better.

Sure, if I was writing a novel or a screenplay, those scenes would be very important for the pacing of the story. That’s not what I’m doing when I run a game of D&D though. Now, granted, sometimes low-stakes or no-stakes scenes are good for gameplay. I enjoy a good interview with a quirky, cagey NPC from time to time. But it’s generally very player-driven when those scenes happen, and when they do, I don’t think dice rolls are necessary or desirable for resolving them.

When they involve something that could plausibly go multiple ways depending on how well someone does something, and the difference is potentially interesting, it should have a roll.

It’s that “and the difference is potentially interesting” part that I think is key here. I don’t find maintenance of the status quo interesting. When the options are “nothing happens” or “something happens and it’s good for the PCs,” I’ll take the latter every time, because it means something is happening.

You don’t see how different play priorities and processes will encourage or discourage different play outcomes?

...What?

The players...don’t get...what they want. That is a consequence.

Except they already didn’t have what they want. Continuing to not have what they want isn’t something happening. It’s the opposite.

The game should focus on whatever the player characters want to focus on. The world should exist as if the players don’t matter, but gameplay should center on them.

I agree.

Again, feel free to explain to me why you think I’ve said the two are mutually exclusive.

Because you presented that outcome as a direct benefit of the way you prefer to run it. But it’s an outcome that is equally possible (and in my opinion, more interesting) the way I run it.

This has literally been my point this entire time. Failure to get what you want is a consequence.

Right, but a boring one, because it leads to nothing happening instead of something happening. That’s been my point.

Yeah no. We just have entirely incompatible outlooks on most aspects of good gameplay and good storytelling, it seems.


“Get to the good stuff sooner”...I just...no. Even at my most linear, I’m not in a hurry to get to “the good stuff”. The whole game is the good stuff. The small quiet moments, the silly moments that don’t matter, the half hour of the PCs wasting time chasing their own tails, and the moments of dramatic tensions are all the good stuff.

I agree with you on most of this, apart from the half hour of the PCs wasting their time chasing their own tails. That’s awful gameplay in my opinion. The way I run the game aims to avoid that. The rest is good stuff, and happens the way I run the game.

Less is less, and cutting every scene that doesn’t move the plot forward is bad editing and bad storytelling.

Again, we’re taking about gameplay, not writing or editing. And not every gameplay scent needs to move the plot forward (in fact, I don’t think there should really be a plot. Whatever happens in the game is the “plot,” such as it is.) But, the gameplay should be focused on... well... play. Making meaningful, consequential decisions and dealing with the outcomes. If that isn’t happening, you don’t need game mechanics.

 

[Charlaquin]

The weird thing about this argument is like, we are talking about rolling or not rolling for things that don’t really matter to the plot. We aren’t talking about what a roll means anymore, or like whether or not to use plot point type mechanics, or some other actually big deal difference.

We are talking about a preference wrt how to deal with situations wherein the stakes are getting something vs not getting the thing.

Yes, and I believe that how you deal with situations wherein the stakes are getting something vs not getting the thing has a significant impact on the way the game plays out. I think if you change that assumption, it changes the way a lot of other rules interact. You may still have a fun game of course, but it will be a game that plays quite differently than 5e as-written plays. Which way is more enjoyable is of course subjective.

IMO, it’s better to just not have that safe exist in the game world than it is to narrate success opening it. I don’t call for rolls when the PCs competence makes it implausible that they’d failed or impossible to succeed.
Otherwise, it literally hurts nothing to roll for it, and having success and failure in such situations adds to the verisimilitude of the world.

I don’t agree that it hurts nothing, or that it adds verisimilitude to the world. Particularly, rolling for it would necessitate either retries with no consequence (leading to lots of pointless rolls and wasted table time) or no retries, which we have discussed at length why I find that to be extremely harmful to verisimilitude.

Now, if you would rather not have that safe than allow it to be opened without a roll, fair enough. Don’t include it. Or, include it and include some source of pressure in the scenario - a guard, or a ticking time bomb, or a trap that goes off if you try and fail to open the safe, whatever. Nothing about that is harmful to verisimilitude in my opinion.

Personally, I’m not averse to allowing the safe to be opened without a roll. If there’s no consequence, no source of pressure, I am comfortable assuming it took a little time but you eventually manage to get it open. I think having a source of pressure is generally better gameplay, but if it doesn’t make sense for there to be a source of pressure, so be it. The players can get what’s in the safe.

Just like having some stuff of import happen around them with no way for them to influence it, or otherwise having things happen completely irrespective of them makes the world and the story better.

It can do, depending on how it’s handled.

Scenes that don’t actually matter but which have some small stakes and uncertainty make stories better.

I didn’t claim otherwise.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I didn’t claim otherwise.

That is literally the entire point of contention. “Get the thing or not get the thing” are stakes. “Might succeed might not” is uncertainty. That scene doesn’t have uncertainty if you just narrate success. Which cheapens, IMO, even very small stakes.

And I can assure you, 5e runs just fine when you only avoid rolling when success isn’t really uncertain, rather than any time it isn’t hugely important.

I didn’t quote the rest because it seems like we fell into a “arguing over specifics” loop there, when what I see as important is the larger point.

 

[Charlaquin]

That is literally the entire point of contention. “Get the thing or not get the thing” are stakes. “Might succeed might not” is uncertainty. That scene doesn’t have uncertainty if you just narrate success. Which cheapens, IMO, even very small stakes.

For there to be uncertainty, there must be a consequence for failure - either a time limit or other source of external pressure, or a rule saying that if you fail you can’t try again. Otherwise, you could just keep trying until you get it with no negative effect. And again, we have already discussed at length why I find a rule saying that if you fail you can’t try again to be harmful to verisimilitude, and much worse than that, dissatisfying gameplay.

 

[Charlaquin]

And I can assure you, 5e runs just fine when you only avoid rolling when success isn’t really uncertain, rather than any time it isn’t hugely important.

I didn’t say it runs poorly if you do so, I said doing so has many interactions with other rules that cause it to run differently. Which way you find more enjoyable is a matter of personal preference.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

For there to be uncertainty, there must be a consequence for failure

This is...objectively false. A coin toss or dice roll has inherent uncertainty. A situation that could plausibly go multiple ways has uncertainty.

I think if we can’t even agree on what uncertainty means...it’s best we stop here.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is...objectively false. A coin toss or dice roll has inherent uncertainty. A situation that could plausibly go multiple ways has uncertainty.

I think if we can’t even agree on what uncertainty means...it’s best we stop here.

There is uncertainty in any individual trial, yes, but unless you place a limit on the number of trials, there is no uncertainty in the actual outcome. Sure, it’s uncertain whether you will get heads or tails on any given flip, but those outcomes are inconsequential unless you tie some reward or penalty to it. If someone gives you a cookie if you get heads, it’s uncertain whether or not you will get a cookie... on any individual flip. But if nothing prevents you from flipping the coin as many times as you want, there is no uncertainty as to whether or not you will get a cookie. You can just keep flipping the coin until you get heads and get the cookie. To create uncertainty in the outcome, you either need to limit the number of trials allowed (i.e. “you can only flip the coin X times and if you don’t get heads in that many flips, you can’t have the cookie), or introduce a penalty for getting tails (i.e. “I’ll kick you in the shin every time you get tails.”) I find the latter to be the more interesting, because you have to weigh the potential benefits of getting a cookie vs. the potential risk of getting kicked in the shin. How many times are you willing to risk a 50/50 chance or getting kicked in the shin for a 50/50 chance at getting a cookie? That’s a far more interesting question than “will you get a cookie with a 50/50 chance?”

EDIT 1: To drag this line of discussion kicking and screaming back to the topic, a third option would be if you get a reward whether you get heads or tails, but one reward is greater than the other. (e.g. “if you get heads I’ll give you a cookie. If you get tails I’ll only give you half a cookie.”) That would create uncertainty as to how much cookie you’ll get, and would be the equivalent of “fail forward.” Alternatively, you could say “If you flip this coin, I’ll give you a cookie. But if you get tails I will also kick you in the shin.” That introduces uncertainty as to whether or not you’ll get kicked in the shin, while making it certain that you’ll get a cookie, and would be the equivalent of progress with a setback.

EDIT 2: Here’s another fun one: “every time you get tails I’ll take a bite out of the cookie. When you get heads I’ll give you whatever’s left.”