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

[doctorbadwolf]

Not in 5e. In 5e you only roll if the outcome is in doubt. If there's a situation where no amount of time will allow you to succeed, there is no roll since it is not in doubt that you fail.

Or, you roll and if it fails, part of narrating that failure is establishing the nature of the thing, rather than strictly establishing it's nature behind the screen ahead of time.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, I do understand that’s the justification for the “one roll represents your best attempt” model of action resolution. I just can’t accept that when 2 is objectively not the best effort the character could have made.

But it is. The effort put forth is maximum. The roll only determines whether that maximum is success or failure. You can opt to do it differently for your game, and it sounds like it does. That doesn't mean that it's not correct for his game. I've played in games that use both methods. Neither is against RAW.

I understand that in this model, the roll is to determine if your best effort is enough to succeed given the circumstances, rather than determining the quality of your effort in the moment, but I find that deeply unsatisfying.

I get it. I also find it unsatisfying when you can keep rolling time after time after time until you succeed. In my game, depending on what is being rolled for, you might be able to retry and you might not. Usually, though, if you can just keep retrying until you succeed, it's one of those times where there's no point in even rolling.

 

[Maxperson]

Or, you roll and if it fails, part of narrating that failure is establishing the nature of the thing, rather than strictly establishing it's nature behind the screen ahead of time.

Okay, but in that case the outcome was in doubt, even with the complete lack of skills. Now say there's a situation where someone is declaring that he is going to jump over a mountain in order to impress the princess. Would you have him roll or just say he fails? Assume that he has no magic that would allow him to succeed.

 

[Charlaquin]

But it is. The effort put forth is maximum. The roll only determines whether that maximum is success or failure.

Right, I get that’s the logic, it’s just logic that doesn’t work for me. It implies that either the difficulty of the task or the character’s capabilities are being determined randomly. Like I said, there were 18 other numbers I could have rolled that would have meant “my character’s best” was better (or that the task was easier, whichever way you want to look at it).

You can opt to do it differently for your game, and it sounds like it does. That doesn't mean that it's not correct for his game.

Well obviously. What’s correct for anyone’s game is what they and their group enjoy.

I've played in games that use both methods. Neither is against RAW.

I disagree, but you and I frequently disagree in our interpretations of RAW, and it’s not particularly relevant to the conversation whether it’s RAW or not.

I get it. I also find it unsatisfying when you can keep rolling time after time after time until you succeed. In my game, depending on what is being rolled for, you might be able to retry and you might not. Usually, though, if you can just keep retrying until you succeed, it's one of those times where there's no point in even rolling.

I agree strongly. This is, in fact, exactly what I’m advocating for. Design scenarios where it is unlikely that retrying until you succeed will be possible, and on the occasions where it still is, you just skip the rolls and narrate the eventual success.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Okay, but in that case the outcome was in doubt, even with the complete lack of skills. Now say there's a situation where someone is declaring that he is going to jump over a mountain in order to impress the princess. Would you have him roll or just say he fails? Assume that he has no magic that would allow him to succeed.

I have said many times in this thread that I don’t call for rolls when success or failure isn’t in doubt. I don’t know what you think my position is, but you seem to have it wrong.

 

[Charlaquin]

I have said many times in this thread that I don’t call for rolls when success or failure isn’t in doubt. I don’t know what you think my position is, but you seem to have it wrong.

Yeah, I don’t think tasks that have no reasonable chance of success are a relevant factor in this discussion... I think it’s pretty uncontroversial to rule that such actions fail without a roll.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm going to take a stab at resolving this and explaining what I've gleaned from @doctorbadwolf's posts. If I'm wrong he can correct me.

The skill attempt represent in the fiction the absolute best effort of the PC under the circumstances the PC describes to the DM. If he rolls a 2, he tried his very hardest and failed to open the lock with nothing other than his skill, so he doesn't get another attempt, because he can't do any better than his best effort. UNLESS, the PC changes something within the fiction to alter what the roll would represent. Take the etherealness potion. By using it to see the lock, he now has greater understanding of the lock than he did during his prior attempt and now his attempt represents his skill + knowledge of the inner workings of the lock. He now gets another roll with advantage. If he fails, then he did his very best even with that knowledge and doing a second time won't work.

I'm pages behind, so maybe you guys started talking again and resolved this, but if I don't post, I'll forget(Darned ADD)

Yeah that’s pretty much it. To reference why @Charlaquin has said they don’t like this methodology; the lock, the picker, and other surrounding circumstances, are like the “quantum ogre”.

In both this case and the case of the 4e “quantum ogre”, the “quantum” nature of the thing is false, it’s just that the mechanic isn’t meant to be physics. In 4e, the ogre is the same ogre, it just uses different mechanics in a different context.

In one-attempt resolution, the dice help determine part of the narrative circumstance. In other words, a 2 isn’t “objectively not the best one’s character could have done”, it’s just that your character’s best is being determined in a way that some folks have trouble internalizing and having satisfying gameplay with.

 

[Maxperson]

I have said many times in this thread that I don’t call for rolls when success or failure isn’t in doubt. I don’t know what you think my position is, but you seem to have it wrong.

I came in very late and skipped from page 2(I think) to like page 12 or 13. I rarely read a dozen pages in order to catch up to things.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah that’s pretty much it. To reference why @Charlaquin has said they don’t like this methodology; the lock, the picker, and other surrounding circumstances, are like the “quantum ogre”.

In both this case and the case of the 4e “quantum ogre”, the “quantum” nature of the thing is false, it’s just that the mechanic isn’t meant to be physics. In 4e, the ogre is the same ogre, it just uses different mechanics in a different context.

In one-attempt resolution, the dice help determine part of the narrative circumstance. In other words, a 2 isn’t “objectively not the best one’s character could have done”, it’s just that your character’s best is being determined in a way that some folks have trouble internalizing and having satisfying gameplay with.

Yeah. There's nothing quantum about it at all. It's just a different perspective on what the roll represents. The fiction is set in place either way.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah that’s pretty much it. To reference why @Charlaquin has said they don’t like this methodology; the lock, the picker, and other surrounding circumstances, are like the “quantum ogre”.

In both this case and the case of the 4e “quantum ogre”, the “quantum” nature of the thing is false, it’s just that the mechanic isn’t meant to be physics. In 4e, the ogre is the same ogre, it just uses different mechanics in a different context.

In one-attempt resolution, the dice help determine part of the narrative circumstance. In other words, a 2 isn’t “objectively not the best one’s character could have done”, it’s just that your character’s best is being determined in a way that some folks have trouble internalizing and having satisfying gameplay with.

It’s objectively not the best I could have rolled, and since, in this paradigm, the roll of the die determines whether or not my “character’s best” is enough to succeed, it is true that my character’s best could have been better, had I rolled a different number.

That may not be what the mechanic is meant to represent, but it’s not something I can just ignore.