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

[Maxperson]

But it could have been capable of success in that circumstance, if I had rolled better. So either my character’s capabilities, or the difficulty of the task, is indeterminate until a die roll decides it. That’s something I find deeply dissatisfying.

This is true, though, for all skills that you roll for. Under both methods. Under your method, your character's capabilities are indeterminate until a roll decides it. The only time that changes is if you can just roll forever until you succeed, in which case you don't roll to begin with. Otherwise, at some point you will succeed or fail, based on the roll which determined whether you are capable or not.

Which is by definition better than not good enough to succeed. Unless it’s the difficulty of the task that’s easier than it could of been. Either way, if you can roll low and “your best” is not good enough, or you can roll high and “your best” is good enough, then either “your best” or “good enough” must be a variable that is dependent on the result of the die roll.

This is completely wrong and can only be true if you can roll multiple times, which you can't. It's only under your method that "good enough" or "your best" is variable and dependent on the die roll.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes and this applies to some extent to the other players at the table. If one PC fails, others may try to join in, resulting in a cascade of rolls until someone rolls high. Telling the original player they can’t roll again and then allowing others to just roll... or not... ends up with some rather... unsatisfactory gameplay, IME.

Yeah, the age old grievance where the Barbarian fails to break down the door on a 1, then the wizard decides to give it a try and succeeds on a 20. Or where somebody makes a knowledge check and everyone else asks to make one too. Dissatisfying outcomes to a dissatisfying rule, all fixable simply by making sure failure has a meaningful cost or consequence.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is true, though, for all skills that you roll for. Under both methods. Under your method, your character's capabilities are indeterminate until a roll decides it.

Not at all. Your character’s capabilities are clearly determined by their skills and abilities. What’s indeterminate is if any given attempt is the best you could have done.

The only time that changes is if you can just roll forever until you succeed, in which case you don't roll to begin with. Otherwise, at some point you will succeed or fail, based on the roll which determined whether you are capable or not.

You don’t roll if there’s no cost or consequence for failure. If there is, you can try as many times as you’re willing to risk the consequences of failure - provided success and failure are both still possible within the fiction, of course.

This is completely wrong and can only be true if you can roll multiple times, which you can't. It's only under your method that "good enough" or "your best" is variable and dependent on the die roll.

You’re going to have to walk me through your logic here, because on its face this is an absurd claim.

 

[Maxperson]

Not at all. Your character’s capabilities are clearly determined by their skills and abilities. What’s indeterminate is if any given attempt is the best you could have done.

If that were true, there would be no d20 roll. That d20 roll also represents your characters skills and abilities. It gets added to the base number to equate to how skilled/knowledgeable you are about something.

You don’t roll if there’s no cost or consequence for failure. If there is, you can try as many times as you’re willing to risk the consequences of failure - provided success and failure are both still possible within the fiction, of course.

Meaningful consequence for failure is the criteria, not just consequence. If that's the case, then you can't just keep rolling forever.

You’re going to have to walk me through your logic here, because on its face this is an absurd claim.

If you only get one roll, then your best is whatever number you rolled and no other number counts. You can't have done any better, because you didn't do any better. The only time your best can be variable(which is also nonsensical) is if you can roll multiple times.

 

[Charlaquin]

If that were true, there would be no d20 roll. That d20 roll also represents your characters skills and abilities. It gets added to the base number to equate to how skilled/knowledgeable you are about something.

That’s not what it represents the way I run it.

Meaningful consequence for failure is the criteria, not just consequence. If that's the case, then you can't just keep rolling forever.

Yes, we agree on this. Sorry I left out the word meaningful I guess?

If you only get one roll, then your best is whatever number you rolled and no other number counts. You can't have done any better, because you didn't do any better.

But you could have because there are other, higher numbers on the die. Just because you didn’t roll higher doesn’t mean rolling higher wasn’t a possibility. Unless you believe in pure determinism, I guess?

The only time your best can be variable is if you can roll multiple times.

No, because if you can roll multiple times, the result of any given roll doesn’t represent your best (unless it’s the best you could roll, i.e. a natural 20.)

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Seems pretty obvious to me that it was created to solve the problem of “what if the player rolls poorly at something and then decides to try again?” which on its face seems like cheating - you already rolled low, you can’t just keep trying until you roll high! The more elegant solution, of course, is to insure each attempt has a cost or failure has a consequence.

I think is where I really disagree with you the most, and why I keep wanting to argue with you about it.

IMO, there is nothing elegant about preemptively bending the narrative to serve mechanical or “gameplay” concerns. IME It puts more work on the DM, reduces room for improvisation, and can reduce engagement vs an approach that lets the world be “volcanic”, to abuse a phrase from Brennan Lee Mulligan of Dimension20 and Adventuring Party.

To me, elegant is putting any needed additional front-loaded complexity on the actual resolution, where it’s fun, and keeping the world as free as possible from heavy front-loading.

IMO there is no benefit to the DM knowing ahead of time exactly how complex the lock is or exactly how it works, with no room to change what you have in mind as the game develops in play, but immense benefit in letting it be “quantum” until the roll has been made.

 

[Maxperson]

That’s not what it represents the way I run it.

So there's just some 5-100% variable that gets tossed in?

But you could have because there are other, higher numbers on the die. Just because you didn’t roll higher doesn’t mean rolling higher wasn’t a possibility. Unless you believe in pure determinism, I guess?

No, I couldn't, because I didn't. If I roll a 7, that is the highest that roll could ever be. It would take a different roll to get a different number. It was only variable before the roll, and since 1 roll is all you ever get, there's no way to have done better.

No, because if you can roll multiple times, the result of any given roll doesn’t represent your best (unless it’s the best you could roll, i.e. a natural 20.)

I can see that. However, that just means that 95% of the time you aren't trying your best which doesn't mesh with how people do important tasks that their lives depend on. I mean, sure, if I'm out in the flower bed pulling the weeds my wife has asked me to pull, I'm probably not giving it my all, but if I was on a roof and had a killer with a knife headed my way, and there was a narrow board between two buildings as my only escape, you can be darned sure I'd be giving it 100% as I walked across.

 

[iserith]

I can see that. However, that just means that 95% of the time you aren't trying your best which doesn't mesh with how people do important tasks that their lives depend on. I mean, sure, if I'm out in the flower bed pulling the weeds my wife has asked me to pull, I'm probably not giving it my all, but if I was on a roof and had a killer with a knife headed my way, and there was a narrow board between two buildings as my only escape, you can be darned sure I'd be giving it 100% as I walked across.

That killer is probably your wife coming after you for doing a terrible job pulling the weeds.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think is where I really disagree with you the most, and why I keep wanting to argue with you about it.

IMO, there is nothing elegant about preemptively bending the narrative to serve mechanical or “gameplay” concerns.

I get what you mean, but I wouldn’t call it preemptively bending the narrative. There is no narrative until the players create it. There is only the world. You build the world to include objectives for the characters to pursue, and obstacles in the way of that pursuit, then you turn them loose in the world and see what happens. Sometimes that may mean things the players attempt don’t have consequences for failure, and that’s fine; they can have that. Other times, there will be natural consequences, and if there are, you roll to find out if the characters avoid them. If they want to keep trying and it’s still possible within the fiction, you let them.

IME It puts more work on the DM,

It does. Work is something I’m willing to do as DM to create a better player experience.

reduces room for improvisation,

How so?

and can reduce engagement

This is not the case in my experience. On the contrary, it drives more engagement in my experience.

vs an approach that lets the world be “volcanic”, to abuse a phrase from Brennan Lee Mulligan of Dimension20 and Adventuring Party.

I’m not familiar with the term. I assume it means the world is being created as you’re playing?

To me, elegant is putting any needed additional front-loaded complexity on the actual resolution, where it’s fun, and keeping the world as free as possible from heavy front-loading.

Depends on what sort of elegance we’re talking about, I suppose. Avoiding front-loading certainly makes for a smoother DMing experience, which I suppose is a sort of elegance. I’m talking more about an elegant player experience.

IMO there is no benefit to the DM knowing ahead of time exactly how complex the lock is or exactly how it works, with no room to change what you have in mind as the game develops in play, but immense benefit in letting it be “quantum” until the roll has been made.

I feel strongly that there are benefits to both approaches. I play D&D when I want the benefits of the former, and I play other games that are designed from the ground up for the latter when I want that.

 

[Maxperson]

That killer is probably your wife coming after you for doing a terrible job pulling the weeds.

If you don't hear from me within 2 days...