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

[iserith]

Here is a comment and some follow-up questions:

COMMENT

I see a form of action resolution (eg Fail Forward) sometimes called a “tool”.

QUESTIONS

1) Whose “tool” is it? The GMs?

2) If it’s the GMs to invoke (or not) at their discretion, what are the principles they use to inform their discretion?

3) Is the player made aware of when the “tool” comes “online” in an instance of action resolution? If they aren’t explicitly aware, is it inferable from first principles?

4) What say does the player have in this - when it comes online (if any)?

1. The DM's.

2. Whether the use of the approach will be fun for everyone and help create an exciting, memorable story by playing.

3. I generally make clear the DC and the stakes of prior to the roll.

4. A player gets to describe what he or she wants to do. To the extent a given task historically results in an ability check with stakes that include progress combined with a setback upon failure, a player could frame what they do in those terms. But it's ultimately up to the DM. (One would hope that the DM is reasonably consistent when the fictional circumstances are substantially similar so the player can make informed decisions.)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Consider a locked door, with an ogre on the other side. The ogre is not yet aware of the PCs. Attempting to break the door down is a case where progress with a setback might be an appropriate consequence for failure- you succeed in breaking the door down either way, but on a success you break it open before the ogre has time to react. On a failure, the ogre hears your attempts to break the door down and can prepare for your arrival. On the other hand, attempting to pick the lock might be a case where no progress is a more appropriate result of failure. Each attempt might take time (potentially bringing you closer to the next roll for random encounters), and on a failure you’ve spent that time but made no progress in getting the lock open.

I'm curious what the distinction is here. I mean, you could literally describe the lock picking identically to the breaking down the door. Is there really a case where it is BETTER to simply leave the fiction unchanged on a failure?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

As written I would never use either of these as both are geared towards turning "fail" rolls into some sort of mitigated success.

I'd prefer it if mitigated success came on a barely-made "success" roll, with fail always meaning fail.

I think it is pretty clear WHY they did that. What the exact number is for success or failure is fairly arbitrary, but if you add an optional rule that makes PCs FAIL MORE OFTEN (even partially) that's not going to go over well with players... It is much more likely to be accepted if the dialog is along the lines of "Oh, no! I failed by 1, now what? Oh, I use SWC, you manage to grab the rope, but now you're tangled in it and being dragged to the edge..." vs if they SUCCEEDED by one and you dropped that on them (you rat bastard DM).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I’ve seen you talk about this a bit before, and I think it’s definitely an interesting approach. If you don’t mind delving into it further, I have a few questions about this for you specifically - I’d be quite interested in your perspective as someone who clearly has a preference for the PbtA “play to find out what happens” style but still opts to play D&D at least some of the time.

I'm curious as to what makes you believe that 'play to find out what happens' is necessarily incompatible with 5e?

I mean, that sort of aesthetic/agenda generally is attached to games like PbtAs where 'checks' are not testing the PC's abilities (at least not much) but instead simply acting as a way to inject some chaos into the game in terms of when exactly the hammer falls on your characters next, and maybe which hammer it is. So, playing to see what happens in Dungeon World is often about just how did the mix of dice falling where they may and player narration of actions take us? 5e has another thing going on there, with all the simulating if you are or are not good at X, and thus deploying player skill to choose which checks to invoke. Still, if the game is largely 'zero myth' or 'low myth' then you'd still be in the 'finding out' mode. Granted, this is a bit non-standard for 5e, but I don't see where it is even really outside what the game technically tells you to do.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm curious what the distinction is here. I mean, you could literally describe the lock picking identically to the breaking down the door. Is there really a case where it is BETTER to simply leave the fiction unchanged on a failure?

The fiction isn’t unchanged by the failure, time has advanced, bringing you closer to the next roll for random encounters, or running down the ticking clock.

I could handle an attempt to pick a lock the same way I would an attempt to break down the door, but why would I? They’re pretty different actions, they should naturally have different stakes. Breaking the door open is quick but noisy. The most natural consequence is attracting unwanted attention, such as alerting the ogre on the other side or triggering an early roll for wandering monsters. Picking a lock is quiet but slow, and there’s no obvious consequence for failure (you could say the thieves’ tools break, but in my view that’s not a fun consequence, and isn’t how I think most D&D players are used to thieves’ tools working). However, there is a cost for the attempt - the time it takes. Provided, of course, that time is a relevant factor. If there are no wandering monsters and no ticking clock, I’d just allow the rogue to pick the lock without a check.

 

[Lanefan]

I think it is pretty clear WHY they did that. What the exact number is for success or failure is fairly arbitrary, but if you add an optional rule that makes PCs FAIL MORE OFTEN (even partially) that's not going to go over well with players...

Tough. Also, success-with-complication is not a fail; so they're not actually failing any more often than they otherwise would have.

It is much more likely to be accepted if the dialog is along the lines of "Oh, no! I failed by 1, now what? Oh, I use SWC, you manage to grab the rope, but now you're tangled in it and being dragged to the edge..." vs if they SUCCEEDED by one and you dropped that on them (you rat bastard DM).

If that makes me a rat bastard DM then fine: Rat Bastard it is.

(contemplates changing username...)

 

[Lanefan]

The fiction isn’t unchanged by the failure, time has advanced, bringing you closer to the next roll for random encounters, or running down the ticking clock.

Further, the fiction is changed by the fact that the PCs now have to look for a Plan B with regards to getting through this door.

I could handle an attempt to pick a lock the same way I would an attempt to break down the door, but why would I? They’re pretty different actions, they should naturally have different stakes. Breaking the door open is quick but noisy. The most natural consequence is attracting unwanted attention, such as alerting the ogre on the other side or triggering an early roll for wandering monsters. Picking a lock is quiet but slow, and there’s no obvious consequence for failure (you could say the thieves’ tools break, but in my view that’s not a fun consequence, and isn’t how I think most D&D players are used to thieves’ tools working). However, there is a cost for the attempt - the time it takes. Provided, of course, that time is a relevant factor. If there are no wandering monsters and no ticking clock, I’d just allow the rogue to pick the lock without a check.

I would never do this, in that to me that one roll represents the BEST attempt you're going to be able to put at it without some material change in the fiction; any other attempts give at best the same result.

Take-20 (or equivalent) is IMO an awful mechanic - one of the very worst ideas 3e produced - in that it makes everything into an absolutely binary pass-fail situation when there's no external pressure. I still want that element of luck involved; I can't pick this lock but maybe [mechanically-identical] you can, or I can try again if-when I get a better set of thieves' tolls or advance a level.

 

[Charlaquin]

Here is a comment and some follow-up questions:

COMMENT

I see a form of action resolution (eg Fail Forward) sometimes called a “tool”.

QUESTIONS

1) Whose “tool” is it? The GMs?

Yes, it’s the DM’s tool.

2) If it’s the GMs to invoke (or not) at their discretion, what are the principles they use to inform their discretion?

Follow the fiction. Keep the game moving. Don’t call for multiple rolls when one will do.

3) Is the player made aware of when the “tool” comes “online” in an instance of action resolution? If they aren’t explicitly aware, is it inferable from first principles?

The player should, in my opinion, always be made aware of the DC for their check and consequences of failure before they roll. So yes, they will know if failure will lead to no progress or progress with a setback.

4) What say does the player have in this - when it comes online (if any)?

The player describes what they want to achieve and what their character does to try and achieve it, which is the information the DM uses to determine if success and failure are possible and if the attempt has a cost or failure has a consequence (and if so, what). They can also choose not to go through with an action if the results of failure the DM describes are significantly different than they would have expected based on their goal and approach (which in my experience is quite rare, and usually happens due to a miscommunication).

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Further, the fiction is changed by the fact that the PCs now have to look for a Plan B with regards to getting through this door.

I would never do this, in that to me that one roll represents the BEST attempt you're going to be able to put at it without some material change in the fiction; any other attempts give at best the same result.

As far as I am aware, you would never do this because you don’t actually play 5e. Is that correct? So while your "BEST attempt" roll adjudication might apply to 1e or whatever edition it is that you do play often, and work well for you, many of us discussing the mechanic in this 5e thread do not employ that method nor is it ever necessary.

Take-20 (or equivalent) is IMO an awful mechanic - one of the very worst ideas 3e produced - in that it makes everything into an absolutely binary pass-fail situation when there's no external pressure. I still want that element of luck involved; I can't pick this lock but maybe [mechanically-identical] you can, or I can try again if-when I get a better set of thieves' tolls or advance a level.

In 5e, an ability check is only called for if there is a chance of success, a chance of failure, and a meaningful consequence to the failure. It's not "Take-20 (or equivalent)" to grant auto-success in certain circumstances. It's basic 5e adjudication. If there is no meaningful consequence to the Rogue failing to pick the lock quickly, the DM can just call it a success, the Rogue can feel competent for doing so, and we can all move on to the more exciting parts of the adventure.

 

[Charlaquin]

Further, the fiction is changed by the fact that the PCs now have to look for a Plan B with regards to getting through this door.

Maybe in your games, not in mine.

I would never do this, in that to me that one roll represents the BEST attempt you're going to be able to put at it without some material change in the fiction; any other attempts give at best the same result.

That’s your prerogative. Personally I have always detested the “your first roll represents your best attempt” approach. If I rolled a 2, obviously it wasn’t my best attempt, because there’s a 90% chance I could have done better. If it works for you, that’s fine, but I can’t stand it.

Take-20 (or equivalent) is IMO an awful mechanic - one of the very worst ideas 3e produced - in that it makes everything into an absolutely binary pass-fail situation when there's no external pressure. I still want that element of luck involved; I can't pick this lock but maybe [mechanically-identical] you can, or I can try again if-when I get a better set of thieves' tolls or advance a level.

I’m not a fan of take 20 either. It’s a clumsy attempt to make what should simply be best DMing practice into a player-facing mechanic.