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

[Sword of Spirit]

1) Why do you use it if you do or why do you not use it if you do not?

I'm not generally a fan of fail forward mechanics. While I like the idea behind them, I think they are hard to do well. D&D is a great example of a game they are particularly poorly suited to in my opinion.

In D&D, you make a lot of rolls. You don't generally want to slow the game down with analyzing each roll and coming up with some unique functional interpretation of what the result means based on constantly adding setbacks and complications that leads to branching paths of play. That would be playing in snail mode. It's D&D. Roll and move on.

This also doesn't work well because of the high randomness factor of the d20 where you are usually just as likely to get any particular possible die result as any other. In a system where the expected range of your results was weighted to certain outcomes, this would go a bit smoother.

What I do implement, and I've seen other DM's implement enough that I'd consider it to be standard practice, is interpreting varying degrees of success on skill checks rather than always making it binary. For instance, if you are making a check to pick up rumors, instead of setting a specific DC, you just look at their result and give them more or better rumors the better they roll. You may set specific DCs ahead of time "DC 10, this common rumor, DC 15, that plus this other rumor, DC 20 those plus this important and rare rumor", or you might just look at the result and interpret it on the fly. I'll do both depending on the circumstance.

I've also granted partial success on failed rolls, which is really just an extension of above. Usually this is purely descriptive fluff "the friendly innkeeper smiles and gives you a drink on the house, but doesn't produce the key you asked for", but sometimes it has mechanical weight, such as granting advantage on your next attempt or opening up a new angle of approach "the friendly inkeeper smiles and replies, 'Well, I wouldn't know anything about that, but I hear Mark the Cooper is a fan of keys'". The latter is a type of "fail forward" mechanic that is actually useful and fits fine in D&D, though it's best used on checks where you are limited in how many you can make. If you can just keep repeating them until you succeed, it's generally a waste of effort.

I think these sorts of partial success are far superior to setbacks and complications. Particularly the DMG version. Most of the time players would rather fail than succeed with a complication. Would you rather successfully hit your opponent but end your turn prone when you missed by 1 or 2? Probably not. It introduces a sense of risk to basic rolls that is foreign to your D&D-playing mindset, and takes away a feeling of control. You could give players an option to take those results or not--which I think can be great fun in other systems--but in D&D it's going to bog down the game. Non-combat examples can be just as bad. The risk of a trap going off if your attempt to disarm it fails by 5+ is a well established tool of the DM. Adding in that if you fail to disarm it by 1 point, you actually succeed, but then after you pass through the door the mechanism goes off wrong behind you and ends up effectively blocking that door is just irritating. "So either I need to succeed, or I need to fail by exactly 3 or 4 points to get a simple failure? Blech."

Since it came up, I will put a plug in for the Social Interaction rules in the DMG, and why those rules are superior to how most DMs run it. DMs tend to want to (and I thought there was still some place in the 5e rules that encourages it, though I can't seem to find it on a quick check so maybe it was only in the playtest) is have you make a Charisma check opposed by the opponents Wisdom in some way. This isn't the best way of doing it. It works great if you are trying Deception, but when you are trying Persuasion and what you are attempting to persuade them to do is actually for their benefit or even neutral in its impact on them, it makes zero sense. If you are attempting to get them to do something beneficial, it should be easier the higher their Wisdom is! Wisdom does not equal stubbornness and pride. Trying to get the duke to take a more effective approach in his war effort should absolutely not be opposed by his Wisdom.

The DMG Social Interaction rules don't have that problem. The difficulty you have to beat to influence someone is based on their attitude towards you and whether they perceive the action as requiring risk or sacrifice on their part. If the duke likes you already, he's going to be easily influenced towards your point of view, but even if he doesn't like you his Wisdom isn't going to get in the way of your interaction, just his aversion to risk. All you need to know for the system to work as written and make sense is, "does this NPC consider the actions the PCs are trying to get them to take to be a significant, minor, or no risk or sacrifice?" You can determine that however you want (including by potentially considering Wisdom as a positive or negative factor), and it is likely pretty obvious if the character is at all fleshed out.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I had to go with "No", but it really should be "No...but it depends..."

Based on the situation, the PC, the DC and the applicable skill/ability save, it could be "Nope. Doesn't work", it could be "Nope. But you did loosen it a bit before your crowbar broke", or it could be "Ok, you do it, but the crowbar breaks in your hand suddenly causing you to slam into the door...forcing it open and spilling you into the room! DC ## Dexterity Save please...", or something else.

In my games, consistency of "making rulings" is key...not necessarily consistency of "If you do X, then Y will ALWAYS happen...".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Not trying to be perverse, but why NOT do it that way. I mean, IMHO, one of the great techniques of life is to treat things the same way. Often a solution in one area generalizes to another. More than that, often a pattern of solution can create a kind of 'language' which allows different elements to combine, substitute for each other, or be used in a nested fashion. I admit, 40 years of very intensive practice at software engineering and coding has given me a specific set of problem-solving tools which rely on these kinds of techniques.

So, in my own practice of GMing I tend to do that. I abstract away common concerns too. So if I notice that all different situations could produce complicated success, then I will generalize that practice. I will always tend to build universal subsystems in games too when I tinker with them. When I see games like PbtA designs which are built using a set of regular elements I see expressive power. Every class in Dungeon World has a playbook with moves. I could give any move in any playbook to any class, or through some effect, etc. 4e has that characteristic with player-facing elements where any class can use any feat (obviously some are more limited, but as a general concept). Any skill can be utilized within any SC, mechanically. Heck, an SC can be nested inside another SC, or inside a combat, etc. This is power.

So, if we were playing 5e and we handle all our skill failures in a consistent way, we've created a pattern. Now we can start to leverage that for other techniques. This is just my thinking, though I haven't tried to take any of this to the point of building a generalized story now set of play processes on top of 5e. I don't really see it as having much advantage, 5e isn't that special TBH. If I go to that work, then why not use a game that is already more sophisticated?

 

[Charlaquin]

Not trying to be perverse, but why NOT do it that way.

Because it would be far less interesting? And also not follow as directly from the fiction.

I mean, IMHO, one of the great techniques of life is to treat things the same way. Often a solution in one area generalizes to another. More than that, often a pattern of solution can create a kind of 'language' which allows different elements to combine, substitute for each other, or be used in a nested fashion. I admit, 40 years of very intensive practice at software engineering and coding has given me a specific set of problem-solving tools which rely on these kinds of techniques.

The greatest strength of D&D is that it isn’t run by a computer. I want to take advantage of my brain’s ability to handle different situations on a case by case basis to make the game richer and more nuanced, not squander it by resorting to rote programming that any computer could do far more effectively.

So, in my own practice of GMing I tend to do that. I abstract away common concerns too. So if I notice that all different situations could produce complicated success, then I will generalize that practice. I will always tend to build universal subsystems in games too when I tinker with them. When I see games like PbtA designs which are built using a set of regular elements I see expressive power. Every class in Dungeon World has a playbook with moves. I could give any move in any playbook to any class, or through some effect, etc. 4e has that characteristic with player-facing elements where any class can use any feat (obviously some are more limited, but as a general concept). Any skill can be utilized within any SC, mechanically. Heck, an SC can be nested inside another SC, or inside a combat, etc. This is power.

What does this have to do with opening locked doors again?

So, if we were playing 5e and we handle all our skill failures in a consistent way, we've created a pattern. Now we can start to leverage that for other techniques. This is just my thinking, though I haven't tried to take any of this to the point of building a generalized story now set of play processes on top of 5e.

Well, “story now” isn’t what I’m aiming for with 5e, so... I don’t see your point.

I don't really see it as having much advantage, 5e isn't that special TBH. If I go to that work, then why not use a game that is already more sophisticated?

I’m sorry, but I’m really struggling to understand what the heck you’re talking about.

 

[Necrozius]

I’ve been using this game resolution ideology since Dungeon World was published.

Why? It keeps things moving forward and lets me escalate situations with all kinds of bad luck. It’s fun to see players thinking hard when I ask them “sure, you can succeed anyway... if you drop something / make lots of noise / tire yourself out / etc”.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Because it would be far less interesting? And also not follow as directly from the fiction.

The greatest strength of D&D is that it isn’t run by a computer. I want to take advantage of my brain’s ability to handle different situations on a case by case basis to make the game richer and more nuanced, not squander it by resorting to rote programming that any computer could do far more effectively.

What does this have to do with opening locked doors again?

Well, “story now” isn’t what I’m aiming for with 5e, so... I don’t see your point.

I’m sorry, but I’m really struggling to understand what the heck you’re talking about.

LOL, I don't warranty intelligibility of my comments, not to worry. As for what is more or less interesting, of course you have to decide that for yourself. I'm not looking to 'run D&D on a computer', that's a whole other topic and I'm not really very interested in computer games. What I'm interested in is SYSTEMS. When we break things up into a bunch of differently working cases, it is like we are speaking several 'languages'. Each one doesn't communicate with the others, except through some additional interfacing process, so we gain a lot of complexity. Like if some checks use FF and some don't, then your overall process has to deal with that, and some things like bonuses and whatnot won't work the same in the two cases (just an example).

 

[Istbor]

I prefer to fail forward, as in life.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

LOL, I don't warranty intelligibility of my comments, not to worry. As for what is more or less interesting, of course you have to decide that for yourself. I'm not looking to 'run D&D on a computer', that's a whole other topic and I'm not really very interested in computer games. What I'm interested in is SYSTEMS. When we break things up into a bunch of differently working cases, it is like we are speaking several 'languages'. Each one doesn't communicate with the others, except through some additional interfacing process, so we gain a lot of complexity. Like if some checks use FF and some don't, then your overall process has to deal with that, and some things like bonuses and whatnot won't work the same in the two cases (just an example).

The only difference in FF is in the outcome. Players don’t have to do anything differently. Bonuses are not affected. Ability checks are the same as always. The DM is just incorporating the effect into the adjudication. It’s not any extra effort - in fact you could say it is often less effort. By employing FF in certain circumstances, there now is a tool for moving the story along in an interesting way rather than road blocking it and potentially having some frustrated players on your hands.

 

[Lanefan]

Maybe in your games, not in mine.

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.

Different perspective. You say the 2 means there's a 90% chance you could have done better but I say the 2 means that for some reason this particular lock has you stumped and that the farthest you're going to get with it is nowhere: you could not have done better in this instance as the 2 represents the best you're gonna get. No re-rolls.

And yes, this makes things more difficult in general for the PCs by in effect lowering their odds of success at any given moment. I'm more than fine with that.

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.

I disagree that it's best DMing practice to compare the best a character could ever do (i.e. a roll of 20) with a situation's difficulty and just say either straight yes or straight no. That makes it purely binary, where in reality there'd be many more factors. Some days you just ain't got it. Sometimes something that in theory should be in your pay grade is still beyond you. Flip side: some days you're really rocking and pull off that best-ever move, beating something that most of the time would defeat you.

20 isn't the norm. It's the exception. 10 is the norm, and Take-10 - while boring - is a mechanic I can thus live with.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

When I see a bad mechanic I'll call it out, no matter what edition it's in, and won't apologize for doing so.

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.

You're either forgetting or wilfully ignoring the flip side: that being there's always a meaningful consequence to a success. In this case it's that the party can move on; which by extension means failure equalling no change in the fiction is always a valid outcome. Put another way, 5e has it backwards: you should call for a check if a) there's doubt as to the outcome and b) there's a meaningful consequence to success.