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

[Campbell]

Not a fan of rolls to put players on edge or just inform the DM of some background stuff (they could easily extrapolate based on skill level). It pretty much undercuts the ability of the roll to provide tension to play. In games where this is a feature I pretty much lose all interest in dice rolls. Rolling the die becomes a chore instead of an exciting moment.

 

[Charlaquin]

If the DM decides that an action's going to auto-succeed given long enough and just narrates it so, that kinda skips over the whole "how long did it take" question, which in turn skips over the "did we get bored and give up instead" question.

How long it took is irrelevant if there’s no time constraint or other form of external pressure. If you want your character to get bored and give up, that’s your decision to make. Tell me so in your description of what you want to do.

To be clear, I think there should almost always be sources of external pressure.

Which, as a side note, might also explain a poor roll in a one-roll-represents-your-best-attempt system: you might have succeeded had you taken longer but after a lesser amount of time the rest of the party got bored of waiting.

Again, if the other players want their characters to get bored of waiting, that’s up to them. They can say so, and describe what they want to do about it.

 

[77IM]

I’m not convinced that adding uncertainty to a situation that logically and/or dramatically ought to be certain is a desirable thing. Also, uncertainty of what exactly? If failure doesn’t have a meaningful consequence and the result of the roll only tells you how well you performed at the task... Is that actually uncertainty? Uncertainty of what, exactly?

@Charlaquin you made a lot of really good points in response to my post but I wanted to explore this one because I think it cuts to the heart of the matter. The only reason I roll dice is to add uncertainty to a situation that "ought" to be certain. We could decide everything in an RPG by DM fiat or group consensus (and there are diceless games that do exactly that) based on logic and/or drama. Adding dice means that no-one can totally predict what will happen, which is good from both a game-play perspective (because decisions are more interesting when you have partial information) and a narrative perspective (because predictable stories are boring, like a movie that follows the formula too closely). I don't need to roll dice to add this uncertainty/unpredictability (and there are diceless games that still have uncertainty/unpredictability) but dice seem to work really well, and they're fun.

I guess my main suggestion is that you can broaden "only roll when there's a meaningful consequence of failure" to a more generic and widely applicable "only roll when there are multiple meaningful outcomes." Usually that's the success/failure of the PC's stated actions because the game play puts that front-and-center. But I like rolling (and more specifically, players rolling ability checks) to decide between multiple meaningful outcomes even when "success" or "failure" are not among the outcomes.

Like I said, this works well in some situations and really poorly in others. It works best when the PCs are interacting with something complex (like the mind of an NPC) and their actions may have meaningful consequences beyond simply succeeding or failing. It works worst in situations where the stakes are obvious, and can break immersion pretty badly by having the die results not match up with the expectations.

 

[Charlaquin]

@Charlaquin you made a lot of really good points in response to my post but I wanted to explore this one because I think it cuts to the heart of the matter.

Thanks! I’m definitely up for delving more deeply into this point.

The only reason I roll dice is to add uncertainty to a situation that "ought" to be certain. We could decide everything in an RPG by DM fiat or group consensus (and there are diceless games that do exactly that) based on logic and/or drama. Adding dice means that no-one can totally predict what will happen, which is good from both a game-play perspective (because decisions are more interesting when you have partial information) and a narrative perspective (because predictable stories are boring, like a movie that follows the formula too closely). I don't need to roll dice to add this uncertainty/unpredictability (and there are diceless games that still have uncertainty/unpredictability) but dice seem to work really well, and they're fun.

I mean... Yeah, I agree that’s the point of rolling dice. I just wouldn’t call that adding uncertainty if the outcome of the action is already uncertain. I’d just call it... I don’t know, good game mechanics? The narrative outcome is uncertain, so using a randomized method to resolve that uncertainty just makes sense - it creates ludonarrative harmony. On the other hand, if the outcome of the action is certain - it has no chance of success, or no chance of failure, or failure has no meaningful consequence - I think rolling the dice anyway would be adding uncertainty, which I don’t think would be desirable.

I guess my main suggestion is that you can broaden "only roll when there's a meaningful consequence of failure" to a more generic and widely applicable "only roll when there are multiple meaningful outcomes." Usually that's the success/failure of the PC's stated actions because the game play puts that front-and-center. But I like rolling (and more specifically, players rolling ability checks) to decide between multiple meaningful outcomes even when "success" or "failure" are not among the outcomes.
Like I said, this works well in some situations and really poorly in others. It works best when the PCs are interacting with something complex (like the mind of an NPC) and their actions may have meaningful consequences beyond simply succeeding or failing. It works worst in situations where the stakes are obvious, and can break immersion pretty badly by having the die results not match up with the expectations.

I think we may be using the same language in different ways here. When I say “meaningful consequence for failure,” I mean “meaningful consequence for rolling a total that doesn’t meet or exceed the DC.” That consequence may or may not be failure in the narrative sense; it could mean no progress towards your goal but still have to pay the cost for the attempt, or it could mean you do make progress but with some setback or complication. So, when you say “multiple meaningful outcomes,” I think you’re basically saying the same thing. The outcome that occurs when you fail the roll doesn’t necessarily need to be that the character fails to achieve their goal. It just needs to be a meaningful outcome separate from the meaningful outcome of succeeding the roll.

I want to reiterate though that in my experience “players like rolling ability checks” is really only true when failed ability checks frequently don’t have a significant cost or consequence, and/or when succeeding in your goals is only possible with a successful ability check. If success can be achieved without need of a check and checks always have meaningful costs or consequences, checks become an undesirable thing because they can fail and incur consequences, whereas automatic success can’t. The “object of the game,” so to speak, becomes coming up with the best possible approach to your goal, so that you can try to avoid having to make a dangerous check. That’s a dynamic I find far more appealing. It encourages players to think in terms of the fiction, and how to move within it to mitigate risk, rather than in terms of dice and modifiers and how to create opportunities to roll dice that their best modifiers can be applied to. And it makes every roll of the dice tense, because you know what’s at stake and you’re hoping to avoid incurring that negative outcome.

 

[iserith]

It's also worth noting that, if we're rolling for things that aren't about success or failure, it makes it harder for players to know when to use resources effectively to increase their odds of success, unless the DM is explicit about which rolls are for what purpose. If I spend a limited resource like Inspiration to give myself advantage on a check that ultimately doesn't matter except to change the color of the scene, I'm going to feel like I wasted that resource since I could have saved it for when it really mattered. By keeping rolls only for determining success or failure when the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure, the players can determine if they're willing to risk the meaningful consequence for failure or bolster their odds of success with resources.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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?

It’s the table’s tool, in that resolution of it is open to discussion unless the outcome is just obvious.

However, it could also be said to be the DM’s tool in that the DM actually runs the resolution of it and most of the time decides what the mitigating factors are unless the players have an idea.

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

The method is, assume it’s always available, but skip it if it doesn’t matter or wouldn’t change anything.

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?

They’re aware, yes.

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

The player can always invoke the tool and say, “okay that roll sucks but what about XYZ”

No, I literally could have done better, if I had rolled anything else. You can rule that I’m not allowed to try again until circumstances change if that’s how you prefer to run the game, but it’s an objective fact that I could have done better.

Within the fiction it’s an objective fact that one roll doesn’t equal one attempt, in this model.

Yeah, but I can see my dice and it bothers me that what they say isn’t consistent with the fiction.

It is consistent with the fiction, because it’s a roll that determines how your time spent doing the thing goes. Whether that works is just a matter of preference.

 

[Charlaquin]

Within the fiction it’s an objective fact that one roll doesn’t equal one attempt, in this model.

Oh, I understand that, I just think it’s a stupid model.

It is consistent with the fiction, because it’s a roll that determines how your time spent doing the thing goes. Whether that works is just a matter of preference.

However many attempts it represents, however my time spent doing it went, if there’s nothing in the fiction stopping my character from doing it again, I should be able to do so if I want to.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Oh, I understand that, I just think it’s a stupid model.

However many attempts it represents, however my time spent doing it went, if there’s nothing in the fiction stopping my character from doing it again, I should be able to do so if I want to.

Why? Like I get not liking the model, but your reasoning genuinely confuses me. The roll represents how well it goes overall. There is no infinite time scenario in a real game, so I refuse to discuss such a thing.

If you go about the rest of your day, sleep, get your morning coffee and breakfast, and take another crack at it, I’d allow that, sure. But roll # 2 would be the only roll for that day, unless you can figure out a different way to go about the task.

And if you have 6 months of downtime, if I determine that there is a chance of you never getting it, it is perfectly valid for me to give you one roll to represent all your efforts during that downtime. I would generally break it into multiple rolls, but in general I always break complex tasks into multiple rolls. But the set of rolls I call for represent the sum total of your efforts within the available time, and that’s the only set of rolls using the stated approach.

There isn’t anything illogical or unreasonable about having a roll or set of rolls represent a certain amount of time trying. An attack roll isn’t a single sword stroke, and a stealth check isn’t a single step while hidden.

 

[Lanefan]

So you base this argument on a slippery slope then?

This assertion IMO ignores how rolls should frame the stakes and consequences, particularly when using fail forward.

Stop right there. If you're assuming I use, or would ever use, fail-forward you're in error.

Even without that, it's the other way around IMO: the rolls don't frame the stakes and consequences, as those are in theory already in place before the roll is even called for. Instead, the roll - IF meaningful - simply a by-product of the presence of stakes and consequences.

You can succeed, but what's at stake? What are the consequences of various forms of success and failure? If you are operating on a race against time, for example, then "how long did it take?" will be a highly important factor. Every one of these elongated successes will whittle away at precious time that the party may not have. If you are breaking into a vampire's lair during daylight, then the last thing you want may be for it to be night time by the time you reach their tomb. Or in secret, the GM advances a clock for a nasty monster or the completion of a evil cult's ritual. Or the GM may say, "you can succeed with enough time, but you know that the guards/monsters patrolling these halls will also have enough time to find you too." In other words, the success will likely require additional HP/spells/resources. It may be that the easiest or best way is to choose not to succeed but regroup instead and look for a Plan B.

My point is that even if you're not in a race against time, it's only reasonable to think that some characters (not necessarily players, but in-fiction characters) will have a lower boredom threshold than others and won't be willing to wait the half-hour or however randomly long it takes the Thief to finally figure out the lock if she doesn't get it right away.

An important part of the process is letting the PCs decide for themselves: yes, they can succeed with time, but is it worth the potential consequences?

Agreed in principle; except I'd alter it to read "they might succeed with time" and I also want to leave them the freedom to quit on it early.

Your counter-argument better not involve a little-to-no-consequence roll.

Why not? I've already explained upthread why these are a useful tool in the box.

 

[Charlaquin]

Why? Like I get not liking the model, but your reasoning genuinely confuses me. The roll represents how well it goes overall. There is no infinite time scenario in a real game, so I refuse to discuss such a thing.

If there’s no infinite time scenario, then there’s a cost or consequence for failure, so repeated attempts should be allowed as long as the player is willing to pay the cost or risk the consequence.

If you go about the rest of your day, sleep, get your morning coffee and breakfast, and take another crack at it, I’d allow that, sure. But roll # 2 would be the only roll for that day, unless you can figure out a different way to go about the task.

Ok, so this is just establishing that each attempt “costs” one full day. As long as I’m willing and able to pay that cost, I should be allowed to do so as many times as I want.

And if you have 6 months of downtime, if I determine that there is a chance of you never getting it, it is perfectly valid for me to give you one roll to represent all your efforts during that downtime. I would generally break it into multiple rolls, but in general I always break complex tasks into multiple rolls. But the set of rolls I call for represent the sum total of your efforts within the available time, and that’s the only set of rolls using the stated approach.

Likewise, if one attempt “costs” 6 months of downtime and 6 months of downtime is what I have, great. I don’t take issue with this scenario, so long as it’s reasonable within the fiction (if it takes 6 months of downtime to try and find a buyer for my magic sword or something, that’s reasonable. If it takes 6 months of downtime to try and tie my shoe, not so much.)

There isn’t anything illogical or unreasonable about having a roll or set of rolls represent a certain amount of time trying. An attack roll isn’t a single sword stroke, and a stealth check isn’t a single step while hidden.

Not at all, and making each roll represent a certain amount of time trying is one of my go-to techniques for insuring actions have a cost or consequence for failure. Lots of things you might attempt while exploring a dungeon, for example, take 10 minutes to try in my game. Of course, if you fail you’re more than welcome to spend 10 more minutes and try again. But every time you do, we’re getting one step closer to a roll for random encounters, which I make once every hour during that time scale of exploration by default. Some actions, particularly those that are noisy or reckless, can cause additional rolls for random encounters as a cost or consequence for failure beyond that default.

Another approach might be to say that a task takes however much time it takes until something changes in the scenario - you can keep trying to pick that lock until you either get it or a monster wanders by and attacks you. In that case, getting interrupted by that wandering monster should be the cost for failure. But in that case I should be allowed to go back to it after the monster is dealt with, as many times as I’m willing to risk that consequence on a failure.

What I take issue with isn’t rolls representing the total effort over a given period of time, or even over a nonspecific period of time if some consequence occurs before I finish on a failure. What I object to is being disallowed from making repeat attempts while I am still willing to pay the cost to try or risk the consequences of failure simply because the DM says “that was your best effort.”