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

[doctorbadwolf]

There is uncertainty in any individual trial, yes, but unless you place a limit on the number of trials, there is no uncertainty in the actual outcome. Sure, it’s uncertain whether you will get heads or tails on any given flip, but those outcomes are inconsequential unless you tie some reward or penalty to it. If someone gives you a cookie if you get heads, it’s uncertain whether or not you will get a cookie... on any individual flip. But if nothing prevents you from flipping the coin as many times as you want, there is no uncertainty as to whether or not you will get a cookie. You can just keep flipping the coin until you get heads and get the cookie.

There is no reason to think you can just flip again.

To create uncertainty in the outcome, you either need to limit the number of trials allowed (i.e. “you can only flip the coin X times and if you don’t get heads in that many flips, you can’t have the cookie), or introduce a penalty for getting tails (i.e. “I’ll kick you in the shin every time you get tails.”) I find the latter to be the more interesting, because you have to weigh the potential benefits of getting a cookie vs. the potential risk of getting kicked in the shin. How many times are you willing to risk a 50/50 chance or getting kicked in the shin for a 50/50 chance at getting a cookie? That’s a far more interesting question than “will you get a cookie with a 50/50 chance?”

EDIT 1: To drag this line of discussion kicking and screaming back to the topic, a third option would be if you get a reward whether you get heads or tails, but one reward is greater than the other. (e.g. “if you get heads I’ll give you a cookie. If you get tails I’ll only give you half a cookie.”) That would create uncertainty as to how much cookie you’ll get, and would be the equivalent of “fail forward.” Alternatively, you could say “If you flip this coin, I’ll give you a cookie. But if you get tails I will also kick you in the shin.” That introduces uncertainty as to whether or not you’ll get kicked in the shin, while making it certain that you’ll get a cookie, and would be the equivalent of progress with a setback.

EDIT 2: Here’s another fun one: “every time you get tails I’ll take a bite out of the cookie. When you get heads I’ll give you whatever’s left.”

If I tell a hundred people, one at a time, “I’m gonna flip a coin. Heads, I’m going to give you this $50 bill. Tails, I’m going to walk away and repeat this with someone else.” By far most of those people will feel like a negative consequence has occurred if it lands on tails.

Not getting the thing you tried to get is a negative consequence, and whether you get to retry or not is entirely a matter of gameplay preference.

 

[Lanefan]

Right. It doesn’t “leave those situations out,” implying that it gives no advice for how to handle them. It tells you specifically how to handle them: narrate success.

If the only options are positive change or no change, that isn’t a challenge, it’s a missable bonus.

Well, except it's not even missable when you're told to narrate success...

And kindly don’t call the way other people like to play garbage. I expect that kind of nonsense from Lanefan, but not from you.

Nonsense? Me? Never....

Not by (the way I and others interpret) the rules of D&D 5e. If you lack the knowledge or skills to do something, it isn’t possible, and therefore you fail to do it without a roll. If you have the knowledge or skills to do it, a roll might be called for, if failure is possible and has a meaningful consequence. Otherwise you succeed.

It’s excellent advice. I have been playing by it for years and it has improved my games immeasurably since adopting it. I was skeptical at first, as I think most people are. It seems like it would make the game too easy. Like you’re giving something away for free.

Exactly. And 5e, from all I can tell, is already easy enough.

 

[Lanefan]

“Get to the good stuff sooner”...I just...no. Even at my most linear, I’m not in a hurry to get to “the good stuff”. The whole game is the good stuff. The small quiet moments, the silly moments that don’t matter, the half hour of the PCs wasting time chasing their own tails, and the moments of dramatic tensions are all the good stuff.

Less is less, and cutting every scene that doesn’t move the plot forward is bad editing and bad storytelling.

This.

Some of us not only accept a slower pace of play, we enjoy it. As a side note, this is also my primary beef with "scene-framing" games and 4e's jump-to-the-action advice, where all the detail between the "scenes" is skipped over in order to give a faster pace of play. Bleah.

If a DM can run the game such that the players are on the edges of their seats all session that's excellentt...until that edge-of-the-seat-ness becomes normal routine after a few sessions and the DM is stuck with "how do I top this?".

 

[Charlaquin]

There is no reason to think you can just flip again.

I’m exploring a hypothetical scenario, of course I’m going to consider every angle. It seems we agree that if there is no penalty for either option, having no limit on the number of trials makes the whole thing pretty pointless. Which was my point: a limited number of trials creates a consequence for failure (that consequence being the inability to try again). But, for reasons we have been over, I take issue with that being the only consequence for failure.

If I tell a hundred people, one at a time, “I’m gonna flip a coin. Heads, I’m going to give you this $50 bill. Tails, I’m going to walk away and repeat this with someone else.” By far most of those people will feel like a negative consequence has occurred if it lands on tails.

Yes, because you’re walking away, thereby permanently preventing them from getting the positive outcome. This is the “if you don’t get heads in X flips, you can’t have the cookie” scenario, with X=1.

Not getting the thing you tried to get is a negative consequence, and whether you get to retry or not is entirely a matter of gameplay preference.

But limited number of trials is required to actually prevent you from getting the thing you tried to get.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I’m exploring a hypothetical scenario, of course I’m going to consider every angle. It seems we agree that if there is no penalty for either option, having no limit on the number of trials makes the whole thing pretty pointless.

Which is one of several reasons I don’t allow a bunch of rerolls.

Which was my point: a limited number of trials creates a consequence for failure (that consequence being the inability to try again). But, for reasons we have been over, I take issue with that being the only consequence for failure.

Yes, because you’re walking away, thereby permanently preventing them from getting the positive outcome. This is the “if you don’t get heads in X flips, you can’t have the cookie” scenario, with X=1.

But limited number of trials is required to actually prevent you from getting the thing you tried to get.

Okay?

 

[Charlaquin]

Which is one of several reasons I don’t allow a bunch of rerolls.

Yes, that is what I was expressing when I said you have to limit retries to introduce a consequence if you call for rolls when failure doesn’t otherwise have one. Otherwise the roll is pointless. And again, we’ve been over why no retries is a non-starter for me, at great length.

 

[Maxperson]

This still doesn’t answer the question. You’re trying to re-frame what I’m asking in terms of your action resolution framework. I’m trying to get you to break out of your action resolution framework and see where I’m coming from with this.

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)

 

[Maxperson]

No, you roll to find out whether a thing is that sort of thing or not.

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.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

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. 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. This is probably one of those things like abstract HP that some people just get hung up on, only I’m the one with the hangup in this case. But it is what it is, I can’t just ignore the fact that there were 18 other numbers I could have rolled that would have resulted in my character’s best effort having been better. Feels too “quantum ogre” for me.

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)

We did, more or less.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes, that is what I was expressing when I said you have to limit retries to introduce a consequence if you call for rolls when failure doesn’t otherwise have one. Otherwise the roll is pointless. And again, we’ve been over why no retries is a non-starter for me, at great length.

Yeah, seems like we are at an impasse on this aspect of play, as well, unfortunately.

Thanks for the discussion, though.