D&D 5E ,Q&A: New Skill system, Skill dice, and profiencies (May 2)

[Zaruthustran]

I'm a fan of skill systems that have degrees of success, and that don't get in the way of story. FATE and 13th Age do a good job of this; even if you fail a roll, you can succeed at the task. For example: you make a Gather Information (or Int, or Cha, or whatever you prefer) check to learn the identity of who is responsible for the murders on Fishmonger Street. If you succeed spectacularly on the check, you learn that it's Bob Jones, who lives at 123 Killer Lane. If you succeed, you get a description of the murderer and clues to where he's likely to strike next. If you don't succeed, you get clues where to potentially find more information (victim's families, police reports, sages). If you fail spectacularly, you find nothing--but the murderer finds out you're after him, and attacks you in some way (attacks you directly, attacks your career or loved ones, sends agents, whatever).

Succeed or fail, the games moves forward. The players either learn the identity (because they have his name and address, or because they killer's knife is lodged in their cleric's neck). I recognize that experienced DMs already do this, but I think it'd be good for the game if D&D hard-coded "fail forward."

 

[kerleth]

That sounds really interesting, but I've got a hard time imagining it in a lot of situations. For example, how do you have degrees of success on a check to climb a cliff? I suppose it would work on a whole lot of skill checks though. Fording a river could take longer or you could be swept downstream, diplomacy checks could get more or less benefits/ require things of you. Is bluff a thing in those games, or is it a more general interaction based skill check? It seems kind of hard for me to imagine degrees of success for lieing to someone. Maybe, they believe you completely and will defend your story to others, they believe you, they're suspiscious and not willing to take any risks based on your claims, and they know you're a liar and have figured out some of the truth......actually, hmmm, that is starting to sound pretty good. On the other hand, the failure options don't seem like they would move the story forward any. I might have to check those games out and see how they handle it. I think lots of examples and some really robust advice would be essential to a skill system like that in dnd.

 

[Balesir]

That sounds really interesting, but I've got a hard time imagining it in a lot of situations. For example, how do you have degrees of success on a check to climb a cliff?

Off the top of my head:

Spectacular success: you climb the cliff, and find a route that is good, allowing you to guide people following you up it with a slightly decreased difficulty.

Success: you climb the cliff.

Failure: you are part way up the cliff; you now have a choice. If you go back down, you can't try again without some sort of help - your 'nerve' has gone. If you keep going, you might succeed but the consequences for spectacular failure get worse - future rolls are at slightly lower difficulty (you're part way there) but the "failure gap" before spectacular failure is lowered more (so chance of success and chance of spectacular failure both go up).

Spectacular failure: you are stuck. If this is your first roll, you're at the bottom, or only a short way up (close enough to jump down). If you had earlier failures, you are part way up the cliff. You can't move up or down the cliff without help. Failure on that help might mean you fall.

It's not quite the full "fail forward" ideal, but it gives twists and turns for teamwork or story opportunities to arise.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Speaking personally: "fail forward" blows pretty hard. Nothing like knowing success is inevitable to suck all the interesting decision points from gameplay.

I get that folks dig it, and it works well for modeling a particular narrative style (especially drawn from episodic TV), but anything where the outcome is predetermined is going to kill 90% the fun of discovering what happens when you take things in an unexpected direction. It's like a sitcom: no matter what happens, no matter what stupid, horrible thing the husband does, no one's getting a divorce. Nothing is going to change. The status quo is god.

It can work for some players, but it's not a solution for everyone.

 

[Balesir]

Well, for me, at least, it's not about success being "inevitable" - it's about failure not being "good night, and shut the door on your way out". In the sitcom case, it's "failure" (or success?) leading to divorce, after which the next season begins with the partners moving on with their lives and getting new homes - only to discover that the new neighbour is their ex...

"Fail forward", at its best, means "fail interestingly". Failing so that you can no longer usefully pursue your intended aim, or so that you can simply try again the exact same thing until you succeed, is just frustrating and pointless. Failing such that an alternative (but more involved) route to where you want to be presents itself opens up potential plot twists.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Failing so that you can no longer usefully pursue your intended aim, or so that you can simply try again the exact same thing until you succeed, is just frustrating and pointless.

I don't agree. I think it displays certain character traits for the characters to actively make choices about those things (such as resilience and stubbornness, or flexibility and wisdom) -- it tells us useful things about the characters.

Coping with failure is an elemental part of a person's personality, and if there's no true way to fail (ie: you're going to make it up the cliff, the only question is how tired you are when you make it up to the top), we miss that element.

But that's a side-convo, and I'm not really trying to convince you of anything. I just don't think that it's a mechanic you can necessarily include and assume it's going to be good for everyone.

 

[keterys]

Failing forward doesn't mean that every check is a success - it means that a failed roll doesn't result in either the action stopping or _you just reroll and try again_.

It's also about not rolling for things that don't matter. And there's definitely a lot of that in D&D.

 

[kerleth]

I think that not rolling for things that don't matter is a seperate issue entirely. You could theoretically have a "fail forward" system where putting your clothes on in the morning had varying degrees of success and affected your comfort level and performance or the way people perceived you. That is an issue that can appear in any skill system, but it is certainly one that should be considered when it is being designed.

 

[Sadrik]

3e had the concept of multiple outcomes on climb.
success: you climb 1/4 speed this round
fail: you make no progress this round
fail by 5: you fall but have a chance to catch yourself

I like that concept for tasks. I think with the flatter math though 5 might be too much perhaps 3 would be better.

 

[keterys]

That's a pretty good example of a whole lot of wasted rolling, though. Let's say it takes 4 checks to get up a wall. You might have to roll 20 times to successfully ascend, maybe taking some damage, maybe not, maybe waiting on one person, maybe not.

Just have someone roll once for climbing the wall, and move onwards, with however successful or not they were.