D&D5 chatty thread

[death2uall64]

So I've been giving some thought to partial success in 5E, something the DMG gives brief attention to, suggesting that failing by 1 or 2 could allow partial success (so 5-10% of the time). I was pondering something a little bigger, although all I have are back-of-napkin ideas at the moment. This has led me to a question though, a would you rather type of question

So let's assume a decently skilled 1st level character with a +5 total to a core skill.

Would you rather succeed at a Hard Task (DC 15) half the time as is standard (so on a roll of 10+)

or

Would you rather succeed but with some consequence on a 5-15 (so +/- 5 over DC) and succeed completely on a 16+

The later means 25% more success of some kind on a core skill, but at the cost of narrative consequences like you'd see in PbtA or FitD, or less chances of success but with success always as an absolute like it is currently?

This is not a leading question, and the math there is very approximate and hasn't been stress tested for Expertise or higher tier play.

The entire Forged in the Dark game system is based on the idea of failure with consequences - success (with consequences) - simple success, but it's so foreign to D&D players' sensibilities that I can't see it ever working in any 5e campaign, ever. I mean, the GM in Blades in the Dark and other games based on Evil Hat Productions' core system never ... ever ... rolls a die. I can't see most 5e DMs being able to adapt, frankly.

The only time I'll watch/seek out a game actual play video is because it's a new rules set or even potentially an old one where I want to understand how a mechanic or mechanics operate. Unfortunately most games are light on actually discussing rules or being detailed about the rules mechanics as their being used.

Oh, Christ. I literally cannot watch three to four hours of other people playing. Even trying to makes me want to go berserk ... with a chainsaw ... after five to ten minutes. Oddly enough, however, I have no problem with hours-long tutorials about computer games. Perhaps this is because I actually gain valuable knowledge from them, whereas I find that simply reading the rules of a TTRPG gives me enough information to know what I want to do with my characters.

 

[Fenris-77]

The entire Forged in the Dark game system is based on the idea of failure with consequences - success (with consequences) - simple success, but it's so foreign to D&D players' sensibilities that I can't see it ever working in any 5e campaign, ever. I mean, the GM in Blades in the Dark and other games based on Evil Hat Productions' core system never ... ever ... rolls a die. I can't see most 5e DMs being able to adapt, frankly.

That's probably true for many DMs who've only ever worked with binary pass-fail rolls. Personally I'm fine with it but that's easy to say when I have the requisite experience. It would definitely be an adjustment, that's for sure. It was mostly an idle thought, more than anything else.

 

[death2uall64]

That's probably true for many DMs who've only ever worked with binary pass-fail rolls. Personally I'm fine with it but that's easy to say when I have the requisite experience. It would definitely be an adjustment, that's for sure. It was mostly an idle thought, more than anything else.

Sure. But frankly, D&D generally is so based on an antagonistic relationship with the DM ... and on the DM's rolls being at least as important as the players' ... and on monsters having their own stats and bonuses ... that I can't really see a way to adapt D&D to the Forged in the Dark system. And you'd basically have to adapt it to Forged in the Dark, not vice-versa.

That's not to say, however, that I don't like the idea of "partial success" or "success with consequences" for 5e. I just don't see Forged in the Dark as a viable system for it ... except, maybe, as inspiration.

 

[Fenris-77]

I don't think its based on an antagonistic relationship, as much as that's how it turns out sometimes. Early editions especailly were very keen on the impartial referee model, which certainly isn't an antogonistic model.

You're welcome to like and not like what you want, of course.

 

[Voros]

The entire Forged in the Dark game system is based on the idea of failure with consequences - success (with consequences) - simple success, but it's so foreign to D&D players' sensibilities that I can't see it ever working in any 5e campaign, ever. I mean, the GM in Blades in the Dark and other games based on Evil Hat Productions' core system never ... ever ... rolls a die. I can't see most 5e DMs being able to adapt, frankly.


Oh, Christ. I literally cannot watch three to four hours of other people playing. Even trying to makes me want to go berserk ... with a chainsaw ... after five to ten minutes. Oddly enough, however, I have no problem with hours-long tutorials about computer games. Perhaps this is because I actually gain valuable knowledge from them, whereas I find that simply reading the rules of a TTRPG gives me enough information to know what I want to do with my characters.

I'm not sure what you're saying here exactly. Are you seeing the issue as being in the system or the GMs/players? I play 5e and PbtA games so I don't think that playing one precludes the other in any significant way. John Harper says that he developed BitD from a D&D campaign he ran.

 

[Brock Savage]

I'm not sure what you're saying here exactly. Are you seeing the issue as being in the system or the GMs/players? I play 5e and PbtA games so I don't think that playing one precludes the other in any significant way. John Harper says that he developed BitD from a D&D campaign he ran.

I have been applying the PbtA-style granular success/failure method to my D&D games for the past 5 years and it works just fine. I've always disliked the assumption that PCs are incompetent boobs that fail miserably 50% of the time and find granular results to be more satisfying (particularly when the PC is proficient). The hard part (for me) is consistently coming up with creative and interesting results on the fly. Athletic, social, and larcenous challenges are easy candidates for results that go beyond simple pass/fail but I can struggle with oddball situations or repeated extended rolls for the same challenge.

For 5e I use ±5 as a guideline because the d20 is so "swingy". For B/X I use the following chart for ability checks:

Roll 2d6 and modify by the ability score adjustment (-3 to +3); apply an additional ±1 for easy or difficult circumstances:

Roll	Result
2 or less	Failure + Consequences
3-5	Failure
6-8	Success + Complications
9-11	Success
12 or more	Success + Benefits

 

[Brock Savage]

Sure. But frankly, D&D generally is so based on an antagonistic relationship with the DM ..

Obviously antagonistic GMs exist and are a thing but do you have proof that GM antagonism is baked into D&D's system?

Edit: I missed your earlier post Fenris-77 but I think the PbtA granular or detailed results have universal application. Oftentimes binary pass/fail results are perfectly fine but ever since I read Dungeon World in back in 2013 I have been convinced that every GM can benefit from applying granular results when appropriate.

 

[Luca]

I have been applying the PbtA-style granular success/failure method to my D&D games for the past 5 years and it works just fine. I've always disliked the assumption that PCs are incompetent boobs that fail miserably 50% of the time and find granular results to be more satisfying (particularly when the PC is proficient).

Uh. That is exactly the main reason I can't stand PbtA. To me "success+complications" reads "your PC is such a bumbling fool that he somehow manages to make a mess of it even while succeeding". Which in game terms means any 2-8 result on 2d6 turns up as a failure to me. I fucking hate it.

 

[Fenris-77]

Uh. That is exactly the main reason I can't stand PbtA. To me "success+complications" reads "your PC is such a bumbling fool that he somehow manages to make a mess of it even while succeeding". Which in game terms means any 2-8 result on 2d6 turns up as a failure to me. I fucking hate it.

Thats not what success with complications means though. The complication doesn't necessarily have anything to do directly with the task.

 

[robertsconley]

The entire Forged in the Dark game system is based on the idea of failure with consequences - success (with consequences) - simple success, but it's so foreign to D&D players' sensibilities that I can't see it ever working in any 5e campaign, ever. I mean, the GM in Blades in the Dark and other games based on Evil Hat Productions' core system never ... ever ... rolls a die. I can't see most 5e DMs being able to adapt, frankly.

If partial success is explained tersely and well they will figure it out. Not a lot of people run sandbox campaigns or have the same understanding between rules, ruling, and setting as I do. But yet when I explain it had more than a few say they got it and found it useful after reading what I had written. Able to run my Scourge of the Demon Wolf as a sandbox adventures after reading the module.

Just anything be made to work and be fun in this hobby, it just matter of explaining it and backing it up with examples.

 

[Luca]

Thats not what success with complications means though. The complication doesn't necessarily have anything to do directly with the task.

That's even worse, I find it even more meta-gamey. My idea here is: "look, if I succeed, I don't want strings attached. If there are any, it means I didn't really succeed".

 

[Fenris-77]

I

That's even worse, I find it even more meta-gamey. My idea here is: "look, if I succeed, I don't want strings attached. If there are any, it means I didn't really succeed".

ts not like there aren't complete successes as well. Ive played lots of PbtA games and in my experiencee they don't index PC ineptitude. I can't speak for ypur experience.

 

[Brock Savage]

Uh. That is exactly the main reason I can't stand PbtA. To me "success+complications" reads "your PC is such a bumbling fool that he somehow manages to make a mess of it even while succeeding". Which in game terms means any 2-8 result on 2d6 turns up as a failure to me. I fucking hate it.

How do you figure? For example, in 5e if someone rolls 10-14 on a DC 15 lockpick check I will rule that they succeed but...

• The lockpick was bent
• The job took longer (two turns not one)
• It made a lot of noise (immediate roll for wandering monsters)
• Lock was destroyed

It makes the PCs more competent, not less.

 

[EmperorNorton]

That's even worse, I find it even more meta-gamey. My idea here is: "look, if I succeed, I don't want strings attached. If there are any, it means I didn't really succeed".

If you try to shoot a target, hit the target, but your gun jams, you succeeded at doing what you attempted to do: shoot the target.

 

[robertsconley]

That's even worse, I find it even more meta-gamey. My idea here is: "look, if I succeed, I don't want strings attached. If there are any, it means I didn't really succeed".

Actions have consequences. Actions have unintended consequences, Actions have consequences whose impact and existances don't arise until much later. These are all things that happen in life and in fictional stories for various reasons. Because a referee is one person running a campaign we have to rely on aides to incorporate this stuff. A partial success mechanics is one such aid. How well it works depended on the skill and creativity of the referee. But like the use of all random results it primary use is inspiration. But one should never be beholden to the results of a random roll. If it doesn't make sense then don't implement the results, or re-roll. Use common sense, fair play, and how the setting works to guide the decision.

Personally I prefer nuanced results over binary results. My experience that the biggest flaw is that regardless of the mechanic or system there is a bias towards negative complications. It feel off when happens. Most cases are inadvertent as result of the focus on adventuring not because the referee is being a dick. Campaigns need to have balance between the good and bad.

 

[death2uall64]

(they call it playtesting but it's not)

... As evidenced by the existence of the Peace and Twilight clerics. Honestly, these two break the game, especially if two players team up with them. Never before have I seen a new subclass increase in power between UA and eventual publication, but these two somehow managed it.

Someday I'd like to ask the devs what they were smoking at the time.

 

[Luca]

How do you figure?

If you try to shoot a target, hit the target, but your gun jams, you succeeded at doing what you attempted to do: shoot the target.

Actions have consequences. Actions have unintended consequences,

So, my reply to all of this is: the problem is not the idea of a partial success here, maybe I wasn't clear.
The problem is that to get a "normal" success (i.e. "congrats your PC managed to do what he was trying to without the universe biting him in the ass and making him look like a fool") you need to roll a 9+ on 2D6. That's a 27.77% chance, unmodified. Which means whenever you roll unmodified you have a 72.23% chance of either outright failure or pyrrhic success.

This is not a PC. This is Jar Jar Binks.

 

[EmperorNorton]

So, my reply to all of this is: the problem is not the idea of a partial success here, maybe I wasn't clear.
The problem is that to get a "normal" success (i.e. "congrats your PC managed to do what he was trying to without the universe biting him in the ass and making him look like a fool") you need to roll a 9+ on 2D6. That's a 27.77% chance, unmodified. Which means whenever you roll unmodified you have a 72.23% chance of either outright failure or pyrrhic success.

This is not a PC. This is Jar Jar Binks.

If you are rolling unmodified that means it is something you aren't particularly good at?

 

[Fenris-77]

Exactly, you'd never be rolling an unmodified 2d6 for anything your character is "supposed to be good at", so that's not really a useful bit of commentary. The system plays very nicely with the bell curve on 2d6. Your commentary doesn't really show any practical experience with the system, would that be a fair statement?

 

[EmperorNorton]

Also to bend it the other way: if you are doing something unmodified that means something you aren't particularly good at.

You have a near 60% chance of succeeding at doing what you want to do even at something you aren't good at. Yes, sometimes there might be complications from that. But even at things you aren't good at you will manage to succeed at your stated goal more often than not.

I'll tell you, in most systems, trying to do a moderate task you are untrained in will probably have a 25% chance of success at most.

 

[Luca]

Exactly, you'd never be rolling an unmodified 2d6 for anything your character is "supposed to be good at", so that's not really a useful bit of commentary. The system plays very nicely with the bell curve on 2d6. Your commentary doesn't really show any practical experience with the system, would that be a fair statement?

I played in two sessions of Dungeon World. The GM was using the "you ask players questions to help you build the world" as an excuse to not have any preparation.
Never again.

 

[Fenris-77]

I played in two sessions of Dungeon World. The GM was using the "you ask players questions to help you build the world" as an excuse to not have any preparation.
Never again.

Huh, yeah that sucks, nor is it how PbtA games normally run, My condolences on your shitty experience.

 

[Dammit Victor]

I played in two sessions of Dungeon World. The GM was using the "you ask players questions to help you build the world" as an excuse to not have any preparation.
Never again.

This is my modus operandi, and I've never had a problem-- what was the problem, so I can figure out how I've managed to avoid it all these years?

 

[TJS]

So, my reply to all of this is: the problem is not the idea of a partial success here, maybe I wasn't clear.
The problem is that to get a "normal" success (i.e. "congrats your PC managed to do what he was trying to without the universe biting him in the ass and making him look like a fool") you need to roll a 9+ on 2D6. That's a 27.77% chance, unmodified. Which means whenever you roll unmodified you have a 72.23% chance of either outright failure or pyrrhic success.

This is not a PC. This is Jar Jar Binks.

That's really not how it works.

The issue, potentially, with Pbta is not with PC competence, it's with excessive "Drama!" - which can't really be called a flaw because that's the point, but that's the focus more toward story and less toward game.

It's not meant to be a pyrrhic success, it's meant to be a success that may resolve an immediate action while leading to a new source of drama. This is the bit where it's less 'game' than 'story' as it's basically reliant on the GM making up something appropriate. In a sense the issue may be that the player feels the outcome of the roll is outside of their control - in a binary system you can weigh up the risk/reward of x versus y and go forward, but if there's a possibility of z happening, and z is not predefined in any way, then it's harder to predict possible outcomes. (Although that's partly illusory, because if a binary success/failure game is more story driven the GM will be introducing complications anyway, they just won't be basing it on die rolls).

I suspect that if the complications are feeling like failure, the GM is not really grasping how the game is supposed to work.

 

[Brock Savage]

@ L Luca I am sorry to hear about your GM. It seems to me that he doesn't grok complications at all. The complications are there to raise the stakes and not make the PCs look like incompetent boobs. For dungeon crawling examples in film I immediately think of Indiana Jones and the cave trap or Conan plucking the gem from the Tower of the Serpent. Both of them "failed" or had "success with complications" at a critical moment but it wasn't because they were incompetent.

 

[TJS]

I think some of the confusion may come from the fact that traditionally the only form of complication that dice tended to produce was a "botch" where the GM was invited to come up some kind of creative ways to screw over the character because they had dared to roll a 1.

Possibly that has shaped the way that people tend to think about complications. It's very easy to just transpose botch effects "You hit him but your weapon is broken", "You succeed in climbing up the cliff, but right at the top you dislodge some stones and immediately alert the enemy at the top to your presence".

I would think some of the issues would be.
1) Thinking that the complication must be directly related to the action (so a sword breaks on an attack etc, rather than "you hear the sound of shouting and realise reinforcements will be here very soon"). This makes it a lot harder to think of good complications because the GM is too focused on "logical" results. Complications are dramatic.
2) Not being clear on what the goal of an action is. That describes the second example above. The goal of climbing the cliff is to sneak up on the people at the top, so merely getting to the top but failing to surprise is failuire, not a complication.

 

[Brock Savage]

I would think some of the issues would be.
1) Thinking that the complication must be directly related to the action (so a sword breaks on an attack etc, rather than "you hear the sound of shouting and realise reinforcements will be here very soon"). This makes it a lot harder to think of good complications because the GM is too focused on "logical" results. Complications are dramatic.

Dude, mind = blown. Apparently I have been doing it wrong. This makes coming up with complications much easier.

 

[Luca]

This is my modus operandi, and I've never had a problem-- what was the problem, so I can figure out how I've managed to avoid it all these years?

My only guess is that you're much better at winging it.

 

[Fenris-77]

My only guess is that you're much better at winging it.

That's probably correct. There are GMs who have high-enough levels of impromptu creativity that they can roll like that. I suspect they're the exception and not the rule though.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Honestly this is one thing I liked about FFG Star Wars with their "pass with complications" system. There was Strain that was always there when your brain couldn't come up with a consequence. "Eh it took a bit more effort than you thought it would, take x Strain".

 

[TJS]

Honestly this is one thing I liked about FFG Star Wars with their "pass with complications" system. There was Strain that was always there when your brain couldn't come up with a consequence. "Eh it took a bit more effort than you thought it would, take x Strain".

Yes. And the 2d20 system is similar. You can just choose to bank a point of Doom.

 

[robertsconley]

So, my reply to all of this is: the problem is not the idea of a partial success here, maybe I wasn't clear.
The problem is that to get a "normal" success (i.e. "congrats your PC managed to do what he was trying to without the universe biting him in the ass and making him look like a fool") you need to roll a 9+ on 2D6. That's a 27.77% chance, unmodified. Which means whenever you roll unmodified you have a 72.23% chance of either outright failure or pyrrhic success.

This is not a PC. This is Jar Jar Binks.

I think to to date most RPG do a poor job of teaching referee how to make ruling that make sense.

For example what are you rolling 9+ for with 2d6? The answer I can in my Majestic Fantasy RPG is that a roll is made when the result is uncertain. I assume that characters are competence especially if they any experience in a skill. That given time and resources they will succeed at the task. That reflect how life and a lot of fiction work.

So when the result not certain, when you are pressed for time, when there are significant consequences to failure, or resources are limited. Then you roll. The failure means you don't succeed within the constraints whether it was done within the time one has for a combat round or limited to the resource found in your immediate surrounding in the wilderness. With those constraints a 9+ on 2d6 may be the right call given that setting or that genre.

Outright failure, in my opinion should be limited to what is considered critical failure.

 

[finarvyn]

I don't think its based on an antagonistic relationship, as much as that's how it turns out sometimes. Early editions especailly were very keen on the impartial referee model, which certainly isn't an antogonistic model.

You're welcome to like and not like what you want, of course.

Yeah, my DM-player interactions have been very positive over the decades. Of course, I mostly play with family and close friends so there may be less tendency to generate animosity.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

That's probably correct. There are GMs who have high-enough levels of impromptu creativity that they can roll like that. I suspect they're the exception and not the rule though.

I'm one of these GMs, and it's both a blessing and a curse. It can be very exhausting, esspecially if your group runs very long sessions. It also made me lazy concerning game prep, a fault I really try to combat. It has also made me suffer GM burnout a couple of times. Which is why, whenever I run games with very low prep, I use a lot of helping tools. Such as Mythic GM Emulator and lots of random tables from various sources.

 

[Fenris-77]

I'm one of these GMs, and it's both a blessing and a curse. It can be very exhausting, esspecially if your group runs very long sessions. It also made me lazy concerning game prep, a fault I really try to combat. It has also made me suffer GM burnout a couple of times. Which is why, whenever I run games with very low prep, I use a lot of helping tools. Such as Mythic GM Emulator and lots of random tables from various sources.

This is me too, I get really fatigued about half way through most sessions without some aids on hand. Random tables are a wonderful gift.

 

[Chris Brady]

I'm one of these GMs, and it's both a blessing and a curse. It can be very exhausting, esspecially if your group runs very long sessions. It also made me lazy concerning game prep, a fault I really try to combat. It has also made me suffer GM burnout a couple of times. Which is why, whenever I run games with very low prep, I use a lot of helping tools. Such as Mythic GM Emulator and lots of random tables from various sources.

I'm similar, but I have the opposite problem, I have issues ENDING things. I keep getting new ideas that keeps it going, even when it would be better to end it.

 

[TJS]

I'm well known for being able to do one shots completely impromptu, but I do tend to avoid running campaigns that way for the most part.

 

[Simlasa]

Something was mentioned in our 5e game last night that I'm curious about...
During a number of sessions lately there's been mention of some rule, feat, or spell that's been 'nerfed'... I assumed they were referring to prior editions... but from what the GM and rest of the group were saying, it sounds like the online version of the 5e rules is constantly being tweaked based on 'fixes' coming out of the 'official groups' playing in clubs and stores and such?
Is that true?
I'm don't follow any of the online WOTC stuff, I'm not subscribed to any official channels. All I have is the Players Handbook.
I don't get why people would opt in for these constant rule changes... especially if they didn't like them. It's like some tournament CCG or GW flailing around with its wargame rules.

 

[Necrozius]

There have been official errata documents once in a while which have adjusted things like spell effects and monster stats. DnD Beyond would be updated to match the errata.

Whether the corrections/adjustments were "nerfs" or not might be subjective.

Each table is allowed to stick with the rules in the print edition of the rulebooks of their choice, of course.

 

[TJS]

Some things have been changed when reprinted in newer books.

I can't recall any substantial changes, I think it's mostly the usual battle with legalistic readings of the rules.