For lock-picking I have used 'Yea... it is going to take a while, but you succeed.' and then the 'goblins' hear them and prepare.

@RobertBlair

Ай бұрын

PF2 lockpicking is a chore as written, sadly. Did you bring 10 backup picks for your dungeon crawl? Or maybe my DM is setting the DCs too high. Having some success at a cost rules would be exciting. "Your lockpicking attempt seems to work - but really was opened by the guy on the other side. Roll initiative. Also you are flat footed"

@nicholasromero238

Ай бұрын

Yeah, this is how I do it outside of combat. Fail the check and it just takes while; works better than just throwing tons of rolls

I was running a Red Mantis oneshot and my friend somehow failed an assassination for a guard right outside the target's room. However, I decided since everyone is a trained assassin, the result is that the target dies, but make enough noise the target knows something is up, and I gave the target initiative when combat start. In mechanical terms, I have the target ready a flashbang set to throw the moment the door opens, so my friends start combat with a disadvantage coming from a prior action.

@laughingfurry

Ай бұрын

I do the same thing. I have a Heroes Unlimited story where the heroes prevent a prison break, with a helicopter crash. My players tend to be very curious.

I loved the way how you failed to recover your notes after the crash, but still moved forward, improvising, giving a real life example of "failing forward" even if it was not a locked door. ;)

Congrats on getting five videos out this week now go take a nap

the best tabletop stories can be summed up with such phrases as "that time we recreated a mining disaster for the goblin camp"

Failing forward is a great way to keep a game moving. You still get past the door, but there are consequences. As for stories... In a home brew wheel of time game I once yelled "I'm the leader of the black tower, I never miss!" And promptly rolled a nat 1, frying myself with lightning.😅

I do it too. If everyone fails i say "who wants to describe their success with a consequence?" It's a blast

Well, that's better than my iconic moment. I did the whole "Yeah, you guys!" at the entrance of a cave to get my party's attention. They were killed by a mob of monsters that I now had to outrun.

I've more or less used this for year myself. But mostly on checks outside of combat. Inside of combat you've got the pressures of the combat weighing down your actions, so I don't like failing forward because there is hard lined consequences for failing in a combat situation, however, failing outside of combat can lead to the door situation. Something that given enough time and energy should be easily overcome. So, in combat I require those x number of thievery checks to unlock a door, but out of combat, you get 1. If you crit fail you break your tools, else wise it's a matter of how much time and effort you need to actually finish. It creates a better narrative and you can still progress forward in the adventure.

I wanted to implement a system of missing an ac by armor amount or dex amount. If you roll 1-2 under, you hit their shield. 3-4 you hit their armor. 5-7 they dodge the hit. And any lower you air balled it.

@robinbernardinis

Ай бұрын

For PF2e, you can easily describe that a blow is deflected by a shield when it would have hit if not for Raise a Shield. The only potential issue is successfully differentiating it from the description for Shield Block.

I really liked how Disco Elysium handled failure. Sometimes failing was more entertaining that succeeding.

Here’s what my table’s been doing: If they’re within 5 I offer them the option to take a “Complication” to succeed - they get to know the complication before they choose - if they don’t want to take the complication, they don’t have to - they can choose to fail without additional consequences, or they can spend an HD to reroll “Double or Nothing” - if they succeed, they avoid any bad outcomes, but if they fail the reroll, something even worse happens that they only find out about once it happens - this is a combination of “mixed success”, “devils bargain” and “pushing your roll” - it’s worked well for us

Remember kids, nat 1s and nat 20s only count for attack rolls and death saves. Everything else it’s whatever you roll on the die plus modifier.

I have taught this to the two GM's I've 'trained'. as a Player I don't like the B&W pass fail, I like adding in the Complication, I got it from DeathWatch TT.

I have changed how I use the degrees of success and how I explain it to the players. I treat Failure as “Success, but…”. And time is usually the first thing I use against the party. “You pick the lock, but it took a full 10 minutes” or “You convince the guard to let you through, but the person you are tailing has gotten farther away”. Only critically failing something prevents forward momentum.

One of the things I love about PF2e and other systems is the tools of success and fail spectrums we can borrow and use.

Recently I like the idea of doors being trapped where you can't disable the trap separately but each time you fail to pick the lock it breathes fire or does mental/psychic damage from a magical rune. So each failure costs HPs that requires managed resources to restore.

This is SOP at my table. Some of the most memorable parts of my games have been when my players describe their actions. I even ask them to describe scenery and the world too.

Alot of GMs say "If they're going to succeed no matter what don't roll and if they must succeed to continue don't roll". I prefer to have backups for points of failure in my campaign and your 'door in the cave' example is perfect. The GM knows the door is the ONLY way to proceed, so they NEED to place a guaranteed method of getting past the door or the adventure could end at the door. Maybe its a rickety door barley holding onto its hinges? Maybe there's a key on one of the monsters you fought earlier in the dungeon? Regardless the alternative method of door bypassing is something you don't roll for because it is your narrative method of door opening. That said your method of 'failure spectrum' could be used as opportunities to gradually move toward overt hints as to the narrative method of door opening, like: "As you break your spear in the lock; the door pops off one of its rust covered hinges from the force of the strike."

the Pick a Lock as RAW in PF2e has a normal failure just not "do" anything. If they miss the DC by 1 or 2, they just need to try again. Unless the party is picking a lock with an outside factor limiting their time available to pick the lock, like a pack of goblins running at them, I don't think this system really needs any changes. Maybe its because your story is based in D&D 3.5 that you designed this workaround for failure but, if my party is struggling with a lock, I just remind them of the Aid action and to use Recall Knowledge to get bonuses on their rolls.

I agree while heartedly and have been playing with a system that is built entirely around this, doing away with linear/binary outcomes The game is Star Wars by Fantasy Flight Gaming. They use Narrative Dice; dealing with Success and Advantages for Players countered by the GMs Failures and Threats. They have full sheets on how they should work and potential ideas; encouraging Roleplay through dice and I have fallen in love with the mechanics.

As a Forever gamemaster myself what I like to look at for the Difficulty/DC is not the a Fail or Succeed at the action, it's more if you fail the check, there will be complication(s). Basically complication can be something like, Gosh, for some reason this lock seem to be getting the better of you, you may be distracted or stress, you definitely know you can get through, but you sense its going to take an unusual amount of time to get it open, or you could try to force it but if someone is guarding that door, you are pretty sure, any element of surprise is lost, if you do that. My favorite complication is to multiply the amount of time require for the action. Because there is nothing so unheroic and anticlimactic than a adventurer who spent his entire life picking locks who failed his check to unlock a simple door. A critical fail could be a random patrol, a group of enemy return to their base...the group of enemies doesn't necessarily need to be dangerous per say for the party, but, might be enough of a challenge to force spellcaster to spent a few of their ressource, losing time, and creating a dilema inside the party mind where if they push inside the dungeon they are no longer doing so at with full ressources. But one of the patrol NPC had a keyset on them, which can be looted and the party now have access to unlock, but with the additional understanding that not only did they have to spend their ressources to fight this encounter, they also probably gave the element of surprise up, as now whoever is inside is definitely expecting trouble. But the group isn't prevented from adventuring forward because of a bunch of bad rolls on an obstacle. It could also lead to interesting encounter with shady characters... like some lore checks or investigation, or tracking certain individuals inside a city...asking around or spending a lot of time at the archive looking for some ancient tome to learn about the BBEG...and the librarian on a crit fail, could have been told by some third party that if anyone was to wander and request books about the subject that they should send words to them to alert them...proceed to enter some sleazy dodgy guy, who says he is a Fixer, helps people find what they need...whatever it is... On fail or crit fail , the dodgy character may introduce themselves as a independant party who may be intereted in making a deal with the party in exchange for a favor, they may be ready to give the torns paper from the books they were reading to the players...if the roll is a crit fail, the character may be part of an organization that cannot be bullied or persuaded to give up the information without something in exchange forcing the player to accept to help the organization with their problem in exchange for the lore information. WIth this example this could also introduce plot hooks for later, and maybe other character could join in, like another party character with previous dealing with the criminal underworld like a Rogue who has a thief or similar background might have an advantage dealing with such folk. Or maybe if one of the PC is highly connected like a member of the aristocracy or close or within the royal family or governing body and maybe that pc may be able to exchange a favor for another, a Get of of Jail free card in exchange for the information. I truly hate the idea of oh you failed your check so that's it folks...

makes me think of certain scenarios from the Sentinels Comics TTRPG. uses what's called the GYRO system Green, Yellow, Red, Out. Roll 3 dice, using attribute, power, and status, and most cases take the middle one. For the equivalent for skill checks in that game, there's a range of things that can happen. They can fail, succeed with a major twist, succeed with a minor twist, or succeed from what I recall. and for the most part IIRC, it's up to the player to decide. So there's the degrees of success with drawbacks... but it's also up to the player. So like if the DM would allow them to try again at the cost of some time, they could choose to take the fail, if they didn't want a major twist.

I GM Scion 2e (d10 pool, Success 8+) and they use the Fail Forward method there, if you fail, some things can happen like you encounter a new piece of information or a character that can help you, or maybe that failure made it so you didn't do what you intended to do but it helps with something else in the future. You can also be gifter momentum when you fail, which is what I do until I'm good enough at improvising stuff, momentum is an extra dice to a communal pool that anyone can add to their skill checks.

You have a great sense of timing. The comedic moments in your videos are perfectly executed.

"You pick the lock, but it squeals as metal grinds on metal. You hear goblin voices in the next room." In 13th age, missed attacks often do a small amount of damage. Say 1 point per die, no adders.

As one who rolls within the Wil Wheaton frame, having some measure of success within failure would be lovely....sometimes you gotta throw a dog a bone. lol

I like to mentally reframe most skill checks, for myself and my players, as a save against consequences rather than checking for permission. I try to encourage players to find solutions within the bounds of their characters' abilities or inclinations. If they stay well inbounds, no roll. Playing near or over that line or doing something obviously risky generates a roll with DC representing the degree of risk. The outright impossible doesn't even get roll, just consequences. I try to get across in these circumstances that having to roll is not a good thing. It helps cut down on "skillfishing" as well. The goblin door situation seems more like a design failure. Never introduce a door that you don't want players to get through. Such a chokepoint shouldn't be a surprise to your players without an obvious or previously provided bypass. Lockpicking is for shortcuts and easter eggs.

I like it best when systems with degrees of success build in an easy default benefit/detriment which allows newer GMs to ease into the idea. Strong success could grant a point of inspiration/hero point for use later, while a weak success might grant the GM a resource like Tension/dread/fear etc for them to use later. The struggle/success need not be paid off immediately.

I've done this before. It's a great way to keep things moving forward. I've learned to run games like this after a particularly bad D&D game. 4th was new back then, so we were playing 3rd. Anyways, after too many instances of us taking too long on one room, I've decided. Think of multiple ways for an event to play out. Such as how I would give groups of enemies a phobia and subtle hints of what the phobia is, maybe an enemy can be negotiated with. Or how I would write down how much damage a wall, door, or lock can take. In the latter instances, a nat 20 on perception would make cracks in the wall or loose door hinges more noticeable. Also, my players tend to favor negotiations in many instances. The negotiations idea I got from video games. More specifically, Shin Megami Tensei.

Door is a bad example, it only costs in game time to fail and there is no reason to not retry.

I just wanna say, when it comes to the door thing. Just me, if that happened I would progressively make it easier to succeed as the attempt compounds. Essentially, the more you try different things, the more likely you will stumble on something that works.

In 3.5 D&D if there is no immediate threat the players should be able to take 10 or 20. Meaning it takes time but it is as if they rolled a 10 or 20 on die and add appropriate skill to it. Still like the idea of failing forward.

Holy Crap! The mighty KZread Algorithm let me see Nonat1s today! I feared he'd quit recording! He still needs more stuff that's not just D20 Framework based on that shelf. Also, in vein with the video, I also often use the, "It was a hell of a good attack and damage roll, but the target is still at 1 HP? Nope, dead anyway. Moving on."

I don't do meaningless checks. If there is a consequence for failure Like enemies getting closer (or hear the Player), a trap activates etc. then I can fail the situation forward (new or changed situation after the attempt). But If nothing would happen, I just let them succeed (If success would be expected, like lockpicking by a trained rogue).

I know people rag on the dice but i actually do like the way the star wars ttrpg does dice rolls since there is success and failure but there is also advantage and threat that gives you a way to tailor things narratively you can fail but with advantage meaning you might not succeed your check but you still get help or vice versa

Very good advice, thank you ! I know it but struggle to apply it, so I'm gonna do my best !

Yep or they made a lot of noise in picking the lock so the Goblins were aware that they were there now 7:59

Failing forward is a great tool to keep progressing the story forward when PCs are failing an important check. I usually add some damage or a condition as a consequence of not succeeding with the check's DC.

I do this but will watch for the algorithm Here is my rule: 5 under the target you succeed, but something bad happens. Or a glancing hit that deals minimal damage.

The problem here is not that success and failure are black/white, its that a DM made the poor decision of having a dead end in their campaign. I thought it has always been taught that DM's shouldnt do that, never allow a check or whatever to stand in the way of progression. Its simply poor design. I dont even think I have seen this in any written modules

I do use this method, although not profligately. I pick my moments for this sort of thing carefully, making it more of a "special case" thing, which of course makes it more... um, special.

This reminds me of how Ironsworn works, and how new players assume “I failed, so I guess something bad should happen” and hurt themselves far worse than they should. For those who don’t know, a GM is optional, may be run solo, and not good for a large group. It has 3 levels of success, the middle (weak hit) grants partial success or success with drawback. But even with a failure (miss), one might have different options. Spread the negative results among the 4 resource tallies (Health, Spirit, Supply, and Momentum). Use moves like Face Danger or Secure an Advantage using your best stat to regain lost momentum. Finally the game is very “narrative first, mechanics second”. Most failures can just be making a bad situation worse instead of “Well, I’m now dead”. Always adjust the narrative to use your best stat or utilize your assets.

There are a lot of great ideas to borrow from other ttrpgs. Mixed Success from Powered by the Apocalypse systems (demonstrated here), Clocks from Forged in the Dark, and a whole host of powerful-bordering-obscene ideas from Vampire the Mascarade. Explore the space!

The failing forward mechanic has existed for a long time and is increasingly more and more used for good reason. I honestly think every rpg should use it, though I admit it can be a little tricky to pull off all the time without some unexpected consequences.

For me, there is no failure… only chances to get better.

The initial example brings fond memories of my first long campaign where my players failed to open... a non locked door... because they didn't realise it was a door. Fun memories

Failing forward is a tool I employ for well over a decade now, but in recent years, especially for my own system design, I moved even further away from all that competency driven play. And thus I have thrown the concept of success and failure completely out, just like I have thrown any kind of competency checks out.

The combat system I'm working on has degrees of success for all things including damage, as it's a glancing blows system.

When a door is close You can use a window or a torch

Especially in non-combat situations, I really like letting players aid each other retroactively, especially if their success is one number away. Any chance to push teamwork is worth a little fudging of the rules.

Doors, all doors in DnD, have a CR of 40. 😂

You my friend need to check PBTA games to gain more insight on this old way of rolling. If you like City of Mist you can also check The Wildsea, Dungeon World and even Heart thecity beneath

Goblin Slayer approves of the results of that door incident.

Side point :Don't lock the story behind a check the players can hard fail.

Nobody thought to kick in the flimsy "wooden" door?

There are tons of roleplaying games out there that don't use binary success/fail anyway, and I'd argue D&D and Pathfinder are lagging behind in their mechanics for not having that. I feel like asking the GM to put it in is one possible solution, but you could also consider other games to tell similar stories?

This guy explaining why the p2e crit fail crit success system is based

I like that. Will implement.

13:37 Video. My inner CS kiddo is very happy with this

Love the spectrum open ended🎉

I made sure the success spectrum was baked into my own system to encourage not thinking of binary success or failure.

Personally I would break through the wooden 🚪, I'm guessing D&D 3.5 didn't have hardness ratings.

Those fingernails are confusing... because suddenly colored dots move through the picture ^^

Interesting shirt.

Task failed successfully

Lol, if you know they’re going to get through the door, your problem was you had them make a check in the first place, the simpler solution essay after a while you succeeded on picking the lock or after a while you break the door down. If the damn door opening was so essential to your story or plot, they don’t have them rolled dice two succeeded or not in the first place because when they fail when you allow it to happen anyway you effectively made it pointless die, rolling, and time wasting. The owners of this problem is not mechanics. It is your dungeon, mastering skills in the first place, the first rule of being a dungeon master is to not have them roll dice when not required, and in the example you gave having them roll dice was unnecessary because no matter what the outcome was you were going to allow the door to be opened Therefore don’t waste time rolling the dice in the first place simply adjudicate that after a set amount of time and whatever else you want to occur, the door is opened, regardless of how they do so picking the lock breaking it down something else. All you have demonstrated when you have them roll, dice, and fail an an attempt, and they know it, is that regardless of what happened? You’re going to allow them to succeed, you’ve lost the point of what the game is in the first place, it is not a storytelling event, at least not solely. It is an event based on a framework of rules and mechanics that determines successor failure and when you ignore that framework because you have poorly, decided to have them roll a check then you have effectively negated. They are agency in the situation and have proven that it doesn’t matter what they do you are going to do what is best for you and the story not what they have done or have failed to do, failure in a game is OK, they would have thought of another way through the door, etc. They’re being no airflow in the cave, the damn goblins had already suffocated because they shut the door and died because the got stare you simply lying the door on fire would not have been required

Failed to kick in a door? You injured your leg and take a -5 foot circumstance penalty to land speed.

Dem nails though.

Gotta love nonat. A red and black room and a red turtle neck sweater.. all he's missing is a white cat. #bondvillian

This thumbnail is unfair to BG3. They also „fail forward” if by „fail forward” you mean „now you have to kill every enemy is sight”🤗

Pls straighten out the wall tiles behind you. Shouldn't see any gaps. Thank you.

How bold of you to assume that I have friends lol :-)

Or you could just not have progression locked behind a skill check

youre literally just talking about pathfinder second editions crit fail/fail/success/crit success system spells have lesser effects on failure. like almost all of them. and the company doesnt send the pinkertons just play a better game Also, the example you gave at the beginning is an example of poor GMing. Youre trying to get into a room of goblins, you all fail to pick the lock. Unfortunately, that means youve now caught their attention and they barge through the door, surprise round. Failing forward isnt something you should be perfect at day one GMing, but its part of the basic set of skills. You should be "yes and" not "No but" Meaning you should be failing the skill check, it was a failure. But there are consequences to the failure that push the plot forward, not ignoring the failure and placing it somewhere else. Consistency is very important and allows a lot more emergent storytelling.

I dislike the mentality that leads to the idea of failing forward. While I understand the INTENT of what you are saying, I think you are failing to understand that failure IS a part of the game. f they cant get through the door, then they might just have to get out, take a long rest, and try again tomorrow....or maybe allow Inspiration to reroll. Or they can try some other options not mentioned, but this "fail forward" mentality is just another attempt to allowing the players to always suceed and I would rather that when they fail, they fail. It depends I suppose on whether you think the game is more narrative story than game....I dont think DnD is, though other types are lke say World of Darkness. And you are basing this concept on the Pathfinder model of levels of success, something Dnd doesnt really have.

Your nails look great

Turtle necks should not be a thing in this day and age. Please stop.

Why are you lying about checks? Your own initial example is using a check that can be retried as many times as you want, so y’all could’ve just taken 20 and it would have taken a few minutes in game rather than three hours and wouldn’t murder any goblins. What a stupid and unnecessary way to present your custom house rule.

Sounds like fudging to me.