D&D 5E Roleplaying in D&D 5E: It’s How You Play the Game

[HammerMan]

No. I do not delete any text from RAW. For there to be a check, something must be at stake and there must be uncertainty (meaning a possibility of failing and a possibility of success )

If nothing is at stake, don't roll. It's either impossible or they succeed with time.

in your mind is there never a time when there is nothing at stake AND something can be uncertain? or is it that you have a way OTHER THEN THE ROLL to solve for uncertainty in cases with minor or no stakes?

I have a friend who is a trained magician (not just slide of hand but that's part of it) and he was doing card tricks when me and his older brother were in HS. I have another friend that fancies himself a poker expert (he does win some good money at the casino, but not enough to do much). Me and most of my buddies know how to play poker... those two though only want to play for money...ever.

on more then one occasion as a 'game night' we have tried poker (normally it's board games) but only if those two are not there... because game night to us is things of no consequences so no real stakes. We split some chips up among us, if someone runs out we just redistribute the chips (sometimes we remember to not use all of them) we don't keep track we just play and joke...

I relate the above because sometimes you use skill and luck for things that are uncertain in real life with little to no stakes.

From a (long ago) game We had a player who wanted to try to sneak past a bunch of people... he knew that 2 off duity guards were among them, and so there WAS a chance he would be spotted... there was no NEED to sneak, we could just decide yes/no or we can roll... I wonder though, in your mind if this was 5e how would you handle an uncertain moment with no stakes?

 

[heretic888]

Here's two rule compared, that illustrate the difference:

From 4e D&D, the 16th level Sorcerer utility Dominant Winds: As a move action, enable yourself or one ally in a close burst 5 to fly a number of squares equal to your Dexterity modifier as a free action.​

​

From Classic Traveller: When you activate your ships jump drive, make a dice throw to avoid mis-jump, applying <specified modifiers> and requiring <specified target number> for success.​

Neither rule is especially fancy; both pertain to movement. The Classic Traveller one is, at its core, structurally the same as an AW or DW player-side move - an action performed by a character in the fiction requires a check. And the consequences of the check feed back into the fiction: if it succeeds, the ship enters jump space and travels to its intended destination; if it fails, then the ship ends up jumping to some random destination determined by the referee (canonically via a random dice roll, though I can report from experience that it doesn't hurt the game to do it a bit differently - I rolled the specified number of dice to determine the mis-jump distance, but placed a world at that point, drawn from my handy file of pre-generated worlds, rather than having the PCs just die in empty space unable to refuel their vessel).

The 4e D&D rule is specified almost entirely in "cube" terms: the trigger and the flight time are both specified in terms of an action economy, the targetting is specified by reference to squares on a map (ie cues), the distance flown is specified by reference to a cue (ie a Dexterity bonus), and the movement type itself (flight) involves a whole lot of cue-ish things.

In order to get functionally non-optional leftward out of the 4e move, the GM has to take deliberate steps in establishing the situation, such as terrain that requires or ate least invites flying to circumvent it; and to get rightward arrows you need stuff like winds that blow flying creatures around, or low ceilings that flying creatures might bang their heads on, and the like. (Again, @AbdulAlhazred has posted about this upthread.)

To somewhat echo @Ovinomancer, none of this is to assert that Classic Traveller is a better RPG than 4e D&D. In fact I think it is easier to create compelling fiction in 4e D&D than it is in Classic Traveller! But there is no doubt that to do that in 4e requires those additional techniques of very deliberate situation design - for instance, the first ever combat I ran in 4e was adapted from the B/X module Night's Dark Terror and involved the PCs on a boat on the river, with a chain across the river to stop their boat, enemies swimming to them and coming to them on a raft, a sandbar to move to from the boats, an enemy slinger on one bank, etc. Beside the colourful nature of it, all that stuff helped to ensure that both leftward and rightward arrows would be generated, and thus that the fiction would seem "real" in Baker's sense - again, that is not real in the sense of "realistic" but real in the sense of a feeling of "heft" and independence of will and artifice.

It's obvious, given the amount of criticism that was directed towards 4e over the 4 or so years of its active lifespan, that many RPGers did not succeed in generating those arrows in their 4e play: for them it was just a miniature skirmish game with boxes to boxes. Whereas while I think it is quite easy for Classic Traveller to generate boring fiction - for instance, you don't have to read very hard between the lines to see that this was a concern informing a lot of the Traveller commentary in early 80s White Dwarf - I don't think many players of it would fail to generate arrows to the left or the right. At least its resolution systems make that easy by default.

I have in the past referred to this as "playing 3E using 4E rules". I suspect its how a large number (perhaps even a majority?) of people experienced 4E, especially those that didn't bother to read the advice about encounter design and terrain features in the DMGs.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No. For post upon post you focused on no progress. So in case 1 and 2, I assumed a failed check on that easy first part of the climb, and narrated the meaningful consequence that I had in mind.

What first easy part of the climb. I rereview everything I provided to you and there's nothing about an easy first part. There was a DC 15 cliff, and then a cliff with goals but nothing established about the cliff. I also don't see where you clarified the cliff description to establish this. Further, in case 1 and 2, there's NO MENTION of the cliff difficulties at all - the results are only talking about the fiction you've created to thwart the goals.

It's this kind of goalpost moving that makes discussion with you on these things a challenge. If I shoot for goal one, you move the goalposts. When I adjust and shoot for the new goal, you move them back. When I cover that one, you go back to position 1 and act like it was never challenged to begin with.

No. The roll in case 1 and 2 failed. In 3, I mixed things up a bit to show how I might telegraph consequences to player, in advance of any roll. Additionally, these consequences were also always present (it's the same cliffs, you said.) The first failures happened to feed into consequences that were immediately meaningful.

Why are you changing parameters? Do you think an unstated parameter change is illuminating to a problem?

No. I do not delete any text from RAW. For there to be a check, something must be at stake and there must be uncertainty (meaning a possibility of failing and a possibility of success )

Please find the quote in RAW that has these requirements. We've already cleared up that "at stake" (by which I assume you mean "meaningful consequence") can simply be no progress towards your goal. This isn't a stake, it's maintaining status quo. You keep trying to spin maintaining status quo as something more by adding additional requirements, but those requirements don't actually align with "no progress" they align with "no progress AND something else."

Further, uncertainty is extremely vague in 5e -- one of the paths recommended is to assume uncertainty for any declared action (see Rolling with It, on page 236 of the DMG). Given that all of the sections you're quoted must also be aligned with this suggestion for approach to play, you have quite a bit to reconcile that you're mostly handwaving away.

If nothing is at stake, don't roll. It's either impossible or they succeed with time.

Actually, this is case limited in a way you're eliding. The "succeed with time" is only implemented if the actions declared by the PC are such that they will keep trying, or if the PCs declare a retry after a failed check. They aren't intended to apply at all times. For an example of this, if a PC search a given corridor for a secret door, you can't assume that they will continue to search repeatedly unless they state this. So, you give a check, it fails, and you provide "no progress" -- ie, status quo, no change in fiction. If the PCs do not decide to search again (and this can easily be the case if the check result was high, but the DC was higher, with the assumption by players that DCs wouldn't be that high) then they move on. You don't, at all times, assume that the PCs are putting in the time. And the section in the DMG discussing this makes this point clear.

No. Approach matters. Player is not calling for a check. Player is saying what they do and I am deciding what bearing that has.

Every one of the examples has the same action declaration and approach to the same obstacle. You are not calling for a check based on the approach of the action declaration or the nature of the obstacle -- you made this 100% clear when I presented the earlier example where the DC was already decided and the check already called for. You said, at that point, that I could not assume a check is called for without a goal. I provided those, and you decided to call for checks for each without any further detail on the action attempt (which was the same) or evaluation of the obstacle. The latter is clear in the way you decided to describe the obstacle differently in each response.

No. There cab be multiple consequences in play, and these can be prioritised. In 1., the biggest deal is the ritual completes and Demogorgon is summoned. Player could still want to climb, at which point I remind them of the narration (I explicated it in 3, but it was always the case and always telegraphed - same cliffs, right?)

Where did Demogorgon come from? Where did summoning come from? These were not components of the example I gave you. I mean, whatever, but it's part and parcel of the difficulty that you keep adding things to questions or situations to make your points and these often have the effect of altering the situation into a different one. Here, no big deal outside of a convenient example.

But lets assume your introduction of additional fiction was always present. In example one, the result of failing to climb the cliff wasn't to be caught at the overhang and asked what to do, it was failure to achieve the goal. In the second, the result of failure wasn't to be caught at the overhang, but that no progress was made and suddenly you notice a rope and guide. The goal is still obtainable. In the third, the result of failure is no progress at the obstacle and an attempt to retry! This, according to your above, should have just been granted because there's no actual consequence to failure. You haven't changed the situation, because you've now asserted that the overhang is present in all three cases!

So, to recap, failure in 1 is failure at goal. Failure in 2 is addition of new fiction and the ability to retry, goal is still obtainable. Failure in three is the ability to retry, goal is still obtainable. I see nothing that isn't arbitrary here.

No. You seem to assume I have ignored 5e RAW. I have not. Everything said about the cliffs is true in all three cases, per your specification. Nothing is said about gear, so it's a free climb. If you wanted character to have gear you should have established that.

Exactly. This is all that goes into resolution. However, when I presented a similar case where this wasn't established but skipped to the part where it's being operationalized in the mechanics with a DC and no dis/advantage, you called foul and insisted that this could not be established at all without an overall goal. When I presented the goals, you dealt only at that layer, and didn't once step into establishing a DC, whether or not dis/advantage applied, or what the inputs of climbing ability means.

To be 100% clear, I'm not saying you're doing a bad thing here -- this is a fine way to approach play. I'm saying that it's not supported by the 5e rules in the way you're claiming! Further, you're now arguing that you're 100% 5e RAW after starting this sideboard with the statement you have a radical reinterpretation of 5e! Which cake are you trying to keep and eat?

Asked and answered.

I missed it, then. What was the answer? You can just link it, or tell me what page it's on. I've scrolled back, and I don't see any recent answers from you (on the last few pages) that actually address this.

 

[Ovinomancer]

in your mind is there never a time when there is nothing at stake AND something can be uncertain? or is it that you have a way OTHER THEN THE ROLL to solve for uncertainty in cases with minor or no stakes?

I have a friend who is a trained magician (not just slide of hand but that's part of it) and he was doing card tricks when me and his older brother were in HS. I have another friend that fancies himself a poker expert (he does win some good money at the casino, but not enough to do much). Me and most of my buddies know how to play poker... those two though only want to play for money...ever.

on more then one occasion as a 'game night' we have tried poker (normally it's board games) but only if those two are not there... because game night to us is things of no consequences so no real stakes. We split some chips up among us, if someone runs out we just redistribute the chips (sometimes we remember to not use all of them) we don't keep track we just play and joke...

I relate the above because sometimes you use skill and luck for things that are uncertain in real life with little to no stakes.

From a (long ago) game We had a player who wanted to try to sneak past a bunch of people... he knew that 2 off duity guards were among them, and so there WAS a chance he would be spotted... there was no NEED to sneak, we could just decide yes/no or we can roll... I wonder though, in your mind if this was 5e how would you handle an uncertain moment with no stakes?

This is a good point of discussion. First, when you do play poker with absent your money stakes friends, you are still playing for stakes, they're just the lower stakes of bragging rights among friends and the like. The difference here isn't stakes vs no stakes, but rather what stakes are valued. You enjoy and are challenged sufficiently by very low stakes games, where it's just "hah, I bluffed you guys this hand!" level of play while your other two friend do not find these stakes sufficient for enjoyment. You have different thresholds of what's important in the game of poker and what should be at stake when playing. And this moves into RPGs seemlessly, in that different tables or even players at the same table have different things they value and are willing to stake in play. 5e works because the structure of the game establishes how contests are framed and resolved and also limiting what's can be at stake (ownership of your home is never at stake, for instance, but the "life" of your PC may be). Problems arise quite often at RPG tables when stakes become mismatched -- perhaps you think that only some hp are at stake when you investigate a trap, but the GM's idea of the trap is that it is instantly lethal so the actual stakes are your PC's life! If you fail and your PC dies instantly, then some bad feelings and personal conflict can definitely arise.

But this goes to the small things as well. If the GM is running their game such that only high level things are actually at stake because they're targeting your PC's goals for consequences, then you may not feel like ending the world is a suitable consequence to hang on a STR (athletics) check to climb a cliff.

Making sure that everyone is in the same space in understanding what's going to be at stake in play, and what's at stake in a given moment of play, is an important consideration for any game, RPGs notwithstanding.

 

[clearstream]

in your mind is there never a time when there is nothing at stake AND something can be uncertain? or is it that you have a way OTHER THEN THE ROLL to solve for uncertainty in cases with minor or no stakes?

Take a look at the rule on multiple checks in the DMG. For there to be a check, we have really three conditions (from RAW).

1. Player does something in fiction (determines what they think, act or say) that in our sole discretion ("ask yourself") engages a game mechanic
2. There is something at stake: meaningful consequences
3. It must be possible to succeed and fail

Per the multiple checks rule, if it is possible and there are no consequences for failing, they succeed in ten times the time (remember that you are free to vary that.)

That means your second intuition is the right
one. There is a way other than roll to resolve uncertainty in cases with no meaningful stakes: time.

But say a player insists on rolling to do it faster? They've asked to put time at stake, but here they have erred or are meta-gaming. They tell you what they think, do or say, and you say how that is resolved. If time doesn't really matter, just say yes.

From a (long ago) game We had a player who wanted to try to sneak past a bunch of people... he knew that 2 off duity guards were among them, and so there WAS a chance he would be spotted... there was no NEED to sneak, we could just decide yes/no or we can roll... I wonder though, in your mind if this was 5e how would you handle an uncertain moment with no stakes?

I can't tell from this example if there are really no stakes. What happens if the guards see them? Why is that detail important enough to call out?

 

[clearstream]

What first easy part of the climb. I rereview everything I provided to you and there's nothing about an easy first part.

Who's DM here? Me or you? I assumed from the focus of your queries that what was at issue were the meaningful consequences. If you want me to go back up the stream and take on the part of player too, you have to tell me.

There was a DC 15 cliff, and then a cliff with goals but nothing established about the cliff. I also don't see where you clarified the cliff description to establish this. Further, in case 1 and 2, there's NO MENTION of the cliff difficulties at all - the results are only talking about the fiction you've created to thwart the goals.

You said it's all the same cliffs. Take a look at the difficulty keywords I used. Where is DC 15 mentioned in the cases? Look, if your goal is to see if I can find meaning in cases you have artificially constructed to be meaningless, maybe the most accurate thing to say is that you've made horrible errors before I even got involved. Go back and sort those out.

It's this kind of goalpost moving that makes discussion with you on these things a challenge. If I shoot for goal one, you move the goalposts. When I adjust and shoot for the new goal, you move them back. When I cover that one, you go back to position 1 and act like it was never challenged to begin with.

Huh? You nitpick every detail and do your darndest to set up traps. What am I supposed to say? Oh yes, thank you. It turns out that I have conceded that point that I never conceded. This is a live thread, not prepared and checked through academic argument.

Please find the quote in RAW that has these requirements. We've already cleared up that "at stake" (by which I assume you mean "meaningful consequence") can simply be no progress towards your goal. This isn't a stake, it's maintaining status quo. You keep trying to spin maintaining status quo as something more by adding additional requirements, but those requirements don't actually align with "no progress" they align with "no progress AND something else."

It is not, but I will confirm that there is likely no way on Heaven or Earth that you will understand that no progress is a nothingburger unless there are meaningful consequences. Don't say roll unless there are meaningful consequences.

Further, uncertainty is extremely vague in 5e -- one of the paths recommended is to assume uncertainty for any declared action (see Rolling with It, on page 236 of the DMG). Given that all of the sections you're quoted must also be aligned with this suggestion for approach to play, you have quite a bit to reconcile that you're mostly handwaving away.

Sure. "You must be ready to improvise and react to a changing situation." I prefer the middle path, but another option is ignoring the dice. Just narrate.

Every one of the examples has the same action declaration and approach to the same obstacle. You are not calling for a check based on the approach of the action declaration or the nature of the obstacle -- you made this 100% clear when I presented the earlier example where the DC was already decided and the check already called for. You said, at that point, that I could not assume a check is called for without a goal. I provided those, and you decided to call for checks for each without any further detail on the action attempt (which was the same) or evaluation of the obstacle. The latter is clear in the way you decided to describe the obstacle differently in each response.

Again, I took these to be satisfactorily settled and we were only interrogating consequences. Someone mentioned moving goalposts...

Where did Demogorgon come from? Where did summoning come from? These were not components of the example I gave you. I mean, whatever, but it's part and parcel of the difficulty that you keep adding things to questions or situations to make your points and these often have the effect of altering the situation into a different one. Here, no big deal outside of a convenient example.

You said there was a world ending ritual. Summoning Demogorgon fit the bill.

But lets assume your introduction of additional fiction was always present. In example one, the result of failing to climb the cliff wasn't to be caught at the overhang and asked what to do, it was failure to achieve the goal. In the second, the result of failure wasn't to be caught at the overhang, but that no progress was made and suddenly you notice a rope and guide. The goal is still obtainable. In the third, the result of failure is no progress at the obstacle and an attempt to retry! This, according to your above, should have just been granted because there's no actual consequence to failure. You haven't changed the situation, because you've now asserted that the overhang is present in all three cases!

Seeing as the first two cases failed the easy check, the overhang was moot. And what about that trail to the east?

One option the player had was to use that rope. That would have been risky! Instead they tugged and dislodged it.

So, to recap, failure in 1 is failure at goal. Failure in 2 is addition of new fiction and the ability to retry, goal is still obtainable. Failure in three is the ability to retry, goal is still obtainable. I see nothing that isn't arbitrary here.

1. Failure at roll and let's mention the elephant in the room: Demogorgon's here. Player can still try and climb.

2. Failure at roll and let's mention the time pressure of the race for treasure. Player can retry but does something else instead. Still not clear why they ignored that trail.

3. Identical to others but no world-ending ritual or treasure chase.

Exactly. This is all that goes into resolution. However, when I presented a similar case where this wasn't established but skipped to the part where it's being operationalized in the mechanics with a DC and no dis/advantage, you called foul and insisted that this could not be established at all without an overall goal. When I presented the goals, you dealt only at that layer, and didn't once step into establishing a DC, whether or not dis/advantage applied, or what the inputs of climbing ability means.

That's on you. If those were at issue you needed to say.

 

[HammerMan]

Take a look at the rule on multiple checks in the DMG. For there to be a check, we have really three conditions (from RAW).

1. Player does something in fiction (determines what they think, act or say) that in our sole discretion ("ask yourself") engages a game mechanic
2. There is something at stake: meaningful consequences
3. It must be possible to succeed and fail

Per the multiple checks rule, if it is possible and there are no consequences for failing, they succeed in ten times the time (remember that you are free to vary that.)

So if I could but I also could not (in quastion) but i have no stakes you take it I always do make it.... intresting.

I can't tell from this example if there are really no stakes. What happens if the guards see them? Why is that detail important enough to call out?

in the case of the example I gave he flubbed the role the guard noticed and waved hi (we knew him) and nothing else mattered... he just knew that meant that his stealth wasn't as good as he thought... no stakes no consequences just wondering "Can I"
TBH I felt then and feel now it was a waste of time and energy to roll.

 

[clearstream]

in the case of the example I gave he flubbed the role the guard noticed and waved hi (we knew him) and nothing else mattered... he just knew that meant that his stealth wasn't as good as he thought... no stakes no consequences just wondering "Can I"
TBH I felt then and feel now it was a waste of time and energy to roll.

Honestly, I've done that too, particularly with climb checks (ironically enough.) Our intuition is often to feel that if there is a chance of failure, we ought to roll. Even if the result doesn't feed back into our fiction in a meaningful, consequential way. It's easy to forget we can just say yes and move on.

The option Ignoring the Dice in the DMG reminds us that we can do exactly that. One way to run your situation would have been to turn it back on the player: "Do you want to let that friendly guard see you?" To me that question is more interesting than rolling the dice.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Who's DM here? Me or you? I assumed from the focus of your queries that what was at issue were the meaningful consequences. If you want me to go back up the stream and take on the part of player too, you have to tell me.

Strange non sequitur. You respond to my questioning why there's an added easy part to the cliff when it wasn't established as such and really only features in the one response you had to ask if you also need to take on the part of the player? Did you misunderstand the point of the statement -- you added some easy part to response 3, it's not present in your 1 or 2 or in the initial framing. You then claimed all of the responses feature an easy part. I'm asking 1) where it came from that was needed or necessary to answer the questions and 2) what on Earth is it doing in your 1 or 2 responses where it's not even present?

You said it's all the same cliffs. Take a look at the difficulty keywords I used. Where is DC 15 mentioned in the cases? Look, if your goal is to see if I can find meaning in cases you have artificially constructed to be meaningless, maybe the most accurate thing to say is that you've made horrible errors before I even got involved. Go back and sort those out.

DC 15 is a moderate challenge, not easy. Still unclear where your framing originated or if it's at all relevant to two of your answers.

Huh? You nitpick every detail and do your darndest to set up traps. What am I supposed to say? Oh yes, thank you. It turns out that I have conceded that point that I never conceded. This is a live thread, not prepared and checked through academic argument.

You... need to move the goalposts because your thinking on the matter isn't rigorous enough to avoid being tripped up because other people ask questions of them? There are no "traps" here. I'm genuinely questioning your approach as you voluntarily put them forward. You are making strong claims and I'm examining the reasoning and evidence you provide. When I point something out, you move the posts.

We started this latest by examining how the clouds and cubes model works to describe play. You insisted that hitpoint loss in 5e mandates an arrow from cubes to clouds, or from mechanics to fiction. This was questioned, and it was pointed out that no such mandate appears and that there's no directed fiction that results -- we can describe hp loss without death in the same way we can describe the attack missing! You then pivoted to saying that the basic play loop step of the GM narrates the outcome forces the arrow, while not addressing the problem with ambiguity in that fiction (the description of misses and hp loss). To this point, you moved from combat and hitpoint loss (because there's weak correlation to where you needed to go) to ability check results and now leveraged the line from the DMG that you shouldn't have a check (and no check means no problem) unless it has a "meaningful consequence" to failure. This, you assert, has to drive the cubes to clouds arrow because a meaningful consequence means a changes to the fiction. So, to answer the point that hp loss due to an attack doesn't drive an arrow back into the fiction (meaning it requires no change in fiction and, in fact, any such change in fiction will be entirely arbitrary) we swapped from combat rules to general rules, then from combat to ability check, and then to requiring and insisting that the only way to call an ability check is to first have a meaningful consequence to failure. When this is met with the clear evidence that "no progress" is a called for an expected result, you equated the two and said no progress has to be a meaningful consequence. And then you blame me for setting you traps because I've questioned this?

It is not, but I will confirm that there is likely no way on Heaven or Earth that you will understand that no progress is a nothingburger unless there are meaningful consequences. Don't say roll unless there are meaningful consequences.

Well, you're absolutely wrong, again, because you've built me into some strawman of beliefs because I'm challenging your statements. My preferred method of play is to never use no progress as a result of failure because I feel it really doesn't add much at all to play. However, my preference for this doesn't lead me to say that it's required by the rules rather than just how I prefer to play. Nor does it convince me that I'm not enforcing this in play via my own discipline and effort rather than just following the rules. The rules do not create this mode of play, I have to. I'm not going to credit the rules for my hard work. And, in that hard work, I absolutely recognize that the rules do not generate leftward arrows in many cases where I would think they should exist, so I add them. I do this primarily by structuring the conflicts and making sure stakes are clear and evidence and on the table and also having clear principles of play as to how I will adjudicate things so that players understand the risks and rewards of their play. Part of this is using 10/15/20 for DCs nearly exclusively (extraordinary situations can occur, but will always be notable as extraordinary to all at the table), with the preference for 15 overwhelmingly. I don't care what PC bonuses are -- it's up to the PCs to align their action declarations to what their good at, not mine to make challenges fit what their good at.

So, yeah, my arguments here aren't based on defending my preferences. If anything, I'm challenging your formulation of my own preferences. I don't find your arguments to be coherent or well supported for establishing my preferred method of play as either intentional under the rules or required by them or even as the best interpretation of the rules. Play can easily exist outside my preferences that adhere to the rules as well and generate fun play for the participants.

Sure. "You must be ready to improvise and react to a changing situation." I prefer the middle path, but another option is ignoring the dice. Just narrate.

Again, I took these to be satisfactorily settled and we were only interrogating consequences. Someone mentioned moving goalposts...

This isn't a move of the goalposts, and whether or not you assumed you were safe in an unstated position it's fair to question it. You're again relying on an interpretation of vague wording to insist that your interpretation of vague wording is the obvious and correct one. "Meaningful consequences" MUST include no progress as meaningful or else it's in direct conflict with the PHB rules of play. You're doing a dance where "no progress" is only allowable if and only if it counts as "meaningful consequences" where the definition of meaningful consequences is unclear and mutable. This isn't stated, however, and it's only inferable when you start with an assumption about what meaningful consequences means in D&D play. Further, this interpretations requires us to read a rule in the PHB and know that we need to hold that rule as conditional without any such indication in the rule as presented that it is so.

Honestly, all of the arguments that my preferred approach to play is actually exactly how the books tell you to play requires so many of these assumptions that a rule stated in one place must be understood to be conditional upon a rule stated in a completely different place and when neither of these rules expressly reference each other or explain how said conditionality works. It's an argument from assumption that has no support other than the bald statement that it's "obvious" or the "most logical." It's neither. To be clear, you're not the poster that claims it's most logical.

You said there was a world ending ritual. Summoning Demogorgon fit the bill.


Seeing as the first two cases failed the easy check, the overhang was moot. And what about that trail to the east?

One option the player had was to use that rope. That would have been risky! Instead they tugged and dislodged it.


1. Failure at roll and let's mention the elephant in the room: Demogorgon's here. Player can still try and climb.

2. Failure at roll and let's mention the time pressure of the race for treasure. Player can retry but does something else instead. Still not clear why they ignored that trail.

3. Identical to others but no world-ending ritual or treasure chase.

None of these deal with the points I was making. The task is to climb the same cliff. The goals differed. You changed the first goal from stopping a ritual to end the world to one summoning Demogorgon, and so your result that Demogorgon is here is a softening of the situation because, as you seem to think, you can still deal with Demogorgon. I fail to climb a cliff and the result is that I have to fight Demogorgon in a presumably winnable fight. This doesn't engage any fiction regarding the cliff or the PC, just the goal. But the resolution for the check ONLY engages the fiction regarding the cliff and the PC's ability to climb. You've set up two different resolution loops and are saying that one directs the other, and it does, but by dint of not addressing anything about the other in resolution. My goal is to stop the ritual. To do that I want to climb the cliff because the ritual is at the top of it. We resolve the attempt to climb the cliff, but the outcome of that has nothing to do with the attempt to climb the cliff (ie, I'm not falling, or taking damage due to a slip, or losing/damaging equipment in a climbing mishap). Instead, the resolution of my attempt to climb the cliff is going back to the fiction of my goal -- I now fail to stop the ritual. But nothing about the ritual or anything about my PC regarding the ritual went into what resolves the question of "can my PC stop the ritual." These are not actually associated in that the resolution/fiction loops aren't referenced to each other. This is actually a common complaint about story now games because the way these things are related and tested is not often appreciated in those rulesets because they're treated like how D&D does -- where goal and task are independent of each other.

When we look at 2, you added additional fiction to create your consequence -- you added a rival that was not present and based the entirety of the resolution on this. My intent wasn't to have a rival, but to present this example as something the PC wants but where it's truth value was uncertain (rumors). You changed this intent with your addition, and created a resolution that has the same form as your 1 -- the inputs to the resolution of the climb isn't related to the outputs of that resolution. The difference though is that the goal is not lost and a retry is possible. Oddly, though, you presented a different path on a failure.

And then we have the third response, where the result of the failure is just no progress. The goal isn't threatened, there's no actual consequence other than you don't finish the climb yet, and a retry is asked for. This result doesn't even adhere to the claims your making -- the result could have been obtained in every one of the cases because it's entirely independent of the goal.

That's on you. If those were at issue you needed to say.

You said you could not adjudicate actions without a goal. I provided a goal. You provided adjudication. I'm pointing out that your adjudication isn't following the steps you've been preaching and that the ultimate point of the discussion -- showing leftward arrows resulting from cubes resolutions -- has been damaged because the rightward arrows to the cubes are not aligned with the goal statements you've insisted must be present. My having a goal to stop the world ending ritual doesn't call a rightward arrow to cubes -- this isn't being resolved. Instead, it's my declaration to climb the cliff that triggers the rightward arrow, and the cubes resolution of this arrow only cares about the fictional inputs that come from the cliff and my PC's ability to climb it. The output from the cubes should be a leftward arrow, but the rules say that this arrow can be a null -- no progress. Your assertion is that this isn't kosher, that there has to be a meaningful consequence. So, here we are with the goals you insisted must be present to provide that meaningful consequence. And so, the cubes output gets hijacked by this other fiction that wasn't tested to provide a failure state to the goal fiction. Then you say that if I wanted the arrows and clouds and cubes to be important, is was my responsibility to say so -- in a discussion where those are the topic of discussion!

 

[clearstream]

Strange non sequitur. You respond to my questioning why there's an added easy part to the cliff when it wasn't established as such and really only features in the one response you had to ask if you also need to take on the part of the player? Did you misunderstand the point of the statement -- you added some easy part to response 3, it's not present in your 1 or 2 or in the initial framing. You then claimed all of the responses feature an easy part. I'm asking 1) where it came from that was needed or necessary to answer the questions and 2) what on Earth is it doing in your 1 or 2 responses where it's not even present?

Did you or did you not specify that the cliffs were always the same? I wrote their physical description once, because you said they were the same cliffs. Why would I need to write it three times in that case?

DC 15 is a moderate challenge, not easy. Still unclear where your framing originated or if it's at all relevant to two of your answers.

Maybe I overlooked the DC in the post I was directly responding to. Or do you mean that I was supposed to guess that you wanted a previous posts DCs to apply? I did not guess that.

We started this latest by examining how the clouds and cubes model works to describe play. You insisted that hitpoint loss in 5e mandates an arrow from cubes to clouds, or from mechanics to fiction.

The basic pattern mandates it. Reread PHB 6. Reread my post laying out 5e*.

This was questioned, and it was pointed out that no such mandate appears and that there's no directed fiction that results -- we can describe hp loss without death in the same way we can describe the attack missing!

The basic pattern mandates it. Reread PHB 6. Reread my post laying out 5e*.

(Henceforth I will cease trying to explain my meaning in different words, as you seem to regard that as moving the goalposts.)

You then pivoted to saying that the basic play loop step of the GM narrates the outcome forces the arrow, while not addressing the problem with ambiguity in that fiction (the description of misses and hp loss).

The basic pattern mandates it. Reread PHB 6. Reread my post laying out 5e*.

Note: Where there is ambiguity, it is of your own devising. Narrate meaningfully. Use your power to author fiction that matters.

To this point, you moved from combat and hitpoint loss (because there's weak correlation to where you needed to go) to ability check results and now leveraged the line from the DMG that you shouldn't have a check (and no check means no problem) unless it has a "meaningful consequence" to failure.

I moved, because you failed to understand. As demonstrated by your self-imposed "weak" correlation here.

This, you assert, has to drive the cubes to clouds arrow because a meaningful consequence means a changes to the fiction. So, to answer the point that hp loss due to an attack doesn't drive an arrow back into the fiction (meaning it requires no change in fiction and, in fact, any such change in fiction will be entirely arbitrary) we swapped from combat rules to general rules, then from combat to ability check, and then to requiring and insisting that the only way to call an ability check is to first have a meaningful consequence to failure. When this is met with the clear evidence that "no progress" is a called for an expected result, you equated the two and said no progress has to be a meaningful consequence. And then you blame me for setting you traps because I've questioned this?

I hoped to draw your attention to the centrality of narrating meaningful consequences. Now I see that you failed to make the connection.

Well, you're absolutely wrong, again, because you've built me into some strawman of beliefs because I'm challenging your statements. My preferred method of play is to never use no progress as a result of failure because I feel it really doesn't add much at all to play. However, my preference for this doesn't lead me to say that it's required by the rules rather than just how I prefer to play.

If it adds nothing, then it [not rolling] is required by rules (that you choose to ignore or confuse yourself about.)

Nor does it convince me that I'm not enforcing this in play via my own discipline and effort rather than just following the rules. The rules do not create this mode of play, I have to. I'm not going to credit the rules for my hard work.

5e puts the work on DM. As written, the 5e rules create no mode of play without DM. Not 5e*, not any.

And, in that hard work, I absolutely recognize that the rules do not generate leftward arrows in many cases where I would think they should exist, so I add them.

Great. You're starting to play 5e*. [Just "pretend" that the rules support you.]

I do this primarily by structuring the conflicts and making sure stakes are clear and evidence and on the table and also having clear principles of play as to how I will adjudicate things so that players understand the risks and rewards of their play. Part of this is using 10/15/20 for DCs nearly exclusively (extraordinary situations can occur, but will always be notable as extraordinary to all at the table), with the preference for 15 overwhelmingly. I don't care what PC bonuses are -- it's up to the PCs to align their action declarations to what their good at, not mine to make challenges fit what their good at.

Sounds great. Seems like you have an inner 5e* DM in there about to blossom.

So, yeah, my arguments here aren't based on defending my preferences. If anything, I'm challenging your formulation of my own preferences. I don't find your arguments to be coherent or well supported for establishing my preferred method of play as either intentional under the rules or required by them or even as the best interpretation of the rules. Play can easily exist outside my preferences that adhere to the rules as well and generate fun play for the participants.

Best? I believe 5e* is a great way to interpret the RAW based on simple fundamentals. It comes down to that one word - narrate. Narrate meaningfully, not meaninglessly.

This isn't a move of the goalposts, and whether or not you assumed you were safe in an unstated position it's fair to question it. You're again relying on an interpretation of vague wording to insist that your interpretation of vague wording is the obvious and correct one. "Meaningful consequences" MUST include no progress as meaningful or else it's in direct conflict with the PHB rules of play.

For the nth time, it is not in conflict. Roll when there are meaningful consequences. If no-progress won't be meaningful, don't roll.

You're doing a dance where "no progress" is only allowable if and only if it counts as "meaningful consequences" where the definition of meaningful consequences is unclear and mutable. This isn't stated, however, and it's only inferable when you start with an assumption about what meaningful consequences means in D&D play. Further, this interpretations requires us to read a rule in the PHB and know that we need to hold that rule as conditional without any such indication in the rule as presented that it is so.

No. It requires us only to see that the Players Handbook is a handbook for players, and that the Dungeon Masters Guide is a guide for dungeon masters. That the section therein about Running the Game fills in details players don't need. Players don't decide when to call for checks. At the point they are rolling, we know already that there are meaningful consequences (else, they weren’t rolling.)

Honestly, all of the arguments that my preferred approach to play is actually exactly how the books tell you to play requires so many of these assumptions that a rule stated in one place must be understood to be conditional upon a rule stated in a completely different place and when neither of these rules expressly reference each other or explain how said conditionality works. It's an argument from assumption that has no support other than the bald statement that it's "obvious" or the "most logical." It's neither. To be clear, you're not the poster that claims it's most logical.

Logical? I missed that. I absolutely say it is well justified to interpret narrates as "say something meaningful."

I fail to climb a cliff and the result is that I have to fight Demogorgon in a presumably winnable fight.

Huh? What on Earth makes you believe you can beat Demogorgon? Climb up there and it's good night sweet prince.

This doesn't engage any fiction regarding the cliff or the PC, just the goal. But the resolution for the check ONLY engages the fiction regarding the cliff and the PC's ability to climb. You've set up two different resolution loops and are saying that one directs the other, and it does, but by dint of not addressing anything about the other in resolution. My goal is to stop the ritual. To do that I want to climb the cliff because the ritual is at the top of it. We resolve the attempt to climb the cliff, but the outcome of that has nothing to do with the attempt to climb the cliff (ie, I'm not falling, or taking damage due to a slip, or losing/damaging equipment in a climbing mishap).

This is your assumption. It is a matter I reflected on prior to penning my answer. Had you indeed climbed to the overhang, you had a hard check to make and a 10d6 drop on failing (and BTW, Demogorgon.) That is why I included the cliff description in the third case. To make that clear (not clear enough, evidently.) It's always the same cliff.

When we look at 2, you added additional fiction to create your consequence -- you added a rival that was not present and based the entirety of the resolution on this. My intent wasn't to have a rival, but to present this example as something the PC wants but where it's truth value was uncertain (rumors). You changed this intent with your addition, and created a resolution that has the same form as your 1 -- the inputs to the resolution of the climb isn't related to the outputs of that resolution. The difference though is that the goal is not lost and a retry is possible. Oddly, though, you presented a different path on a failure.

In 2 player had every opportunity to ignore the rope and guide and get back to climbing. I wanted to make available the insight that as DM, you can make it up on the fly if it successfully follows. If there hadn't been the time pressure, there was still the overhang.

And then we have the third response, where the result of the failure is just no progress. The goal isn't threatened, there's no actual consequence other than you don't finish the climb yet, and a retry is asked for. This result doesn't even adhere to the claims your making -- the result could have been obtained in every one of the cases because it's entirely independent of the goal.

We didn't roll in 3. That was left hanging.

You said you could not adjudicate actions without a goal. I provided a goal. You provided adjudication. I'm pointing out that your adjudication isn't following the steps you've been preaching and that the ultimate point of the discussion -- showing leftward arrows resulting from cubes resolutions -- has been damaged because the rightward arrows to the cubes are not aligned with the goal statements you've insisted must be present.

Once again, I understood such set up to be not at issue. If it were, then I would have given you that setup. I genuinely thought you only wanted to see consequences. For the sake of focus on that I ignored that your setup was inadequate!

My having a goal to stop the world ending ritual doesn't call a rightward arrow to cubes -- this isn't being resolved. Instead, it's my declaration to climb the cliff that triggers the rightward arrow, and the cubes resolution of this arrow only cares about the fictional inputs that come from the cliff and my PC's ability to climb it. The output from the cubes should be a leftward arrow, but the rules say that this arrow can be a null -- no progress.

The basic pattern mandates it (be non-null.) Reread PHB 6. Reread my post laying out 5e*.

Then you say that if I wanted the arrows and clouds and cubes to be important, is was my responsibility to say so -- in a discussion where those are the topic of discussion!

Yes, otherwise it is - as I have discovered it to be - a bait and switch.