D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[FrogReaver]

WOW. Go reread your own durn comment...

It does. You might want to re-read that comment.

Crossing the road isn’t a conflict really worth rolling to resolve, unless it’s like... a busy highway and failing to cross means getting hit by a car. In that case, yeah, I think getting to the other side is a reasonable goal, and that chicken is going to need an approach. Simply walking across is, in that case, not a goal likely to result in success.

 

[Charlaquin]

WOW. Go reread your own durn comment...

Ahh, there’s a typo in there. The last sentence should read “Simply walking across is, in that case, not one likely to result in success.”
My intent was to acknowledge that “crossing” a busy highway is an approach to the goal of getting to the other side, but not a wise approach to take unless you are crossing it by means other than walking.

 

[Guest 6801328]

FYI, in my latest arm wrestling example I wasn't suggesting "just to win" can not be a goal. I was giving an example of player and DM working together in a goal-and-approach game.

Certainly a player could refuse to participate in this two-way communication, and simply state things like "I arm wrestle with the goal of arm wrestling." I submit to the jury that this player probably doesn't want to be in a game with a goal-and-approach DM.

 

[FrogReaver]

Ahh, there’s a typo in there. The last sentence should read “Simply walking across is, in that case, not one likely to result in success.”
My intent was to acknowledge that “crossing” a busy highway is an approach to the goal of getting to the other side, but not a wise approach to take unless you are crossing it by means other than walking.

I just want to say thank you. It's moments like this that discussions derail and this comment kept things on track. Thank you.

 

[Guest 6801328]

WOW. Go reread your own durn comment...

She said it would need an approach IF (and then suggested a modification of your scenario).

 

[FrogReaver]

FYI, in my latest arm wrestling example I wasn't suggesting "just to win" can not be a goal. I was giving an example of player and DM working together in a goal-and-approach game.

Certainly a player could refuse to participate in this two-way communication, and simply state things like "I arm wrestle with the goal of arm wrestling." I submit to the jury that this player probably doesn't want to be in a game with a goal-and-approach DM.

I submit that said player is fine with goal and approach when there's a reason to be using it. It's the DM's attempt at shoehorning goal and approach into every situation that caused the problem

Just a matter of perspective I suppose.

 

[Charlaquin]

She said it would need an approach IF (and then suggested a modification of your scenario).

My typo totally did distort my intent though, I’ll gladly cop to that.

I just want to say thank you. It's moments like this that discussions derail and this comment kept things on track. Thank you.

No problem

 

[Guest 6801328]

I submit that said player is fine with goal and approach when there's a reason to be using it. It's the DM's attempt at shoehorning goal and approach into every situation that caused the problem

Just a matter of perspective I suppose.

Wait...that caused what problem? Was there a problem in the scene I narrated?

 

[Maxperson]

Do you believe the goal can be to just win the arm wrestling contest?

It can be I suppose, but it's a weak one. By weak I mean that I've never had a player tell me that they are arm wrestling just so that they can win. There's going to be more to it than that based on what is happening in game.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It can be I suppose, but it's a weak one. By weak I mean that I've never had a player tell me that they are arm wrestling just so that they can win. There's going to be more to it than that based on what is happening in game.

Kind of why I was shifting toward talking about how goal-and-approach works when everybody is on board with it, instead of trying to solve "trap problems" that would only occur if somebody was actively trying to prove it can't work.