D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Ovinomancer]

It feels like there are several advocates for "Goal and Approach" that are each individually moving goalposts when it comes to replying to anyone else's comments on the system. If A makes a statement that B disagrees with, C will come along and say that B is wrong because that's not how it works. If B then replies to C, A comes along and makes another statement that changes the meaning again, without acknowledging that change.

It doesn't help that there's a ton of extra, undefined terminology being tossed around.


From what I see, the "Goal and Approach" concept at its most basic level is fundamentally required in order to play an RPG at all. "What are you doing?" "[possibly implicit X] [with optional method Y]". It may include either or both goal and approach. The goal may be explicit ("Sneaking past the orcs"), or implicitly indicated by the method chosen ("Can I roll Insight?"). The approach may be explicit (described) or implicit (indicating which mechanic the player wants to use).

At that point, GAA isn't a "methodology"; it's just the bare minimum to allow you to say that you're running a game. If you don't have at least that much, either the players aren't doing anything at all, or the GM isn't letting them do anything, and is just telling his own story to a captive audience.

And many of the statements made in the thread seem to drop into this definition of GAA, on both sides of the argument, because this level of definition is implicitly true.

Also note that at this point, GAA is mechanics agnostic. Whether you're dealing with the non-mechanics of Amber, or the heavy mechanics of Rolemaster, or just D&D in general, it all works the same. So this is not a useful terminology for what seems to be a contentious issue.


Iserlith's usage of the term seems to be taking the basics of GAA and adding the requirement of explicitness in all aspects. You can't just say, "I roll Insight", with the implicit understanding of the goal; you have to explicitly state what the goal is, and you have to give an explicit approach, rather than using the system mechanics to implicitly handle that. So for the time being, I'll consider Iserlith's version of GAA to be "explicit goal and approach" — EGAA. (If this does not match your actual intent with the term, please provide a correction.)

Now, the mechanics of the game are in part constructed in order to allow the players to engage implicitly. For example, Fireball has already been defined. I don't have to explain the narrative details of my casting the spell; I just need to say, "I cast Fireball at the orc." The goal is implicit, and the approach is implicit. The mechanics handle the details. This would be in contrast to a game like Mage, where (by default) spells are not pre-defined, and you must describe how you intend to accomplish a given spell effect using the various spheres you're skilled in. (Though eventually you'll probably refine them to "spells" so that you don't have to repeat the same stuff each time the situation comes up.)

However that then feeds back into how EGAA interacts with the mechanics. In some, such as knowledge checks, the EGAA requirements conflict with the mechanics. The mechanics allow an action that is fundamentally implicit — it's difficult to construct an explicit description of how you think — but the EGAA requires explicitness. This is then considered a failure in the mechanics, rather than a limitation in EGAA, with respect to how the proponents respond to others in the thread.

Alternatively, in combat the mechanics make a ton of stuff implicit in order to speed up play. You could use EGAA here, but it just slows things down. Some may want the extra theatrics, and some may simply want things to be streamlined. People who are saying that GAA "still works" in combat are changing their definition from EGAA to GAA. GAA works because that's just how gaming works in general, and the mechanics are built around that. However it's not the same thing as EGAA, and arguments against the EGAA proponents are ignored by said proponents by moving the goalposts — implying that they were using GAA all along.

This then interacts with the mechanics of the specific game system. If the game system provides implicit (predefined) elements, those are expected to be used, and EGAA can come into conflict with them because it doesn't want anything to be implicit. If the game system only provides the core mechanics, and not predefined implicit components, then EGAA can be overlaid on that without conflict.



So, overall, I think this is what is the underlying cause of the conflict in this thread: That there are two separate, but associated, ideas being used that are named using the same term, and not everyone is always using the term to mean the same thing all the time.

I think you've missed some things in here, and have confused some things to do exactly what you complain about in your opening. "I cast Fireball at the Orc" is explicit goal and approach. You're confusing the casting of fireball as the goal, with the approach implied. It is not. The goal is to hurt that orc. Which orc? That one. The approach to hurting the orc is to cast fireball. As DM, this is a straighforward adjudication -- there's nothing to prevent you from using this approach and I know towards which goal it should be applied so it's auto-success. I'll say, "Go ahead and roll your damage, The Orc fails his saving throw." I'll then apply the damage to the orc because that furthers the goal of hurting the orc, and you did get an autosuccess towards that goal.

Most of the confusion around this topic is the misidentification of the goal -- quite often I see people mistake using a mechanic as the goal. In this case, fireball is the mechanic. But this isn't the goal, its the means to accomplish the goal.

 

[Charlaquin]

Most of the confusion around this topic is the misidentification of the goal -- quite often I see people mistake using a mechanic as the goal. In this case, fireball is the mechanic. But this isn't the goal, its the means to accomplish the goal.

And, to be fair, lots of us long-time D&D players have spent a long time playing the game in a way that trains us to think about our actions in this way. In 3&4e style play, where the players ask to make checks abs the DM narrates the characters’ actions based on the results of those checks, using a mechanic often is a goal unto itself. This style of play also trains us to think of action and check as one and the same.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And, to be fair, lots of us long-time D&D players have spent a long time playing the game in a way that trains us to think about our actions in this way. In 3&4e style play, where the players ask to make checks abs the DM narrates the characters’ actions based on the results of those checks, using a mechanic often is a goal unto itself. This style of play also trains us to think of action and check as one and the same.

Yes, exactly, and I'd like to be clear that I'm not disparaging that style of play, just clarifying that this is a common point of confusion when discussing G&A.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, exactly, and I'd like to be clear that I'm not disparaging that style of play, just clarifying that this is a common point of confusion when discussing G&A.

Agreed! There’s nothing wrong with 3e and 4e style play. 4e is still my favorite edition.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Agreed! There’s nothing wrong with 3e and 4e style play. 4e is still my favorite edition.

Also agree. And if I may channel @iserith for a moment, using 3e and 4e style play in your 5e game may lead to clunky play, unsatisfactory play, and/or confusion when discussing 5e style of play. Of course, fun is the ultimate arbiter of whether these things matter at your table.

 

[Charlaquin]

Also agree. And if I may channel @iserith for a moment, using 3e and 4e style play in your 5e game may lead to clunky play, unsatisfactory play, and/or confusion when discussing 5e style of play.

It may. It may also work out just fine. Plenty of people report as much. It didn’t for me though.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

It may. It may also work out just fine. Plenty of people report as much. It didn’t for me though.

You ninjaed my edit.

 

[Kinematics]

I think you've missed some things in here, and have confused some things to do exactly what you complain about in your opening. "I cast Fireball at the Orc" is explicit goal and approach. You're confusing the casting of fireball as the goal, with the approach implied. It is not. The goal is to hurt that orc. Which orc? That one.

No, you're missing the point. "I cast Fireball at the orc" is goal-and-approach with an implicit goal (I want to hurt the orc) and an implicit (predefined by the game) approach (cast Fireball). What I'm saying is that much of what people are calling goal-and-approach is actually explicit goal-and-approach — the version that says you must state the goal explicitly, and clearly explain your approach separately from game mechanics. Both are goal-and-approach, but EGAA adds additional constraints that the generic GAA does not require.

The problem is that people are using the same term (goal-and-approach) to mean both things, and that's leading to confusion and conflict.

Put another way, all EGAA is GAA, but not all GAA is EGAA.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, you're missing the point. "I cast Fireball at the orc" is goal-and-approach with an implicit goal (I want to hurt the orc) and an implicit (predefined by the game) approach (cast Fireball). What I'm saying is that much of what people are calling goal-and-approach is actually explicit goal-and-approach — the version that says you must state the goal explicitly, and clearly explain your approach separately from game mechanics. Both are goal-and-approach, but EGAA adds additional constraints that the generic GAA does not require.

The problem is that people are using the same term (goal-and-approach) to mean both things, and that's leading to confusion and conflict.

Put another way, all EGAA is GAA, but not all GAA is EGAA.

The approach isn't at all implicit. The approach is casting fireball. The DM must take into consideration some of the aspects of that approach -- can you move your hands, do you have material components or a focus available, can you speak -- as part of the adjudication of certainty, but that these are requires doesn't make "I cast fireball" an implicit approach.

Curiously, do you use this kind of method in your play, or are you, like other before, explaining how it works when you don't use it? Because it seems very much that you're putting in some form of restriction on the @iserith method by calling it explicit goal and approach and then using this to justify calling for checks as some form of implicit goal and approach. The restriction doesn't apply, and asking to use a mechanic isn't goal and approach, explicitly or implicitly.

 

[Kinematics]

The approach isn't at all implicit.

It is implicit in the same sense that "I roll Insight" is implicit, but advocates for goal-and-approach have said that that is not adequate to describe the approach. It is a pre-defined mechanic that encompasses all that the character "actually" does in order to perform the action (eg: the incantation, moving his hands, material components, stance and presentation, etc), without the player needing to specify those details.

The fact that the DM has to interpret the various components of the spell, for example, does not make it not implicit. In fact, that shows where it is implicit. There are aspects of casting the spell which the player did not specify, but which are carried as meta-information when the player states, "I'm casting a Fireball." That is the very definition of "implicit".

Perhaps you'd prefer the term "predefined" rather than "implicit". In general, predefined is implicit, but implicit doesn't have to be predefined. I used "implicit" because it is the broader term, and I was trying to avoid tying the explanation to the specific examples. The examples are illustrative, not definitive.

Curiously, do you use this kind of method in your play, or are you, like other before, explaining how it works when you don't use it?

Basic goal-and-approach, as a concept, cannot not be used, as far as I can tell. The explicit goal-and-approach methodology, as advocated in this and similar threads, is a separate issue (and must necessarily be in order for it to be "a methodology" at all). Thus GAA must necessarily always be used. On the other hand, EGAA is more often used as a buffer, not in the sense that it is an aspect of GAA, but that it helps hold things apart from the mechanics, and thus helps keep people more "in the story" than "in the numbers".

EGAA is not a strict requirement, though, because it doesn't always serve the purpose of gameplay (particularly in relation to specific people), and it can get in the way with dealing with the mechanics when necessary.

While not explicated as using EGAA, if I consider games that I've played in that have resembled the methodology espoused for EGAA for pretty much everything, they were not very fun. Of course, in games where there was no effort for an EGAA approach, it was not very fun, either. I basically see it as a useful tool that needs to be used in moderation.

Because it seems very much that you're putting in some form of restriction on the @iserith method by calling it explicit goal and approach and then using this to justify calling for checks as some form of implicit goal and approach.

As I see it, EGAA and the mechanics are two separate issues. Iserith seems to be using EGAA as a means to minimize interaction with the mechanics (ie: avoid rolling dice whenever possible). However EGAA and decision mechanics are not the same thing, and I have not attempted to address their interactions. That is likely an additional factor in the contention within the thread.