D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Tony Vargas]

I think we are. Firstly, no one's condemning Ron Edwards.

I'd condemn Mr Edwards, given the opportunity. What's the harshest sentence the law allows for his crimes?

 

[Oofta]

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.


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.


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.

I would agree in that if a player asks for an insight check their goal and approach is explicit enough in virtually every game I've ever played. I also think that some people imply that they go even further, that you can't just ask for a general read on a person (an insight check) you have to ask for specifically what you are looking for, or in the case of knowledge checks what specific tidbit you are trying to remember.

It feels unnecessarily structured to me, while specifying detailed goals and approach (DEGAA?) is just overly restrictive.

I get it that sometimes a roll isn't necessary and if it's not I'll tell the player. Same way that if I don't understand what the GAA is I'll ask for clarification. It's also not like we just sit around the table grunting skill checks at each other, probably 80% of what I do falls under the blanket EGAA approach.

I get that the PHB examples specify a certain style. Which is fine, and probably the direction I go with new groups and new players. But after a session or two? Meh. That and I want to reinforce that decisions made when building a PC matter so I tend more towards "resolve uncertainty with a die roll" than some people.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

If you mean predefined when you say implicit, I'd recommend a dictionary. Those are pretty far apart in the actual meaning department, so this would greatly improve your communication.

However, I disagree that "I roll Insight" is anywhere near as predefined as "I cast fireball." Also, there's the run that narratively describing casting fireball actually uses the same language as invoking the mechanic. If a wizards casts a spell that results in an explosive ball of fire, one could say the wizard cast a fireball spell, all without once invoking the mechanics of D&D 5e. That this description also invokes those mechanics just tells me, as DM, what things I need to check before determining success, failure, or uncertainty.

If "I cast fireball" cannot be part of an approach to harming an orc, then nothing really can be.

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".

This is because you've defined it away, not because it isn't done. Firstly, "basic" goal and approach as you've defined it is any action declaration where the GM can assume what is done and for what purpose. Does this actually sound like a useful tool for adjudication? It looks like a definition that's been so smeared as to make it apply to everything, which is a useful rhetorical method to strawman an argument into oblivion.

Goal and approach is defined as the method of requiring the player to provide both the approach and the goal of an action as part of the declaration. It's intent is to remove assumption and provide the DM with sufficient information to fairly adjudicate the action. What you've done here is say that you're going to define goal and approach as any declaration where the DM can assume approach or goal and thereby arbitrate based on what the GM thinks the PC is doing rather than what the player thinks their PC is doing. You've redefined the argument into uselessness in opposition of the intent of the method. You haven't discovered a truth, you've hidden one.

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.


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.

And you'd be wrong. Because goal and approach is always engaging the mechanics. The mechanics are the DM deciding how to arbitrate the outcome, but that's still a mechanic. What @iserith is minimizing, or, to put it precisely, what players in @iserith's game are minimizing, is the need to rely on a d20 to get a success.

It's not like he hasn't be absolutely clear on this, over and over and over.

 

[Lanefan]

If "I cast fireball" cannot be part of an approach to harming an orc, then nothing really can be.

"I cast fireball" is the best approach to everything in the game, isn't it?

This is because you've defined it away, not because it isn't done. Firstly, "basic" goal and approach as you've defined it is any action declaration where the GM can assume what is done and for what purpose. Does this actually sound like a useful tool for adjudication? It looks like a definition that's been so smeared as to make it apply to everything, which is a useful rhetorical method to strawman an argument into oblivion.

Goal and approach is defined as the method of requiring the player to provide both the approach and the goal of an action as part of the declaration.

I think where some - including me - are getting hung up is on the questions of "in how much detail must the declaration be?" and "can mechanics be referenced within it?".

I get the sense that for some "I cast fireball at the orc" is well within the bounds of GAA but for others it's not detailed enough (is the goal to burn that orc or to light the curtains on fire; is the fireball to be enhanced or metamagicked; etc.).

I also get the sense that for some the same declaration is again fine but for others the fact it references "fireball" (i.e. the game's mechanical name for a specific spell) makes it too mechanics-facing.

It's intent is to remove assumption and provide the DM with sufficient information to fairly adjudicate the action.

Which, in any situation other than a single orc facing a single caster in open clear lifeless terrain, "I cast fireball at the orc" doesn't really do.

But most people are happy enough to let the DM make whatever corollary assumptions might be required in order for this declaration to serve its purpose; and if that means the curtains burn or the party Fighter gets crisped or the surrounding forest catches fire then so be it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I’m not especially familiar with which jargon terms are from the Forge and which ones aren’t, but I see lots of waffle like “explorative play” and “fiction first” getting tossed around by people who are arguing against “goal and approach” right now, which is itself fast becoming waffle.

I'm unfamiliar with this jargon term, "waffle." Is it, too, from The Forge? Is it in no way golden nor crispy? (That would be a sad waffle, indeed.)



Seriously, though....

those things aren’t necessary for Raging in the DMing technique we’re apparently calling “goal and approach.”...None of this reads as outside the normal conversation of play to me....
This reads to me as an explanation of the appropriate mechanics to use for resolving the Attack action. Much like spells describe the appropriate mechanics to use for resolving the Cast a Spell action when used to cast them.

These rules are nested within the rules for the basic conversation of play.

The more specific rules for resolving specific actions define how to do the “occasionally relying on the roll of a die to determine the results” part of that play loop.

I think the insight that resolution mechanics are nested within the DM's judge-uncertainty & narrate-results segment of the play loop is an important one.

5e undertook many ambitious goals, and two particularly important ones at which it achieved a measure of success were DM Empowerment and supporting a range of play styles.

Nesting resolution in the DMs segment of the play procedure gives him complete latitude and authority to invoke, change or override those mechanics (DM Empowerment, check) that includes shifting them to the players action-declaration segment.

It would be reasonable for a DM to instruct his players that action declaration includes the check, even roll, they're making, while his narration of results will include describing that action in the fiction. Players describing actions per G&A would be unduly complicating and delaying that DMs play loop, just as much as players calling out checks to their G&A DM would be.

That's just an illustration of 5e being able to support two different styles.

(Thus, I do think it's impolitick to say that playing 5e in a putative past-edition style is problematic. Rather, it's problematic for the players to attempt play in a different style from that the DM has chosen.)

Also, the G&A DM could resolve the perceived contradiction of combat mechanics written 2nd-person as if instructing the player to take the initiative to use those mechanics in lieu of a declared G&A, or spells lack of mechanics to resolve uncertainty as implying spells are always certain, by remembering that those natural-language phrasing and presentations are his to interpret, and ruling the former as addressed to a player in the context of uncertainty having been ruled, and the latter as merely incomplete so open to ad hoc or formal variant expansion (and they could be simple and leverage existing mechanics - like calling for a concentration when the DM judges casting to be uncertain).

...

Finally, an interesting dynamic of G&A is that players should come to recognize the desirability of narrated success over the uncertainty-resolution of a check, which carries, after all a chance of failure.
And, I'd be remiss - and risk my rep as an old cynic - if I didn't point out that the obvious interpretation of combat rules implying attacks are always uncertain impacts non-casters, the bulk of whose contributions in combat will be weapon attacks, disproportionately, while the apparent assumption of automatically successful casting just makes the system that much easier on casters.

 

[Tony Vargas]

"I cast fireball" is the best approach to everything in the game, isn't it?

Except destroying iron golems.

 

[pemerton]

people who are arguing against “goal and approach” right now

<snip>

Who’s substituting GM judgment for the action economy? I swear, sometimes the critiques that are ostensibly directed at the DMing techniques I employ look nothing like my game.

I thikn you're confused about the purpose of my post. I'm not arguing against "goal and approach" as such. I'm agreeeing with @Campbell that there is a significant difference between 5e's approach to the resolution of combat and non-combat activities.

Non-combat activities require the player to describe what his/her PC is doing by reference to the fiction (eg what are you doing to try and find a trap on the door?) In light of that describiption, the GM decides whether or not a check is required, and if it is (i) sets a DC, (ii) determines the ability to be checked, (iii) decides whether any skill might be applicable, and (iv) establishes consequences. This is what Campbell is describing as "fiction first". It seems to be pretty close to what has been called, in this thread, "goal and approach". It is familiar to me from a range of RPGs, including 4e D&D skill challenge resolution.

In combat, by way of contrast, both the player's decision-space and the GM's adjudication-space are structured in mechanical ways: there is an action economy, a standard suite of options, often a suite of class abilities that interact with those options (extra attack, advantage on attack rolls, bonus to damage, etc), and consequences typically defined in mechanical terms (taking damage, suffering a condition, etc). The player doesn't have to describe what his/her PC is doing by refernce to the fiction (eg what are you doing with you sword to the orc?), only in mechanical terms. The fiction plays a role in adjudication primarily (not exclusively) in relation to positioning, cover and other features of terrain/geography.

To elaborate that last point, and set up a contrast between combat and non-combat: in non-combat one part of the fiction that the GM is expected to establish, that players might incorporate into their framing of action declarations, etc is NPC psychological states. Examples arise in relation to sneaking around (where the rules expressly canvass that players and GMs might consider whether or not NPCs are distracted) and social interaction. Whereas nothing in the rules suggests that psychological states of NPCs are relevant to the adjudication of combat in the way that (say) terrain is. The GM imposing a penalty to hit (or disadantage on an attack roll, etc) for attacking up a rise is standard stuff; but the GM adjusting the chance to hit on the basis of someone's anger or fear or guilt or whatever, outside of a mechanical framework such as barbarian rage, I think would be very non-standard. I don't recall ever seeing a D&D GM post an example of this.

@Ovinomancer, I'm sorry your post inherited and perhaps exacerbated some of my poor tagging and so it took me a couple of goes to parse. But to answer your question (if I've got it right), I don't think my views about 5e non-combat nor about 5e combat have changed.

In a formal sense there is nothing stopping a 5e GM adjudicating the action declaration I kill the ogre by chopping off its head with my greatsword in the same way that s/he adjudicates the action declaraition I befriend the ogre by offering it a basket of foodstuffs. But the presentation of the rules on ability checks, contrasted with the presenttion of the rules for combat, to my reading very strongly implies that these two declarations are to be adjudicated very differently. No doubt there are many differences between 5e and 4e D&D, but I don't think that this particular aspect is one of them.

 

[5ekyu]

I thikn you're confused about the purpose of my post. I'm not arguing against "goal and approach" as such. I'm agreeeing with @Campbell that there is a significant difference between 5e's approach to the resolution of combat and non-combat activities.

Non-combat activities require the player to describe what his/her PC is doing by reference to the fiction (eg what are you doing to try and find a trap on the door?) In light of that describiption, the GM decides whether or not a check is required, and if it is (i) sets a DC, (ii) determines the ability to be checked, (iii) decides whether any skill might be applicable, and (iv) establishes consequences. This is what Campbell is describing as "fiction first". It seems to be pretty close to what has been called, in this thread, "goal and approach". It is familiar to me from a range of RPGs, including 4e D&D skill challenge resolution.

In combat, by way of contrast, both the player's decision-space and the GM's adjudication-space are structured in mechanical ways: there is an action economy, a standard suite of options, often a suite of class abilities that interact with those options (extra attack, advantage on attack rolls, bonus to damage, etc), and consequences typically defined in mechanical terms (taking damage, suffering a condition, etc). The player doesn't have to describe what his/her PC is doing by refernce to the fiction (eg what are you doing with you sword to the orc?), only in mechanical terms. The fiction plays a role in adjudication primarily (not exclusively) in relation to positioning, cover and other features of terrain/geography.

To elaborate that last point, and set up a contrast between combat and non-combat: in non-combat one part of the fiction that the GM is expected to establish, that players might incorporate into their framing of action declarations, etc is NPC psychological states. Examples arise in relation to sneaking around (where the rules expressly canvass that players and GMs might consider whether or not NPCs are distracted) and social interaction. Whereas nothing in the rules suggests that psychological states of NPCs are relevant to the adjudication of combat in the way that (say) terrain is. The GM imposing a penalty to hit (or disadantage on an attack roll, etc) for attacking up a rise is standard stuff; but the GM adjusting the chance to hit on the basis of someone's anger or fear or guilt or whatever, outside of a mechanical framework such as barbarian rage, I think would be very non-standard. I don't recall ever seeing a D&D GM post an example of this.

@Ovinomancer, I'm sorry your post inherited and perhaps exacerbated some of my poor tagging and so it took me a couple of goes to parse. But to answer your question (if I've got it right), I don't think my views about 5e non-combat nor about 5e combat have changed.

In a formal sense there is nothing stopping a 5e GM adjudicating the action declaration I kill the ogre by chopping off its head with my greatsword in the same way that s/he adjudicates the action declaraition I befriend the ogre by offering it a basket of foodstuffs. But the presentation of the rules on ability checks, contrasted with the presenttion of the rules for combat, to my reading very strongly implies that these two declarations are to be adjudicated very differently. No doubt there are many differences between 5e and 4e D&D, but I don't think that this particular aspect is one of them.

"In a formal sense there is nothing stopping a 5e GM adjudicating the action declaration I kill the ogre by chopping off its head with my greatsword in the same way that s/he adjudicates the action declaraition I befriend the ogre by offering it a basket of foodstuffs. But the presentation of the rules on ability checks, contrasted with the presenttion of the rules for combat, to my reading very strongly implies that these two declarations are to be adjudicated very differently. No doubt there are many differences between 5e and 4e D&D, but I don't think that this particular aspect is one of them."

Actually, the two tasks you chose both have their own sub-systems within 5e, different sub-systems to be sure, but it's not altogether different.

The combat one likely involves a series of rounds of fighting to lead to a 0 hp dead result when a beheading results.

The befriending one likely involves a variety of "efforts" to find the traits that can help with changing the attitude - move from hostile or indifferent to friendly - see DMG.

So, both the goals are actually goals of multi-action efforts in many cases tho either vould be more immediate goals - already near 0 hp or already figured out the edibles necesssry.

 

[pemerton]

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.

See, in the same way that some posters want to emphasise 5e as a distinctive game in its own right, I want to say the same about 4e.

4e says the following about making (non-attack) checks:

PHB p 178:

The DM tells you if a skill check is appropriate in a given situation or directs you to make a check if circumstnaces call for one.​

In the context of a skill challenge it's different, in so far as there is a mechanically-generated expectation that checks will be made, but even then it's still "fiction first":

DMG pp 74-75:

Sometimes a player tells you, "I want to make a Diplomacy check to convince the duke that helping us in his best interest." That's great - the player has told you what she's doing and what skill she's using to do it. Other times, a player will say, "I want to make a Diplomacy check." In such a case, prompt the player to give more information about how the character is using that skill. . . .

it's particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation. If a player asks, "Can I use Diplomacy?" you should ask what exactly the character might be doing . . .​

There's nothing here that suggests that the DM narrates the characters’ actions based on the results of those checks.

I think the issue then is that you're using goal and approach in the sense many other games use it, games that use this framework for everything and always adjudicate from the fiction first and only using the fiction. Those games use mechanics that aren't based on the fictional positioning

This depends very much on the game. For instance, Burning Wheel is a game that can be played entirely using "goal and approach" (in the BW rulebook it is called intent and task) and all mechanics are based on ficitonal positioning. It's quite different in this respect from PbtA games. BW also has discrete mechanical subsystems - the most important ones are for social conflict, skirmishing, melee and pursuit - that are not resolved through straightforward intent and task. The rulebooks calls out this feature of these subsystems, and also notes that they are optional but recommended.

BW also has some systems that are intermediate. Prayers of the faithful, for instance, are generally confined in intent to a list of options (which also determine the difficulty). But they still have a task requirement - the player must compose and recite a prayer, and the table must be satisfied that this task is adequate to the intent. This task requirement has two purposes: (1) it determine that number of syllables spoken in the prayer, which feeds into certain aspects of action resolution in the discrete resolution subsytems; and (2) it helps establish and reinforce colour in the context of play. 5e could have a rule like this for barbarian rage, or action surge; but it doesn't.

Prince Valiant is a RPG system that uses intent and task for all resolution, with difficulties set either by reference to the objective in-fiction situation, or determined via opposed checks. Fictional positioning generates modifiers (bonus dice or reduced dice), and includes the full range of factors including emotions and other "internal" as well as external considerations.

Barbarian Rage. I get to Rage whenever I press the button, up to X times per day, and it says I get these things in the fiction. I don't have to do anything to set this up -- there's no specific goal and approach to create the situation for Rage, I just press the button. I see the disconnect if you're looking for the fictional positioning and assuming goal and approach is how you set up that positioning to do the thing, then Rage doesn't fit this proposition.

I think that this is more-or-less what @Campbell was saying, and that I was agreeing with. Raging is an action declaration - it is declared by the player for his/her PC, it has a cost in the action economy, etc - but not one that is adjudicated via "goal and approach".

I think, though, that if you're coming from a 5e perspective, these kinds of things are just accepted. That using Rage still fits goal and approach because you have a goal and approach, even if it's locked in place, because the DM still has to authorize it in the game.

I'm sure that it is just accepted at most tables. The fact that the contrast is highly salient eg for @Campbell doesn't mean that it's salient for everyone.

I'll add that, for me, the fact that the GM still has to authorise it in the game doesn't seem to be very much like the role of the GM in adjudicating "goal and approach". The latter is all about adjudicating the fiction, working with the player to establish the PC's fictional positioning, thinking about consequences etc. This is a very fundamental GM skill which is quite different (I think) from many other sorts of gameplay and is probably the area where new GMs often need to do the most amount of development.

Whereas deciding whether or not something stops the PC raging (eg for whatever reason they're short of action economy, or maybe the GM knows there is a "zone of ca;lm" operating in the area, or whatever) is much closer to the ordinary process of following and applying rules in a game.

 

[pemerton]

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.

You may already have replies to this, and so sorry if this is dogpiling - I haven't read through to the current end of the thread yet.

The fundamental of "goal and approach" or (as I think of it, influenced by a different game) intent and task, is that the player makes clear what it is that his/her PC is doing in the fiction.

Here's a passage from Gygax's DMG (p 97), dealing with secret doors, that shows that not all action declarations in a RPG have to be goal and approach:

You may use either of two methods to allow discovery of the mechanism which operates the portal:​

​

1. You may designate probability by a linear cuver, typically with a d6. Thus, a secret door is discovered 1 in 6 by any non-elf . . .​

​

2. You may have the discovery of the secret door enable player characters to attempt to operate it by actual manipulation, ie the players concerned give instructions sa o how they will have their characters attempt to make it function: "Turn the wall sconce,", "Slide it left.", . . .​

​

It is quite acceptable to have a mixture of methods of discovering the operation of secret door.​

Method 2 is "goal and approach". Method 1 is much closer to how 5e resolves combat. The player has a goal for his/her PC, but doesn't need to announce an approach by reference to the fiction.

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".

I agree with this. But I really don't think it's helpful to describe this as "goal and approach" at all. It's just action declaration.