Tony Vargas
Legend
I'd condemn Mr Edwards, given the opportunity. What's the harshest sentence the law allows for his crimes?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?I think we are. Firstly, no one's condemning Ron Edwards.
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.
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.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.
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.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".
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.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 cast fireball" is the best approach to everything in the game, isn't it?If "I cast fireball" cannot be part of an approach to harming an orc, then nothing really can be.
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?".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.
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.It's intent is to remove assumption and provide the DM with sufficient information to fairly adjudicate the action.
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.)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.
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.
Except destroying iron golems."I cast fireball" is the best approach to everything in the game, isn't it?
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.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.
"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."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.
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.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 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.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
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".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'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 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.
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.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.
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.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".