D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[FrogReaver]

Surely you aren’t arguing that’s the case with the Insight skill?

Nice dismissal of my question.

 

[Charlaquin]

Nice dismissal of my question.

I mean, the answer to your question is no, but the implication of your question is that you are critiquing me for not being pedantic enough about either action.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think the term “goal and approach” as a description of the set of techniques I, Ovinomancer, and others employ is causing undue miscommunication. And I accept a large part of the responsibility for coining it. Let me try to clear some things up.

Those of us who use these techniques strive to at all times follow the flow of play described in the beginning part of the PHB, wherein the DM first describes the environment, then the players describe what they want to do, then the DM determines the results (possibly calling for a die roll to help in this determination), and then describes the results. I don’t think this particular part of what we do is especially controversial. I think pretty much everyone who runs 5e does this, to a certain extent.

Yep, everyone does that. If that's all you mean by goal and approach then every game is a goal and approach game.

I think a player saying: I want to determine if the NPC is lying would satisfy the above rules. (They Desribed what they wanted to do afterall). I also find it fascinating that in the rules you cited above that there is no rule stating the player must describe how they try to do what they want to do.

There are two major places where I think the two sides differ: how we interpret “a player describes what they want to do” and the methods we use for determining the results of said description. I think where things are getting muddled is in the conflation of these two points.

Well up until now I've lumped your sides particular way of having a player describe what they want to do and how you determine the results of said description under the goal and approach methodology. Calling this out may be helpful though as now it's more apparent the specific details I'm making a case against.

When those of us on my side of this debate read “the player describes what they want to do,” our interpretation is that this need be a description of the character’s activity in the fiction. “I cast fireball” is a description of the character’s activity in the fiction; the fireball spell exists in the world of the fiction, and casting it is understood to be an activity that involves particular magic words, gestures, and uses of particular materials to produce a particular result.

That's not specific though. The player has only conveyed that he attempts to play with some bat guano, makes some gestures and says some words to try and make a fireball appear. Now the rules are clear that if he does all those things then the fireball appears. However, the DM determines what happens in the fiction. So if it's raining and the bat guano might slip out of his hand (wet poo is inherently slippery...) then the result of his actions may not be an auto success. Possibly it's a dex check to hold onto the poo. That is how your playstyle is supposed to work right?

“I make an Insight check” is not a description of the character’s activity in the fiction.

Agreed, but I try to read the NPC to determine if he's trustworthy is a description of the character's activity. It may not be a description you deem "good enough" but it's a description of his fictional action nonetheless.

Related to, but separate from this, we strive to eliminate the need for the DM to make assumptions about “what [the player] wants to do” in order to determine the result. In the case of spellcasting, this generally requires very little effort.

Yep, that's where being reasonably non-ambiguous comes in.

In the case of an attempt to recognize that an NPC is lying, it is more difficult to resolve the outcome without making assumptions about the character’s activity in the fiction. To do so, the DM needs to know specifically what activity the character is performing in the fiction.

Exactly, under this playstyle specific details need provided so the DM can determine the outcome. It's still amazing you believe fireball is somehow specific enough, but trying to determine if the NPC is lying is somehow more ambiguous.

So, where specific resolution procedures are not provided by the rules, and the DM is expected to use their best judgment to decide which mechanics, if any, to employ, we ask that the players communicate both what they as a player want to achieve, and what their character is doing that they hope will result in the desired outcome, in order to make our determination of the results as easy and assumption-free as possible.

That's what you say you do but you are so inconsistent with it. You act like I'm crazy for expecting that style when fully followed to have you asking the player how their character performs their spell components. Why wouldn't you need to know how they are casting fireball. Why is ambiguously playing with bat guano and ambiguously waving your warms around and ambiguously saying a few words not enough ambiguity to have the player specify how they are casting the spell?

 

[FrogReaver]

So I think one of the biggest differences between my playstyle and GAA (including the extra baggage of it from this thread)...

I think the biggest difference is that I don't care about extra descriptive details unless they might reasonably matter.

So in my games, i'm pretty much never going to ask a player how they cast fireball, not because it's not ambiguous but because in 99% of situations those details just aren't going to matter. I want the details that matter and I realize that my players, even the ones that try to provide details aren't always going to provide the details I know will be important because quite simply they probably don't even realize they are, at least until I ask for the more specific details and then they realize it's more important.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So you would be good with "I use my abilities to read others" as an approach for determining if an NPC can be trusted?

I would be, but I'm also good with telling players what their PCs do as the result of a check, which seems not to be common among my fellow G&A fans.

To avoid that, the DM not good with it would ask /how?/
Because, if your 'passive insight' from just paying attention had been enough, the DM would have just described him as earnest or shifty or something, already.
So you might try to draw him out by sharing something, yourself, ask leading questions to catch him in a lie, provoke or confront him, etc...

 

[Kinematics]

I think the term “goal and approach” as a description of the set of techniques I, Ovinomancer, and others employ is causing undue miscommunication. And I accept a large part of the responsibility for coining it. Let me try to clear some things up.

I decided against replying to Ovinomancer because I didn't want to get baited into a flame war. However this post goes a long way towards resolving at least some of the issues. It is the first truly clear communication (ironically) of the intended meaning of the term by those supporting it.

In particular, based on how I've seen it used, "goal and approach" is not a GM resolution methodology (despite what people conflate it with). Rather, it is, as you describe, a communication methodology. The GM resolution methodology is separate from, but dependent on (which is not the same as "determined by"), the communication methodology.

Goal and approach, as it appears to be defined by you, removes ambiguity on the input side of the GM resolution method. The GM uses the input to determine what resolution method to employ (eg: whether to roll dice, and if so, which skills to employ, etc), and from thence, the output.

The GM prefers the input to be as clear and unambiguous as possible, because that both makes his choices easier, and reduces the likelihood that the finalized resolution contradicts what the player was intending to do. This helps the game run more smoothly, and everyone is happier.

There are a variety of ways to make the input clear and unambiguous. Aside from explicit descriptions, use of the predefined structures of the game mechanics is a way of handling it (eg: the Fireball spell). Having the player indicate that she is casting the Fireball spell is using implicit, but unambiguous information. So my understanding that you were insisting on explicit information only is not true, at least for the version you present here.

However you still require explicit presentation where such requirements are problematic, such as Insight or knowledge checks.

Side Note: I will note that this is a particular sore point for me because of how certain GMs have dealt with Insight-type interactions involving characters whose entire shtick was built around social skills. So there is a fair bit of anger towards GMs that would dismiss certain player approaches as "not good enough", particularly when it seems like cover for the GM not doing his job at all.

In any case, a primary issue in this particular skill is that Insight is internal. It is a gut reaction; it is feelings; it is experience. It is not, "I hearken back to my days as a student and remember how the upperclassmen behaved." That's as nonsensical as requiring the fighter to recount his days studying under the fencing master Benetti before every swing he takes.

Rather, it is the ongoing analysis of everything you notice about a person. Eye contact. He's fiddling with his ring. The distance she's maintaining (too close? too far?). Subtle tones of vote. The limp that occasionally vanishes. A thousand and one details that the player will never know, and thus be unable to make use of. This actually compares remarkably well to combat, as any of these sorts of details could be relevant to a fighter attacking and defending in a fight. However the fighter doesn't need to justify the approach made with every single swing; he just says, "I attack." However the social character is apparently not allowed to say, "I use Insight."

It is relatively rare that there is a realistic "in the fiction" narrative that can supplant the simple request to invoke one's skill using the roll, mostly because GMs fail to provide the ongoing passive information that a character's Insight should be providing. Thus, in order to actually make use of a skill that her character is supposed to have, she must constantly pester the GM for Insight checks.

I usually shouldn't need to ask for an Insight check; if I do (aside from a specific thing I'm puzzling over), it feels equivalent to saying that the GM isn't doing his job. If I need to not only ask for permission to roll, but also come up with some convoluted gibberish to justify it, that feels like an unpleasant play experience.


This rolls back to the issue of "goal and approach". It requires that the communications be unambiguous, which is usually expected to be presented as explicit narrative, but may reference unambiguous mechanical elements. The problem is that this cannot work with respect to elements of play for which the player herself does not have the information necessary to make an unambiguous statement (or a mechanic that allows everyone to agree not to ask hard questions, such as combat or spellcasting), or for situations wherein the GM's resolution is necessary before any such narrative communication could be created in the first place.

In general, it would seem that goal and approach would work well for resolving actions, because actions are a thing that is done, and thus can be described as doing a thing. Certain activities and skills, however, are not "actions", and thus goal and approach is not suitable for interacting with them. The problem that I continue to see in the discussions surrounding this is the refusal to admit to scenarios where goal and approach is either not appropriate, or the problems that it would normally introduce are ignored. This may also be related to the assumption that "goal and approach" is a resolution method in and of itself, and thus considering it a fault of the player when the system does not work out as such.

 

[Maxperson]

This is an RPG. Surely you aren't arguing that environmental factors can't impact the mundane things your character tries to do?

It doesn't matter, though. The existence of situations where something unambiguous get altered doesn't make it ambiguous. Take swimming. If I tell someone I can swim in lakes. That's unambiguous. That person will know that I can swim in lakes. If you then point out a very shallow lake where it's 1 foot deep, so I can't actually swim in it, that doesn't make what I said ambiguous. It just means that environmental factor has altered an otherwise unambiguous situation.

 

[Lanefan]

But the rules, which explicitly describe the appropriate way to resolve the casting of the fireball spell, don’t say anything about the wind, or the arm space required. If you have a hand free, are able to speak, and have either bat guano and sulphur or an appropriate spellcasting focus available at hand, you are able to perform the necessary actions to result in the effects described by the fireball spell. The rules tell us as much.

If all you need is one hand free in order to cast in 5e then my point about spellcasting being easier now than in 0e-1e gains another bit of evidence.

In 1e by RAW the caster had to be completely unfettered and able to freely move without obstacle or interruption. You couldn't cast if your feet were tied, or your fingers bound, etc.; or from any position except standing upright.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yep, everyone does that. If that's all you mean by goal and approach then every game is a goal and approach game.

The whole point of me breaking it down was to express that what has been getting referred to as “goal and approach” involves multiple, specific techniques employed in service to that goal, only one of which is asking that the players describe their actions in terms of both goal and approach. Please do try to read my comments holistically.

I think a player saying: I want to determine if the NPC is lying would satisfy the above rules. (They Desribed what they wanted to do afterall). I also find it fascinating that in the rules you cited above that there is no rule stating the player must describe how they try to do what they want to do.

I agree! However, it does not give me enough information as DM to fulfill my part of that process; determining the results of what the player said they want to do. I either need to call for a dice roll, or to ask them to tell me what their character is doing.

That's not specific though. The player has only conveyed that he attempts to play with some bat guano, makes some gestures and says some words to try and make a fireball appear.

Hey, what do you know? A goal (play with some bat guano, makes some gestures and says some words) and an approach (to try and make a fireball appear.) Exactly the components our technique requires. Any more than that is just descriptive detail, which can be fun, but is not necessary.

QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 7810501, member: 6795602"]Now the rules are clear that if he does all those things then the fireball appears. However, the DM determines what happens in the fiction. So if it's raining and the bat guano might slip out of his hand (wet poo is inherently slippery...) then the result of his actions may not be an auto success. Possibly it's a dex check to hold onto the poo. That is how your playstyle is supposed to work right?[/quote]
Sure, that might happen, I guess. But if that’s the case, I don’t need more descriptive detail to determine whether or not that happens. That’s also not something I’ve ever done, or can ever imagine myself doing, in a game.

QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 7810501, member: 6795602"]Agreed, but I try to read the NPC to determine if he's trustworthy is a description of the character's activity. It may not be a description you deem "good enough" but it's a description of his fictional action nonetheless.[/quote]
No, that’s a goal. That tells me what the player wants to happen (determine if the NPC is trustworthy), not what their character is doing to make it happen. I’m guessing “try to read” is the thing you’re identifying as the approach here, but it doesn’t actually convey any information about the activity being performed.

Exactly, under this playstyle specific details need provided so the DM can determine the outcome. It's still amazing you believe fireball is somehow specific enough, but trying to determine if the NPC is lying is somehow more ambiguous.

If you don’t understand how “manipulating bat guano with my free hand while saying the magic words and pointing at the spot I want the spell to originate from” is more specific than “try to read the NPC,” I don’t know how to help you. The difference is obvious to me.

That's what you say you do but you are so inconsistent with it. You act like I'm crazy for expecting that style when fully followed to have you asking the player how their character performs their spell components. Why wouldn't you need to know how they are casting fireball. Why is ambiguously playing with bat guano and ambiguously waving your warms around and ambiguously saying a few words not enough ambiguity to have the player specify how they are casting the spell?

I can imagine how it might seem inconsistent if you thought the key factor was descriptive detail. But it’s not. The key factor is clarity. There is a very specific set of hand gestures, magic words, and things done with the materials/foci that result in the effects of the fireball spell. If you say, “I’m casting fireball,” it is clear that you are doing those specific words and gestures. What, precisely, those words and gestures are is just “fluff;” potentially entertaining, but not needed for me to understand what your action is. On the other hand, there are many ways to “read someone.” Observing micro-expressions, listening for vocal fluctuations, observing body language just to name a few. Each might convey different information about a person’s emotional and mental state, and none of which are foolproof methods of detecting lies. So, if you say, “I try to read him to see if he’s lying,” that is less clear than when you say “I cast fireball.” Additionally, resolving an action like that requires more judgment on my part than resolving a spell, because there are not specific instructions for how to resolve it like there are with fireball. So I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the standard of clarity to be a bit higher.

 

[Charlaquin]

So I think one of the biggest differences between my playstyle and GAA (including the extra baggage of it from this thread)...

I think the biggest difference is that I don't care about extra descriptive details unless they might reasonably matter.

I had to take a break before I responded to this one, because reading this made me really angry and my first instinct would not have been appropriate.

If you think that this is a difference between you and the “G&A” folks, then you are not understanding us, because we don’t care about extra descriptive details either. “I pick the lock with thieves’ tools” vs, “I carefully insert the pick and lever into the lock, pushing down lightly with the pin to test the resistance of each of the tumblers, then gently apply just enough force to lower and lock them into position, one at a time, until they’re all in place and turn the lever” doesn’t make a difference to me. “I Attack the orc with my longsword” vs. “I lunge at the orc, feinting high, but then turning my blade low at the last moment, trying to get past his guard and jam the blade into the gap between his fauld and his grieves” doesn’t make a difference to me. “I cast fireball at that area” vs. “I give my wand a swish and a flick as I say ‘Incendio’ and point it at that spot, causing flames to erupt in a 20-foot radius around it” doesn’t make a difference to me. What makes a difference to me is “I try to read him to see if he’s lying” vs. “I watch his face for micro-expressions to see if I can figure out what he’s really thinking.” I care about clarity of intent and action, not detail.

So in my games, i'm pretty much never going to ask a player how they cast fireball, not because it's not ambiguous but because in 99% of situations those details just aren't going to matter. I want the details that matter and I realize that my players, even the ones that try to provide details aren't always going to provide the details I know will be important because quite simply they probably don't even realize they are, at least until I ask for the more specific details and then they realize it's more important.

I would argue that if your players don’t know what details are important, your description of the environment is insufficient for them to adequately fulfill their role.