D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[iserith]

An ability check is a test to see whether a character succeeds at a task that he or she has decided to attempt.

A saving throw is an instant response to a harmful effect and is almost never done by choice.

An ability check is something a character actively attempts to accomplish, whereas a saving throw is a split-second response to the activity of someone or something else.

The rules are quite clear in my view.

 

[pemerton]

A lot of RPGs are written in natural, even conversational, language: Apocalypse World, Prince Valilant, most of Classic Traveller, most of Burning Wheel, Maelstrom Storytelling, most of HeroQuest revised, etc, etc.

5e D&D is not unique in this respect.

The "weak design" I pointed to is (i) having a difference between ability checks and saving throws, in which the first is presented as (roughly) active and the second as (roughly) reactive, and then using the first to perform reactive functions (like avoiding being grappled, avoiding fallling down on the deck of a ship, etc). It produces needless confusion/uncertainty, as can be seen in this thread.

 

[iserith]

Grappling is a contest, one in which one of the characters or monsters is trying to prevent the other from accomplishing a goal. When a monster tries to grapple a character, the player decides how the character responds. That might include, but is not limited to, trying to resist the grapple using agility, reflexes, balance, and acrobatic training or bodily power and athletic training. A player may have the character decide not to resist the grapple at all, for example, because the character has a fire shield in effect which will do the grappler damage. Bottom line - the player decides. It is not a saving throw unless for some reason the DM calls for a Strength or Dexterity saving throw.

Avoiding falling down on the deck of a ship can reasonably be accomplished in more than one way. If a player decides that the way he or she wants the character to make the attempt is by relying on agility, reflexes, and balance while in a tricky situation, then a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check is a reasonable call if the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure. The player may, however, decide some other approach to staying upright to the rocking ship's deck is better in context which might call for some other ability check. Bottom line - the player decides. It is not a saving throw unless for some reason the DM calls for a Dexterity saving throw.

 

[Oofta]

A lot of RPGs are written in natural, even conversational, language: Apocalypse World, Prince Valilant, most of Classic Traveller, most of Burning Wheel, Maelstrom Storytelling, most of HeroQuest revised, etc, etc.

5e D&D is not unique in this respect.

The "weak design" I pointed to is (i) having a difference between ability checks and saving throws, in which the first is presented as (roughly) active and the second as (roughly) reactive, and then using the first to perform reactive functions (like avoiding being grappled, avoiding fallling down on the deck of a ship, etc). It produces needless confusion/uncertainty, as can be seen in this thread.

I disagree. If I touch a hot pan there's an automatic reaction. By brain doesn't even think about jerking my hand back.

Someone tries to put me in an unwanted bear hug? If it's a move I've practiced often enough it may be close to pulling away from a hot pan, but for most people it's going to be a conscious decision. Do I wiggle out and try to evade or just bust out?

 

[FrogReaver]

I guess the biggest thing for me - I find knowledge checks to be a useful tool to determine whether a character possesses some piece of useful knowledge. As described in this thread, goal and approach cannot handle such a useful mechanism.

Good play philosophies don't take away useful tools IMO. Goal and Approach as a play philosophy takes away this and other tools I find useful.

However, if Goal and Approach is just viewed as another tool instead of a play philosophy then I don't have to worry about it taking away other useful tools. I can use those tools when the game calls for them and use the goal and approach tool when the game calls for it.

 

[pemerton]

The "weak design" I pointed to is (i) having a difference between ability checks and saving throws, in which the first is presented as (roughly) active and the second as (roughly) reactive, and then using the first to perform reactive functions (like avoiding being grappled, avoiding fallling down on the deck of a ship, etc). It produces needless confusion/uncertainty, as can be seen in this thread.

I was intending active and reactive primarily as properties of the action at the table, not properties of the action in the fiction.

The idea that, in the fiction, there is some significant process difference - that therefore warrants a fundamental resolution difference - between (say) avoiding the blast of a fireball and trying to stand upright on the deck of a rocking ship, or between wriggling out of the grip of someone trying to pin you and sruggling to maintain control of your mind in the face of a psychic or mesmeric assault, is not very plausible to me.

 

[Campbell]

I broadly disagree that removing tools that some people find useful is a negative feature to an approach to play. If a given tool is not conducive to the goals of play there is no reason to include it in your toolbox. If you have different goals by all means use what you want from that play approach and make it your own.

As an example in pretty much any game I run whether it is more towards a war gaming bent or more focused on characters and conflict fudging dice rolls and changing the situation after it has been framed to lead to certain story outcomes are tools I utterly reject. Many people find these tools useful, but in either case they are contrary to the goals I have for play.

 

[iserith]

I was intending active and reactive primarily as properties of the action at the table, not properties of the action in the fiction.

The idea that, in the fiction, there is some significant process difference - that therefore warrants a fundamental resolution difference - between (say) avoiding the blast of a fireball and trying to stand upright on the deck of a rocking ship, or between wriggling out of the grip of someone trying to pin you and sruggling to maintain control of your mind in the face of a psychic or mesmeric assault, is not very plausible to me.

I don't understand what any of this means.

It seems to me that it was suggested that it's not clear what is a saving throw and what is an ability check in D&D 5e. I quoted the rules. I broke down the examples based on those rules. If you were not suggesting that, then please disregard.

 

[FrogReaver]

I broadly disagree that removing tools that some people find useful is a negative feature to an approach to play. If a given tool is not conducive to the goals of play there is no reason to include it in your toolbox. If you have different goals by all means use what you want from that play approach and make it your own.

How exactly is a mechanism to establish character knowledge not a tool that is conducive to the goals of play in a D&D game?

As an example in pretty much any game I run whether it is more towards a war gaming bent or more focused on characters and conflict fudging dice rolls and changing the situation after it has been framed to lead to certain story outcomes are tools I utterly reject. Many people find these tools useful, but in either case they are contrary to the goals I have for play.

Opting to never use a tool you dislike is much different than pushing for a play philosophy that flat out removes such tools.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Take a week or so off and ... wow. Lots o' posts. Also, just an observation. For lack of a better way of describing it, it seems like lots of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole by trying to have GAA handle everything D&D.

I have no problem with whatever style of play anyone wants to do. However when people say (or imply) that I'm not really playing 5E D&D because I don't play following a certain pattern but then have to ignore some sections and admit that other core aspects of the game like saving throws "don't really fit" maybe it's because GAA is a pattern that doesn't fit all aspects of the game. No matter how "intrinsically obvious" it may be to some people.

I don't think 5E has "weak design". It's just flexible in how you approach the game and what you want to get out of it. I also think the book is written in natural language, not as a technical design or legal document. Of course I one person's "make the game fit your style" is another's "sloppy writing".

Largely, as has been explained ad nauseum, because GAA doesn't work for situations set up for a different approach. This seems obvious, but here we are.