D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Lanefan]

Stripped of the fancy language, what @pemerton is saying that that, yes, a grapple contest is called out as an ability check in the rules, but it's functioning like a saving throw. The orc tries to grapple me, I don't have to take a concrete action, I just make a STR or DEX check to prevent it. Smells like a saving throw, even if the rules call it an ability check.

It's the whole proactive-reactive thing again.

The initiator of the grapple is being proactive, and the roll thus works like - and loks like - an ability check.

The target being grappled is forced into react mode, and the roll thus looks very much like a saving throw.

Where both are happening at once I've no problem calling the combination of rolls something different than either of the above, and 'contest' is as good a term for it as any.

 

[Xetheral]

Which requires the monster take an action, which was the underlying point. It's just in the example that was under discussion it happened to be PCs, not monsters.



A player still has to state an action here as to how to resist the grapple or shove. The rules simply establish that, like an attack roll, there is an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure by default in this situation (unless DM decides otherwise).



"Passive" doesn't mean "inactive." The character or monster is taking an action - remaining alert to danger, repeatedly. While many DMs do not require players to state that this is the case, I do (and think more DMs should do for the sake of consistency) because they could be taking other actions instead of that which may be useful in context (see Activities While Traveling) and because an ability check, passive or otherwise, necessarily means that the character or monster is doing something with an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure.



Player or monster still has to decide to do that. If the DM isn't giving the player the option, that's a Dexterity saving throw, not an ability check.

I'm glad you agree that monsters can take actions too. Since monsters don't need to declare their actions at all, I think that example by itself proves that there exist ability checks under the 5e rules that are not made in response to action declarations.

I also note that several of your other responses to my specific examples depend on approaches you adopt at your table that appear to me to be inconsistent with the 5e rules. In particular, you apparently allow characters to declare actions when it is not their turn (to resist grapples, keep their balance). That's awesome (and I like the idea!), but I see no support for permitting off-turn action declarations in the 5e rules. You also apparently deny characters their passive perception as a defense against enemies trying to sneak up on them even in situations other than those listed in Activities While Travelling. Again, that's great--I'm sure tweaking the list of activities that deny characters their passive perception makes the game more fun for you and your players at your table.

But it is my understanding that you were trying to refute, in the general case, my examples of places where the 5e rules either permit or call for ability checks other than in response to an action declaration. I don't see how offering rebuttals that depend on the specific ways you adapt the rules at your table says anything about the general case.

I know it may not be your position and you're just helpfully explaining someone else's position, so this is really not specifically directed at you: That there is an ability check necessarily means the player has decided on an action which has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. It's functioning as a contest, "a special form of ability check." If someone is treating it like a saving throw, well, that's on them.

(Emphasis added.) I do not agree that the bolded claim is supported by the 5e rules. I acknowledge that it is true at your table, and probably at many of the tables of other posters in this thread. But I remain unconvinced that it is true in the general case of a generic table trying to play by the rules in the book. In other words, I don't see anything in the text of the rules that shows the bolded claim to be true.

I could be mistaken, but it appears to me that you're treating the bolded claim as a foundational assumption and interpreting the other 5e rules in a way that compliments that assumption. There's nothing wrong with that--I'm sure that I also interpret the 5e rules based on foundational assumptions. (And you have a leg up on me in that you've identified and articulated yours so precisely!) I simply don't see why your arguments that the 5e rules require a particular approach to ability checks should be persuasive to anyone who isn't willing to make the same foundational assumption that you appear to be making.

 

[iserith]

I'm glad you agree that monsters can take actions too. Since monsters don't need to declare their actions at all, I think that example by itself proves that there exist ability checks under the 5e rules that are not made in response to action declarations.

What do you think "declaring an action" means? The DM says what the monster tries to do just like a player says what a character tries to do. If a check is called for, the DM makes one as per the standard adjudication process.

I also note that several of your other responses to my specific examples depend on approaches you adopt at your table that appear to me to be inconsistent with the 5e rules. In particular, you apparently allow characters to declare actions when it is not their turn (to resist grapples, keep their balance). That's awesome (and I like the idea!), but I see no support for permitting off-turn action declarations in the 5e rules.

See the section on "How to Play," which is fundamental to understanding the game in my view: "This pattern holds whether the adventurers are cautiously exploring a ruin, talking to a devious prince, or locked in mortal combat against a mighty dragon." Combat is more structured, sure, and you do take turns, but the rules even explicitly say the target of the grapple decides how to resist the grapple. Further, reactions permit players to declare actions when it is not their turn. Action declarations are clearly not limited to turns.

You also apparently deny characters their passive perception as a defense against enemies trying to sneak up on them even in situations other than those listed in Activities While Travelling. Again, that's great--I'm sure tweaking the list of activities that deny characters their passive perception makes the game more fun for you and your players at your table.

Check those rules: "However, a character not watching for danger can do one of the following activities instead, or some other activity with the DM's permission." That is a trade off against watching for danger. If said activity is at least as distracting as navigating, drawing a map, tracking, or foraging, the DM can say you can't also watch for danger. The exception carved out for this is the ranger in favored terrain.

But it is my understanding that you were trying to refute, in the general case, my examples of places where the 5e rules either permit or call for ability checks other than in response to an action declaration. I don't see how offering rebuttals that depend on the specific ways you adapt the rules at your table says anything about the general case.

I think you may be narrowly defining "action declaration" in way that the rules do not support.

(Emphasis added.) I do not agree that the bolded claim is supported by the 5e rules. I acknowledge that it is true at your table, and probably at many of the tables of other posters in this thread. But I remain unconvinced that it is true in the general case of a generic table trying to play by the rules in the book. In other words, I don't see anything in the text of the rules that shows the bolded claim to be true.

I quoted these rules earlier:

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.

This is in the DMG, pages 237-238.

I could be mistaken, but it appears to me that you're treating the bolded claim as a foundational assumption and interpreting the other 5e rules in a way that compliments that assumption. There's nothing wrong with that--I'm sure that I also interpret the 5e rules based on foundational assumptions. (And you have a leg up on me in that you've identified and articulated yours so precisely!) I simply don't see why your arguments that the 5e rules require a particular approach to ability checks should be persuasive to anyone who isn't willing to make the same foundational assumption that you appear to be making.

The D&D 5e rules don't require anything of DMs. The rules serve the DM, not the other way around. I say how I play and I show how the rules support the way I play because I base the way I play on the rules. Many DMs in my experience run most games and certainly different editions of the same game largely the same way. I do not. I stopped doing that when I realized that my D&D 4e game wasn't going as well as it could be going because I was still treating it like it was D&D 3.Xe. This was further reinforced when I tried to learn Dungeon World and later Apocalypse World while I was running D&D 4e. Different games demand different approaches and those approaches are informed by the rules of the game. So I learned from that point forward to work hard at dropping my assumptions and trying to let the rules of the game inform my approach and to sharply examine my habits to make sure they were informed by the rules, if they were not, to get rid of them if they were troublesome.

So this isn't me coming at the game going "I want to run it this way and I'm going to find the rules that support it." Instead it is "I don't have any particular way I want to run this game, so I'm going to let the rules tell me and, if that turns out to be fun, I'll keep playing it." What you see me advocating for is the tried and tested result of that philosophy. Those who have adopted some of the things I've mentioned have reported that their games run smoother as a result. And I think that's great. But it doesn't mean that anyone else is running the game wrong, even if I choose to question the reason why people do the things they do in order to get them to critically examine their approaches - or more likely - to get lurkers who are reading the exchange to do the same.

Edit: A couple of egregious typos

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm even more puzzled now that ya'll are arguing that monsters try to do actions as if they are players that must await the DM's approval for their stated course of action.

 

[Kinematics]

OK, I'm going to go into something that may or may not relate to how this discussion is progressing, but it was sparked by @Charlaquin's post a couple pages ago, as it reminded me of a YouTube video I watched a few days ago (the video in question, in case you're interested). Anyway, I'm going to ramble a bit, because I'm not entirely sure this is relevant, or how things connect together. It's just been bubbling around in my head, and I wanted to post it for evaluation.

The video was an examination of the differences between eastern and western storytelling. It covers lots of ground, and is a fascinating watch, but one of the primary conclusions was in the difference between the western focus on external conflict, and the eastern focus on internal struggle.

And that made me think that, while this discussion is partly about the approach to mechanical resolution of action in an RPG, it is, in a sense, also an expression of storytelling methodology. That is, "What mechanisms do I have to make the story work the way I want it to work?" The goal-and-approach model is almost intrinsically a "resolve active conflict" mechanism. There must be an action, and there must be a "failure state" that you are attempting to guard against. That is, it's expressly about direct conflict, which means it's very much related to western storytelling methodologies.

While some have criticized some of how I've described dealing with events, implying that I'm "wrong" in how I play because I'm less interested in the direct conflict than in the story and the characters' interactions with the world, looking back at how I myself describe things, I feel like I'm approaching the storytelling side of things from more of an eastern perspective than a western one. The "Revelatory" style I described is more like answering the question, "What does it mean to fail?", rather than the question of, "What are the consequences of failure?" Consequences are intrinsically an external conflict mechanism, whereas "What does it mean to fail?" is much more open-ended. There may or may not be consequences, but the lack of consequences doesn't change the fact that there's meaning in the act itself.

The goal-and-approach method fails with things like knowledge or perception checks because it implicitly assumes that there must be an external goal that must be resolved, and if there is no such resolution necessary, the roll must be irrelevant. It is fundamentally bound to the external conflict of western storytelling, and attempts to force the story to remain within that domain.

The revelatory side of things (which isn't the alternate to goal-and-approach, but I don't have another term to use here) does not assume that there must be a conflict to be resolved. Rather, it allows there to be questions asked and answered that may not connect to a direct conflict. There may not be a consequence for failure; it isn't a required component of the story. It's more suited to exploring the internal struggles or personality quirks of the characters by creating an opening that allows them to become part of the story in an organic way.

The GAA approach would handle the situation of needing to jump a chasm by asking, "Are there any consequences for failing the jump? Is there a risk in failure?" The revelatory approach would ask, "Is there any meaning to be found in failing the jump? Is there any story in failure?" In both cases, if the answer is no, you wouldn't bother rolling. But the types of questions you ask frame the type of story you create. In the case of knowledge checks, while there is often no risk in failing to remember, there could be meaning in failing to remember.

That's not to say either approach is "the one true way". There are plenty of reasons to shift between the different approaches. However the push for goal-and-approach seems to be an attempt to use the resolution rules to enforce a very strict approach to storytelling that matches the more dominant conflict methods seen in western stories, and dismiss the validity of other ways of framing stories.

~~~

Caveat: Musings are not peer-reviewed. I may be making invalid assumptions. Some may think that the thread arguments are purely an issue of resolution mechanics, and nothing to do with storytelling. However my impression of the arguments in this thread seems to closely match these divergent methods of storytelling, and I feel there may be an underlying conflict in play.

 

[iserith]

That's not to say either approach is "the one true way". There are plenty of reasons to shift between the different approaches. However the push for goal-and-approach seems to be an attempt to use the resolution rules to enforce a very strict approach to storytelling that matches the more dominant conflict methods seen in western stories, and dismiss the validity of other ways of framing stories.

I don't have any comment on your comparison except to say that explanation of, or even advocacy for, a particular way of playing is not dismissal of someone else's way of playing.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't have any comment on your comparison except to say that explanation of, or even advocacy for, a particular way of playing is not dismissal of someone else's way of playing.

It depends on the type of advocacy. Some advocacy is personally objective. "This style works great for me because xyz". Too often though that personally objective advocacy slips into flat out objective advocacy, "This style is flat out better because xyz". Once that happens it is an implicit dismissal of other playstyles.

 

[FrogReaver]

OK, I'm going to go into something that may or may not relate to how this discussion is progressing, but it was sparked by @Charlaquin's post a couple pages ago, as it reminded me of a YouTube video I watched a few days ago (the video in question, in case you're interested). Anyway, I'm going to ramble a bit, because I'm not entirely sure this is relevant, or how things connect together. It's just been bubbling around in my head, and I wanted to post it for evaluation.

The video was an examination of the differences between eastern and western storytelling. It covers lots of ground, and is a fascinating watch, but one of the primary conclusions was in the difference between the western focus on external conflict, and the eastern focus on internal struggle.

And that made me think that, while this discussion is partly about the approach to mechanical resolution of action in an RPG, it is, in a sense, also an expression of storytelling methodology. That is, "What mechanisms do I have to make the story work the way I want it to work?" The goal-and-approach model is almost intrinsically a "resolve active conflict" mechanism. There must be an action, and there must be a "failure state" that you are attempting to guard against. That is, it's expressly about direct conflict, which means it's very much related to western storytelling methodologies.

While some have criticized some of how I've described dealing with events, implying that I'm "wrong" in how I play because I'm less interested in the direct conflict than in the story and the characters' interactions with the world, looking back at how I myself describe things, I feel like I'm approaching the storytelling side of things from more of an eastern perspective than a western one. The "Revelatory" style I described is more like answering the question, "What does it mean to fail?", rather than the question of, "What are the consequences of failure?" Consequences are intrinsically an external conflict mechanism, whereas "What does it mean to fail?" is much more open-ended. There may or may not be consequences, but the lack of consequences doesn't change the fact that there's meaning in the act itself.

The goal-and-approach method fails with things like knowledge or perception checks because it implicitly assumes that there must be an external goal that must be resolved, and if there is no such resolution necessary, the roll must be irrelevant. It is fundamentally bound to the external conflict of western storytelling, and attempts to force the story to remain within that domain.

The revelatory side of things (which isn't the alternate to goal-and-approach, but I don't have another term to use here) does not assume that there must be a conflict to be resolved. Rather, it allows there to be questions asked and answered that may not connect to a direct conflict. There may not be a consequence for failure; it isn't a required component of the story. It's more suited to exploring the internal struggles or personality quirks of the characters by creating an opening that allows them to become part of the story in an organic way.

The GAA approach would handle the situation of needing to jump a chasm by asking, "Are there any consequences for failing the jump? Is there a risk in failure?" The revelatory approach would ask, "Is there any meaning to be found in failing the jump? Is there any story in failure?" In both cases, if the answer is no, you wouldn't bother rolling. But the types of questions you ask frame the type of story you create. In the case of knowledge checks, while there is often no risk in failing to remember, there could be meaning in failing to remember.

That's not to say either approach is "the one true way". There are plenty of reasons to shift between the different approaches. However the push for goal-and-approach seems to be an attempt to use the resolution rules to enforce a very strict approach to storytelling that matches the more dominant conflict methods seen in western stories, and dismiss the validity of other ways of framing stories.

~~~

Caveat: Musings are not peer-reviewed. I may be making invalid assumptions. Some may think that the thread arguments are purely an issue of resolution mechanics, and nothing to do with storytelling. However my impression of the arguments in this thread seems to closely match these divergent methods of storytelling, and I feel there may be an underlying conflict in play.

Very interesting. I think you've found a possible philosophical foundation to the non-goal-and-approach playstyles that D&D often encompasses.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm even more puzzled now that ya'll are arguing that monsters try to do actions as if they are players that must await the DM's approval for their stated course of action.

Nod. This topic is reminding me of the players-roll-everything idea.

Monsters & NPCs need never declare actions, what they do is just part of the DM describing the situation.

 

[Campbell]

Nod. This topic is reminding me of the players-roll-everything idea.

Monsters & NPCs need never declare actions, what they do is just part of the DM describing the situation.

I largely agree that Goal and Approach as described here mostly only works for noncombat activities and obviously does not apply to things like spell casting (no roll, goal does not matter, directly invokes a mechanic). Procedural elements like initiative, action economy, spells, saving throws, combat rules with defined effects for actions pretty much mess with the fiction first (starts with a description of what a character does instead of invoking a mechanic) nature of goal and approach. Attack rolls do not care about goals. The other games I know of that approach the game in the same way do away with things like initiative and creature stats.