D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Ovinomancer]

What Forge jargon?

I have read the 5e Basic PDF fairly closely. Nothing in that PDF suggests that this is how combat is to be resolved:

(1) Nothing suggests the player has to explain, in fictional terms, why s/he enters a rage (nor that, say, a non-barbarian PC might do the same thing by drawing on his/her hate for orcs);

(2) Nothing suggests that the GM might call for a check as a necessary condition of successfully entering a rage (or using action surge, or second wind, or any other class ability).

Here's the text I have in mind:

Pages 69, 71-73: On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first. Your speed—sometimes called your walking speed—is noted on your character sheet.​

​

The most common actions you can take are described in the “Actions in Combat” section later in this chapter. Many class features and other abilities provide additional options for your action. . . .​

​

When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise. . . .​

​

Whether you’re striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a​

spell, an attack has a simple structure. . . .​

​

You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise.​

The second-person here is pretty unambiguous. Nothing here suggests that the player needs the GM to call for a check, direct the roll of an attack or damage die, etc. It does not set out the same procedure as is described in "the basic pattern" on p 3. And it does not follow the same procedure as is described on p 58: "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that
has a chance of failure."

There is obviously nothing that stops a table from treating combat actions differently from how the rules set them out, from substituting GM judgement for the action economy, etc. But that is not the game that the Basic PDF presents.
[/QUOTE]
Just so I'm clear, do you no longer think D&D is a mother may I game and that, at keast in combat, is much more player-facing?

I ask because your argument above is ignoring the much more general rules of DM says so arbitration because the combat rule is written in an engaging to the reader style.

 

[Guest 6801328]

In other news, aeronautical engineers prove that bees can’t fly.

 

[Charlaquin]

What Forge jargon?

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 have read the 5e Basic PDF fairly closely. Nothing in that PDF suggests that this is how combat is to be resolved:

(1) Nothing suggests the player has to explain, in fictional terms, why s/he enters a rage (nor that, say, a non-barbarian PC might do the same thing by drawing on his/her hate for orcs);

(2) Nothing suggests that the GM might call for a check as a necessary condition of successfully entering a rage (or using action surge, or second wind, or any other class ability).

And wouldn’t you know it, those things aren’t necessary for Raging in the DMing technique we’re apparently calling “goal and approach.” Go figure!

Here's the text I have in mind:

Pages 69, 71-73: On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first. Your speed—sometimes called your walking speed—is noted on your character sheet.​

​

The most common actions you can take are described in the “Actions in Combat” section later in this chapter. Many class features and other abilities provide additional options for your action. . . .​

​

When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise. . . .​

​

Whether you’re striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a​

spell, an attack has a simple structure. . . .​

​

None of this reads as outside the normal conversation of play to me.​

​

You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise.

The second-person here is pretty unambiguous. Nothing here suggests that the player needs the GM to call for a check, direct the roll of an attack or damage die, etc.

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.

It does not set out the same procedure as is described in "the basic pattern" on p 3. And it does not follow the same procedure as is described on p 58: "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that
has a chance of failure."

I disagree. The procedures your referencing describe the overarching 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.

There is obviously nothing that stops a table from treating combat actions differently from how the rules set them out, from substituting GM judgement for the action economy, etc. But that is not the game that the Basic PDF presents.

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.

 

[Scott Christian]

I think it is both the case that vast majority of games are run pretty similarly and that technique really matters. I think a lot of GMs are trying to do pretty much the same sorts of things. There are some differences in technique, but most adventure gaming hits a lot of the same notes. Mostly some mix of sand boxing and GM story led play with spotlight balancing.

I have found a lot more variation at the margins where there is a lot more experimentation - in the OSR and indie scenes. Anecdotally I have seen the same players play very differently in different games.

I am in 100% agreement. Players playstyle seems driven by the game. I'll take it a step further and say the game dictates playstyle (we're talking seasoned players and DM that know what they are doing) much more than any DM does.
And your mix of sandboxing and GM story led play, imho, is spot on.

 

[Scott Christian]

All I'm saying is that a typical player won't notice the differences. There are still differences there but players are not likely to perceive them unless they go out looking for them.

Maybe I haven't been looking for them. As a DM, I only notice what I do. As a co-DM (fun experiences) we were on the same page. As a player, maybe I am oblivious. Can you explain how it would be different based on the DM's approach? I'm not talking about sandbox vs. story driven. I mean all the terms that have been debated the past 72 pages.

For example, I get a high improv DM might run it differently than a planner. In fact, as a player, unless they are great, I can notice the different right away. I even notice it based on long running campaigns with the same DM. He may practice characters, memorize important lines they say, have the traps set "just right," etc. Then the next session, while still good, is definitely different because he's doing a lot more freestyle. This goes for every DM (including me) I've ever had the pleasure to play with.

But the terms people are using over and over that imply their game looks different seems biased. I'm open to being wrong, but experience points me in the other direction.

 

[Campbell]

I am using the best language I know how to communicate my thoughts and feelings. I have tried to clearly define what I mean when I use that terminology. I am trying to make a distinction between game play where the decisions we make and how we resolve what happens in the ongoing narrative of the game is firmly grounded in the details of that narrative and game play where we are making decisions and resolving what happens in narrative based on discrete game mechanics that we choose to invoke even if we make it pretty with colorful descriptions.

I am not trying to argue against goal and approach. As a technique and approach to play I find it quite useful. I regularly run a game that uses similar techniques across the whole spectrum of play. It is how I handle noncombat situations when I run Fifth Edition. I just do not see how it meaningfully applies to discrete mechanics. I want to keep the conversation grounded in the actual process of play. How we actually make judgments about what happens in the narrative - not what we could do in theory. Real fundamental nose to ground GM techniques.

I feel you are stretching the definition when you do not have to. Nothing breaks down if combat functions differently. How could it not? It involves a host of mechanics that alter the way we interface with the game from both sides of the screen. It brings in a bunch of considerations that are not directly related to what is happening in the narrative that affect the decisions and judgments we make.

This seems clear as day to me and its an earnest opinion. It's not formed out of any particular stake in whatever battle is going on here. It's also based on actual time behind the screen running this game.

From where I am sitting you guys are damn quick to condemn Ron Edwards, but you are exhibiting some of the worst of his behavior. The dude had and continue to have some great ideas, but he gets so fixated on his own ideas that he bludgeons people with them instead of trying to engage with them. This insistence on what words people are allowed to use instead of trying to understand the ideas behind them is also one of dude's worst traits. He made Sorcerer so I forgive him, but man this conversation sure is like the Forge and I do not like it.

Can't we please just talk about the actual process of play and the things that inform our decisions without it being a pissing contest?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I am using the best language I know how to communicate my thoughts and feelings. I have tried to clearly define what I mean when I use that terminology. I am trying to make a distinction between game play where the decisions we make and how we resolve what happens in the ongoing narrative of the game is firmly grounded in the details of that narrative and game play where we are making decisions and resolving what happens in narrative based on discrete game mechanics that we choose to invoke even if we make it pretty with colorful descriptions.

I am not trying to argue against goal and approach. As a technique and approach to play I find it quite useful. I regularly run a game that uses similar techniques across the whole spectrum of play. It is how I handle noncombat situations when I run Fifth Edition. I just do not see how it meaningfully applies to discrete mechanics. I want to keep the conversation grounded in the actual process of play. How we actually make judgments about what happens in the narrative - not what we could do in theory. Real fundamental nose to ground GM techniques.

I feel you are stretching the definition when you do not have to. Nothing breaks down if combat functions differently. How could it not? It involves a host of mechanics that alter the way we interface with the game from both sides of the screen. It brings in a bunch of considerations that are not directly related to what is happening in the narrative that affect the decisions and judgments we make.

This seems clear as day to me and its an earnest opinion. It's not formed out of any particular stake in whatever battle is going on here. It's also based on actual time behind the screen running this game.

From where I am sitting you guys are damn quick to condemn Ron Edwards, but you are exhibiting some of the worst of his behavior. The dude had and continue to have some great ideas, but he gets so fixated on his own ideas that he bludgeons people with them instead of trying to engage with them. This insistence on what words people are allowed to use instead of trying to understand the ideas behind them is also one of dude's worst traits. He made Sorcerer so I forgive him, but man this conversation sure is like the Forge and I do not like it.

Can't we please just talk about the actual process of play and the things that inform our decisions without it being a pissing contest?

I think we are. Firstly, no one's condemning Ron Edwards. The argument is one from Forge-speak being, well, forge-speak and not exactly condusive to discussion. Secondly, there's a large group of people who would like to hear about an idea, but not try to decipher it from presented quotes, academic-style, that are not directly on point but you can get there. It's a question not of the source, but the presentation.

Secondly, there's a strong question here about what you mean by saying that you cannot adjudicate 5e combat using the same approach as out of combat. I'm not sure what you mean here because you've asserted this as if it's obvious, but it's not obvious to me. I don't see what you're driving at. Given your previous postings, I'm inclined to think that since 5e combat is more codified and in smaller increments, this forms a discretely different environment for you than the larger sweeps of out of combat play. I can see this; 5e combat is much, much more granular. And, a large number of options are rigidly defined in that chance of failure and outcomes are already written (the Rage ability, frex). However, I think that the adjudication process similarly shortened and each step is still following the play loop, just multiple times per turn. This may form a distinct difference in process for you, and I can see that, but it doesn't for me.

Take your statement that you can't see how to adjudicate a mutliple attack action on different targets with a move between in goal and approach. I don't see a problem, because this, to me, just breaks down into two distinct actions -- the first attack, it's approach and goal, and the second attack with it's approach and goal. I certainly see your point if you're thinking that the whole action sequence must be presented as a whole. That certainly doesn't work.

Am I on the right track?

 

[Campbell]

@Ovinomancer

That's a substantial part of it. This might just be my software engineer brain at work, but the simple presence of these discrete mechanics with defined outcomes set all these expectations for outcomes from both sides of the screen that I cannot help but be influenced by them. Like the numbers just swirl around in my head. Even if we are not bound to what is written in adjudication the narrative recedes and the numbers and systems take primacy and affect the decisions I make and how things are resolved. I like systems and numbers way too much to not be influenced by them. The harder I struggle the more the numbers swirl.

In terms of my Barbarian it really does not help that some of these things do not seem like stuff my character could like decide to do voluntarily. In game where we lacked these mechanics like I see the spirits as like an allied NPC, not my character. It does not feel like I am describing an action my character could take if that makes sense. The daily rationing for rage is also something that is hard for me to square in terms of the narrative. Likewise when the fighter declares action surge it does not make narrative sense to me.

These sort of abstract resources used to bother me a lot less, but I have played and run too many games without them. When I use them it just does not feel like I am saying what my character does and what they hope to achieve.

Like I can still consider the narrative and what my character would do I am just incredibly influenced by system level considerations and cannot like shut it off. This stuff can be fun for its own sake though. Sometimes like way too much fun. I love math. I cannot shut it off. I can even tell what is happening in terms of the action economy when other players have their turns.

However outside of combat I can just like focus on the narrative, situation, and my character. All that white noise fades away. I can be present in a way I cannot in combat.

When I played Blades in the Dark combat felt more like trying to intimidate in ogre in Fifth Edition and less like combat in Fifth Edition. There were no numbers to get it in the way.

 

[Ovinomancer]

@Ovinomancer

That's a substantial part of it. This might just be my software engineer brain at work, but the simple presence of these discrete mechanics with defined outcomes set all these expectations for outcomes from both sides of the screen that I cannot help but be influenced by them. Like the numbers just swirl around in my head. Even if we are not bound to what is written in adjudication the narrative recedes and the numbers and systems take primacy and affect the decisions I make and how things are resolved. I like systems and numbers way too much to not be influenced by them. The harder I struggle the more the numbers swirl.

In terms of my Barbarian it really does not help that some of these things do not seem like stuff my character could like decide to do voluntarily. In game where we lacked these mechanics like I see the spirits as like an allied NPC, not my character. It does not feel like I am describing an action my character could take if that makes sense. The daily rationing for rage is also something that is hard for me to square in terms of the narrative. Likewise when the fighter declares action surge it does not make narrative sense to me.

These sort of abstract resources used to bother me a lot less, but I have played and run too many games without them. When I use them it just does not feel like I am saying what my character does and what they hope to achieve.

Like I can still consider the narrative and what my character would do I am just incredibly influenced by system level considerations and cannot like shut it off. This stuff can be fun for its own sake though. Sometimes like way too much fun. I love math. I cannot shut it off. I can even tell what is happening in terms of the action economy when other players have their turns.

However outside of combat I can just like focus on the narrative, situation, and my character. All that white noise fades away. I can be present in a way I cannot in combat.

When I played Blades in the Dark combat felt more like trying to intimidate in ogre in Fifth Edition and less like combat in Fifth Edition. There were no numbers to get it in the way.

Ah. If I may, 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, but instead provide inputs into the fiction for change at specific points. Like BitD, where the success mechanic is totally agnostic to the fiction (you roll your pool, which the player picks, and 6 succeeds, 4-5 succeeds with cost, 1-3 fails). What this roll tells the players of the game, though, is entirely dependent on the fictional positioning.

In 5e, though, even if you're striving to put the fiction first, there are a number of mechanics that specifically say that you can add Y to the fiction, regardless of it's current state, but only X times per time period. In this case, if the player presses the button, a fixed fictional outcome springs out, but they don't have to do anything to predicate this or justify it in the fictional positioning beforehand. Like 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, 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. While this is almost always going to be auto-success, there are some situations where the DM may determine this action declaration fails. So, since the DM is still providing the arbitration of the action, and we can discern a discrete goal and approach (even if very short), it still fits the concept. Largely because this concept of goal and approach, while having a lot in common with other game's usages out of combat, is formulated inside the 5e paradigm and must account for the x/day style abilities that other games just skip.

 

[Kinematics]

It feels like there are several advocates for "Goal and Approach" that are each individually moving goalposts when it comes to replying to anyone else's comments on the system. If A makes a statement that B disagrees with, C will come along and say that B is wrong because that's not how it works. If B then replies to C, A comes along and makes another statement that changes the meaning again, without acknowledging that change.

It doesn't help that there's a ton of extra, undefined terminology being tossed around.


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.

And many of the statements made in the thread seem to drop into this definition of GAA, on both sides of the argument, because this level of definition is implicitly true.

Also note that at this point, GAA is mechanics agnostic. Whether you're dealing with the non-mechanics of Amber, or the heavy mechanics of Rolemaster, or just D&D in general, it all works the same. So this is not a useful terminology for what seems to be a contentious issue.


Iserlith's usage of the term seems to be taking the basics of GAA and adding the requirement of explicitness in all aspects. You can't just say, "I roll Insight", with the implicit understanding of the goal; you have to explicitly state what the goal is, and you have to give an explicit approach, rather than using the system mechanics to implicitly handle that. So for the time being, I'll consider Iserlith's version of GAA to be "explicit goal and approach" — EGAA. (If this does not match your actual intent with the term, please provide a correction.)

Now, the mechanics of the game are in part constructed in order to allow the players to engage implicitly. For example, Fireball has already been defined. I don't have to explain the narrative details of my casting the spell; I just need to say, "I cast Fireball at the orc." The goal is implicit, and the approach is implicit. The mechanics handle the details. This would be in contrast to a game like Mage, where (by default) spells are not pre-defined, and you must describe how you intend to accomplish a given spell effect using the various spheres you're skilled in. (Though eventually you'll probably refine them to "spells" so that you don't have to repeat the same stuff each time the situation comes up.)

However that then feeds back into how EGAA interacts with the mechanics. In some, such as knowledge checks, the EGAA requirements conflict with the mechanics. The mechanics allow an action that is fundamentally implicit — it's difficult to construct an explicit description of how you think — but the EGAA requires explicitness. This is then considered a failure in the mechanics, rather than a limitation in EGAA, with respect to how the proponents respond to others in the thread.

Alternatively, in combat the mechanics make a ton of stuff implicit in order to speed up play. You could use EGAA here, but it just slows things down. Some may want the extra theatrics, and some may simply want things to be streamlined. People who are saying that GAA "still works" in combat are changing their definition from EGAA to GAA. GAA works because that's just how gaming works in general, and the mechanics are built around that. However it's not the same thing as EGAA, and arguments against the EGAA proponents are ignored by said proponents by moving the goalposts — implying that they were using GAA all along.

This then interacts with the mechanics of the specific game system. If the game system provides implicit (predefined) elements, those are expected to be used, and EGAA can come into conflict with them because it doesn't want anything to be implicit. If the game system only provides the core mechanics, and not predefined implicit components, then EGAA can be overlaid on that without conflict.



So, overall, I think this is what is the underlying cause of the conflict in this thread: That there are two separate, but associated, ideas being used that are named using the same term, and not everyone is always using the term to mean the same thing all the time.