D&D 5E (2014) Consequences of Failure

[Celebrim]

Isn't what you are doing essentially the same thing. You are framing the scene in such a way as there will be auto success? What does it matter if your pre-framing of the scene includes a "safe hiding spot" due to distance and location or a "safe hiding spot" due to being able to get close enough by sheer luck and chance?

Is that actually a meaningful distinction when you really sit down and think about it?

There is a small distinction but it is meaningful and to really see how meaningful it is I'm going to first reach for exaggeration.

Suppose that I create a Tomb of Horrors knock off, and I have in the dungeon a door which when opened is some sort of nigh inescapable death trap. The door, the corridor leading up to it, and the effects of the trap are well described prior to play.

Now suppose that I'm running a dungeon and the players open a door and I decide that the opening of this door triggers a nigh inescapable death trap which I invent on the fly.

Do you see that there is a subtle difference?

What it comes down to is that as a GM you have basically infinite resources. You can do anything you want. But if you fix those resources in place prior to the beginning of the game, and hold yourself to them as a restriction on what happens, then you lose perfect control over the game. As GM, you need to hold yourself to some finite amount of resources. You can weight the situation heavily towards favored outcomes - and indeed every module ever written is weighted toward the outcome of party success to one extent or another - and still be running a fair game in that you are sharing agency with the players. But if you don't limit yourself in your resources and wait until the game starts to decide what you want to have happen, then you are putting yourself in a position where it is inevitable that you have both access to your infinite resources and you are biased by the current game state because you know what that game state is so that you basically have to admit you are the only person with any real agency at the table.

 

[5ekyu]

Isn't what you are doing essentially the same thing. You are framing the scene in such a way as there will be auto success? What does it matter if your pre-framing of the scene includes a "safe hiding spot" due to distance and location or a "safe hiding spot" due to being able to get close enough by sheer luck and chance?

Is that actually a meaningful distinction when you really sit down and think about it?

"Is that actually a meaningful distinction when you really sit down and think about it?"

First, it *matters to me" whether I am being consistent in my descriptions and consequence ftom them. So, there is a huge difference between there being actual elements in the scene that combine eith charscter scores to produce the outcomes and me just deciding on the spot that for ehstever aesthetic of good GM I should just let it happen.

Second, it *matters to me" that my players see it as consistent enough to plan and make informed choices. If they know or have seen that the outcome to abc meets def will differ based on not observable or understandable chsnges in the scene but on a meta-style, they know they cannot do those.

If sneaking in went automatic success not because its moving into "drama" but moving out wont be because the GM sees it as moving out... we have gone beyond the line between resolution to directing.

 

[Maxperson]

More thoughts (while staining a fence this morning)...

There is a difference between rolling dice to determine whether a skill was used successfully, and rolling dice to determine if the use of the skill accomplished a goal.

Arm wrestling example: if the goal is to impress the locals, you might succeed in that just by lasting longer against the local champion than anybody else ever has, even though you still lose the actual match. ("And the crowd goes wild! 'Never seen nobody last that long 'gainst Junior,' says the barkeep.")

You might last longer, but that's still part of a goal. The goal was to win, but perhaps he didn't win, but rolled close to winning and lasted longer than anyone else. Lasting that long isn't the result of just rolling dice to determine if the skill was used successfully.

While there might be a difference between rolling to see if the skill was used successfully and rolling to accomplish a goal, I don't see why you would ever just roll to see why a skill was used successfully. Consider the following examples.

Strength check

1. I'm going to engage Gregor in an arm wrestling contest to defeat him once and for all. (rolling for a goal)

2. I want to impress the woman at the bar by engaging the biggest person here in an arm wrestling contest. (rolling for a goal)

3. I roll a strength check to arm wrestle. Am I successful? (rolling to see if the skill is successful)

Perception check

1. I look around the forest to see if I can see any of the elves reputed to be in the area. (perception with a goal)

2. I peer around the foggy room looking for debris on the floor so that I don't trip. (perception with a goal)

3. I roll a perception check. Am I successful? (rolling a skill check to see if it was successful.

Why would you ever roll just to see if you are successful or not? A goal is always there(even if not stated), or you don't roll.

 

[FrogReaver]

You might last longer, but that's still part of a goal. The goal was to win, but perhaps he didn't win, but rolled close to winning and lasted longer than anyone else. Lasting that long isn't the result of just rolling dice to determine if the skill was used successfully.

While there might be a difference between rolling to see if the skill was used successfully and rolling to accomplish a goal, I don't see why you would ever just roll to see why a skill was used successfully. Consider the following examples.

Strength check

1. I'm going to engage Gregor in an arm wrestling contest to defeat him once and for all. (rolling for a goal)

2. I want to impress the woman at the bar by engaging the biggest person here in an arm wrestling contest. (rolling for a goal)

3. I roll a strength check to arm wrestle. Am I successful? (rolling to see if the skill is successful)

Perception check

1. I look around the forest to see if I can see any of the elves reputed to be in the area. (perception with a goal)

2. I peer around the foggy room looking for debris on the floor so that I don't trip. (perception with a goal)

3. I roll a perception check. Am I successful? (rolling a skill check to see if it was successful.

Why would you ever roll just to see if you are successful or not? A goal is always there(even if not stated), or you don't roll.

Do you believe the goal can be to just win the arm wrestling contest?

 

[Campbell]

I have a somewhat different take than most. For me the vast majority of time the approach is far more important to me than the goal. When resolving how an arm wrestling contest goes I am not going to resolve it differently based on character intent. I am just going to follow the fiction. For things like Knowledge checks it becomes a bit different because the approach is more obvious and what you hope to accomplish is something that would have more bearing on how the fiction goes.

 

[Oofta]

I can't speak for all DMs every. I can only really address what I do.

Sorry, I did not read all 27 pages of the thread. I did want to state one thing and pose a question:

• IMHO, it seems there are a lot of GM's out there that just have players roll for no reason. Half the time, as a player, I wonder would the scene change if we had succeeded or failed.

If the roll doesn't make a difference I don't ask for a roll. Gaining knowledge will frequently give you useful information either to further you quest and skip other options, to identify a weakness or give information that will help solve some mystery. If a piece of knowledge is key and there is no other way to get it, I'll just give it to you.

Sometimes the info is just "fluff". Like in many video games where you can read journals or hear recordings. It's just my way of telling a story and filling in details. Not something I do all the time, it depends on if the group finds it interesting.

• How many GM's out there let players do things that could require a roll, but instead just let them do it? The stealth example is a good one. They are sneaking up on the drow ritual. Great. GM doesn't have them roll, but just describes the sneak up and what they see. They try to make out what the drow are saying. Great. GM says its tough, but they make out the following words. They now try to sneak and snag one of the prayer flags hanging. GM says there is a good chance they'll spot you. But go ahead and roll.

In my experience, there is very little of the above scenario happening.

This is an example of "you have succeed at this encounter and get the information to proceed". I use it sparingly. In general if you need to sneak up close to the enemy you're going to need to be stealthy with appropriate checks, use magic or disguises. If it's critical that you know, there will be some other more difficult way of getting it. Perhaps you'll run into a messenger and their escort. It will be a fight and potentially risky but if you need the info you'll get it.

I do lean heavily on improv in my games, but have been told that nobody can tell when scenes are improvised or planned. I never have one path you must follow, just different routes to the same goal. Some of those routes are going to be easier than others.

 

[FrogReaver]

I have a somewhat different take than most. For me the vast majority of time the approach is far more important to me than the goal. When resolving how an arm wrestling contest goes I am not going to resolve it differently based on character intent. I am just going to follow the fiction. For things like Knowledge checks it becomes a bit different because the approach is more obvious and what you hope to accomplish is something that would have more bearing on how the fiction goes.

Most people if you ask their approach to arm wrestling they are going to look at you and say “arm wrestling”

 

[Oofta]

Most people if you ask their approach to arm wrestling they are going to look at you and say “arm wrestling”

Which is about the same way I'd describe picking a lock. There may have been some other descriptive language like "How the [bleep] would I know how to pick a lock?"

 

[Beleriphon]

I have a somewhat different take than most. For me the vast majority of time the approach is far more important to me than the goal. When resolving how an arm wrestling contest goes I am not going to resolve it differently based on character intent. I am just going to follow the fiction. For things like Knowledge checks it becomes a bit different because the approach is more obvious and what you hope to accomplish is something that would have more bearing on how the fiction goes.

Okay, so I think the question for your arm wrestle is why are you doing it? Are we playing Over the Top and can win a totally boss truck? Are we trying to impress the locals and decide arm wrestling because that's the way they do it in Skittlesville? Is the point to intimidate your former co-worker with your mighty thews?

The approach you're taking in each is an arm wrestle, but the goal isn't necessarily to win said arm wrestle.

 

[Charlaquin]

Do you believe the goal can be to just win the arm wrestling contest?

I know you were asking Maxperson, but I’d like to throw in my twocents as the person who first brought up the argument that arm wrestling is an approach to a goal, rather than a goal itself.

No. You want to win the arm wrestling contest for a reason. Maybe it’s to impress someone, maybe it’s to humiliate your opponent, maybe it’s for a prize of some sort, maybe it’s just for your own sense of satisfaction, maybe it’s to alleviate boredom, but there's always a reason. J think the last two I mentioned are the closest you can come to just winning being your goal, but even in those cases, you have a goal, and arm wrestling is the means you’ve chosen to attempt to achieve that goal. Much like how picking a lock isn’t a goal, it’s an approach to the goal of getting a locked door open. It’s important to be able to identify what you want to get out of performing an action.

I think a lot of the protestations about the goal and approach framework requiring “player skill” or “magic words” or what ever other blithe term people want to use comes from misunderstanding this. If you’re thinking of picking the lock, or winning the contest, or hitting the orc with your sword as the goal, then naturally it’s going to seem like what the supporters of this method are asking for is a detailed description of what performing that action looks like, and I don’t blame people for thinking that sounds excessive. What these complaints fail to realize is that under the framework being discussed, picking a lock, winning a contest, hitting an orc with a sword, these things are all approaches. The goal might be to get the door open, or to win the prize money, or to incapacitate the orc.