D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Ovinomancer]

Again, there is a mental jump into a different paradigm that's not altogether easy. I recall my own difficulty in navigating it. What I see in these threads is trying to understand goal and approach as if it's applied to call-for-skill-check play. It's why examples often fail, it's evident in the misunderstandings, so on and so on.

Hit reply to soon.

It's not malicious, it's just a fundamental viewpoint change that's un-navigated.

And, again, this isn't a knock on anyone. Altering your fundamental viewpoint on the game is unnecessary if you're having fun. No one is lesser for not switching points of view.

 

[Xetheral]

You know, I think that maybe the full ramifications of going to goal and approach are being missed. You have to think about challenges differently and set them up differently. This comes up over and over again with the example problem -- examples presented that I'm asked to weigh in on with how it would work in my style of play don't make sense because it's not a play situation that would come up to begin with. It's a jump in understanding that you either make or don't. And, there's nothing wrong with not making it -- it's not a better way to run, objectively, although, for some, it can be subjectively better. Or, maybe, worse. Tastes differ. But, I can say that presenting an example of play to try and suss out a distinction is likely to fail because the actual play between styles is pretty different. For example (heh), the bar scene with the wedgies? Just wouldn't happen because I'm not going to bother to set a scene where there's not a conflict. There's no real low stakes action going on because I don't do low stakes scenes. I narrate that stuff, with some back and forth with m players, but it's just success or failure so we get to the more lively bits.

Based on the discussion in this thread, I totally agree that the full ramifications of going to goal-and-approach (as presented by its promoters) are being missed, but I that they're being overlooked on all sides. The critics are sometimes missing that some of their examples intended to explore apparent weaknesses with goal-and-approach (or, alternately worse-than-status-quo consequences, depending on where in the thread the discussion happens to be) are not applicable because of the particulars of playstyle of the goal-and-approach promoters. At the same time, the promoters appear to be sometimes overlooking that if goal-and-approach actually requires those playstyle changes, that's seen by those posting examples as a larger weakness of goal-and-approach than a failure to be able to handle the proposed examples would be.

Personally, I think that the goal-and-approach method works with a wide variety of different playstyles, but that possibility is getting lost because those who are vocal proponents of that method in this thread happen to have other parts of their playstyle in common (e.g. no non-telegraphed threats, rolling at the point of action, explicit stakes, emphasis on high-stakes scene framing, rolling only for PC actions, etc.). I think those preferences are being conflated with the goal-and-approach method itself.

I identify as using the goal-and-approach method, but my games don't include any of the elements listed above . For me, using the method simply means that I encourage players to include both elements when making action declarations as an aid to my resolution. If they don't, and I can easily infer the missing piece, no problem. If I can't infer the missing piece, I ask.

Importantly, to the extent that goal-and-approach can be inferred as implied/suggested/required by the rules of 5e, I think it is only this weaker version that the rules are discussing. The more specific playstyle preferences being discussed in this thread I think are a separate style that happens to require goal-and-approach, rather than any kind of necessary condition for using goal-and-approach successfully.

 

[5ekyu]

Based on the discussion in this thread, I totally agree that the full ramifications of going to goal-and-approach (as presented by its promoters) are being missed, but I that they're being overlooked on all sides. The critics are sometimes missing that some of their examples intended to explore apparent weaknesses with goal-and-approach (or, alternately worse-than-status-quo consequences, depending on where in the thread the discussion happens to be) are not applicable because of the particulars of playstyle of the goal-and-approach promoters. At the same time, the promoters appear to be sometimes overlooking that if goal-and-approach actually requires those playstyle changes, that's seen by those posting examples as a larger weakness of goal-and-approach than a failure to be able to handle the proposed examples would be.

Personally, I think that the goal-and-approach method works with a wide variety of different playstyles, but that possibility is getting lost because those who are vocal proponents of that method in this thread happen to have other parts of their playstyle in common (e.g. no non-telegraphed threats, rolling at the point of action, explicit stakes, emphasis on high-stakes scene framing, rolling only for PC actions, etc.). I think those preferences are being conflated with the goal-and-approach method itself.

I identify as using the goal-and-approach method, but my games don't include any of the elements listed above . For me, using the method simply means that I encourage players to include both elements when making action declarations as an aid to my resolution. If they don't, and I can easily infer the missing piece, no problem. If I can't infer the missing piece, I ask.

Importantly, to the extent that goal-and-approach can be inferred as implied/suggested/required by the rules of 5e, I think it is only this weaker version that the rules are discussing. The more specific playstyle preferences being discussed in this thread I think are a separate style that happens to require goal-and-approach, rather than any kind of necessary condition for using goal-and-approach successfully.

"Personally, I think that the goal-and-approach method works with a wide variety of different playstyles, but that possibility is getting lost because those who are vocal proponents of that method in this thread happen to have other parts of their playstyle in common (e.g. no non-telegraphed threats, rolling at the point of action, explicit stakes, emphasis on high-stakes scene framing, rolling only for PC actions, etc.). I think those preferences are being conflated with the goal-and-approach method itself."

To me it has seemed that so very often in these discussions these other bits you mention like stakes framing explicitly, reliance on trlegraphing, etc keep getting called into the plat examples of GA. So, while they might not be part and parcel of it, they sure seem to be used a lot in sometimes nebulous ways to help it cover a variety of what would appear to be common scenes.

Admittedly, it seems like what would be common scenes to one may be rare or absent in others. It seems limiting the subset of scenes you will run is key to some approaches.

I know, I myself dont normally, if at all, select scenes where "this scene really matters whether they succeed or dont" and "anybody could succeed at this" are both true. Then again, I do include non-telegraphed "traps" albeit rarely since I dont use the more traditional DnD style traps or the Indi Jones style puzzle traps much at all.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Based on the discussion in this thread, I totally agree that the full ramifications of going to goal-and-approach (as presented by its promoters) are being missed, but I that they're being overlooked on all sides. The critics are sometimes missing that some of their examples intended to explore apparent weaknesses with goal-and-approach (or, alternately worse-than-status-quo consequences, depending on where in the thread the discussion happens to be) are not applicable because of the particulars of playstyle of the goal-and-approach promoters. At the same time, the promoters appear to be sometimes overlooking that if goal-and-approach actually requires those playstyle changes, that's seen by those posting examples as a larger weakness of goal-and-approach than a failure to be able to handle the proposed examples would be.

Personally, I think that the goal-and-approach method works with a wide variety of different playstyles, but that possibility is getting lost because those who are vocal proponents of that method in this thread happen to have other parts of their playstyle in common (e.g. no non-telegraphed threats, rolling at the point of action, explicit stakes, emphasis on high-stakes scene framing, rolling only for PC actions, etc.). I think those preferences are being conflated with the goal-and-approach method itself.

I identify as using the goal-and-approach method, but my games don't include any of the elements listed above . For me, using the method simply means that I encourage players to include both elements when making action declarations as an aid to my resolution. If they don't, and I can easily infer the missing piece, no problem. If I can't infer the missing piece, I ask.

Importantly, to the extent that goal-and-approach can be inferred as implied/suggested/required by the rules of 5e, I think it is only this weaker version that the rules are discussing. The more specific playstyle preferences being discussed in this thread I think are a separate style that happens to require goal-and-approach, rather than any kind of necessary condition for using goal-and-approach successfully.

Okay, I've done a bit of organizing thinking on this, and here's the rub: If you're going to use goal and approach as a method, you must present a game that offers handles to the players to propose goals and approaches. In short, yes, it's part and parcel of the method that you must change how you present situations. If you're only going to call for rolls for things that are uncertain and have a risk of failure, then it's incumbent on the DM to present uncertain situations with consequences of failure. This doesn't work if you just have hallways that may or may not be trapped, as what happens is that players are now asked to do repetitive goal and approach declarations and this gets old fast. It's easier handled in an ask-for-roll approach as the entire exercise in the fiction is abstracted and pushed off onto the mechanics to get past this repetitive play and move to the bits with heft.

Goal and approach require that the DM change the presentation of the game. You have to present challenges that prompt the players into action. This is different, as most games just have the DM present the description of the room and have other information gated behind the obligatory skill checks. You either gain the information or you do not, and this affects the actions your take and if the things you did not notice affect you and now call for new checks or if you engage what you have noticed via other checks. Goal and approach, though, doesn't work at all with this presentation -- you must provide a handle on the action for the players. As such, it requires a form of framing more akin to more narrative-style games where you present a dynamic situation with a clear call to action and then say, "what do you do?"

Yes, this method misses some of the things that the ask-for-rolls does -- they are completely different styles of play. What's missed, though, are the things that no longer make sense in terms of goal and approach play. I don't miss that my players ask for rolls, fail, and give me the opportunity to create new fiction to describe their failures because my method does this well, just in a different context. My method creates consequence based on what the players express rather then what I, as DM, think. I find this preferable. I have to do a bit more work on the front end -- I have to provide a clear call to action in my scene framing and this isn't trivial -- but I offload a lot of work on the backend as I'm now just reacting to the players and following their lead through the scene. This is very different from the much more DM mediated experience of asking-for-rolls and using rolls to gate information and provide tension. Both are very valid ways to play. Neither can recreate the experiences of the other. That's actually a big selling point for me -- most of my pain points with D&D came from the heavy DM load and I find goal and approach lightens that considerably and presents play that I enjoy very much. YMMV, and that's part of the coolness of this hobby.

 

[Campbell]

To be fair, 4th edition of FDA nutritional guidelines recommended eating those wrong vegetables. He may just be using outdated rules.

Seriously dude? You really need to go there? What does 4th Edition have to do with this topic at all?

I really do like Fifth Edition, but these sort of side swipes do nothing for the tenor of the community. For a long time statements like this actually stopped me from wanting to try Fifth Edition.

 

[Bawylie]

Seriously dude? You really need to go there? What does 4th Edition have to do with this topic at all?

I really do like Fifth Edition, but these sort of side swipes do nothing for the tenor of the community. For a long time statements like this actually stopped me from wanting to try Fifth Edition.

That’s a joke. About the Food and Drug Administration and the proper allotment of vegetables. Playing off the broccoli thing from earlier.

It’s tongue-in-cheekily referencing “older editions” as a play on this community’s edition wars.

Whole thing is clowning. Pretty decent clowning, actually.

 

[iserith]

I identify as using the goal-and-approach method, but my games don't include any of the elements listed above . For me, using the method simply means that I encourage players to include both elements when making action declarations as an aid to my resolution. If they don't, and I can easily infer the missing piece, no problem. If I can't infer the missing piece, I ask.

What some are calling "goal and approach" is really the player being explicit about what they are doing and hoping to accomplish. This makes it easier for the DM to adjudicate the action. It stands somewhat in opposition to players just asking to make ability checks without much else in the way of description. There is also nothing in the rules that supports players asking to make ability checks. (Though previous editions of the game do support this.)

It strikes me as odd that anyone would argue against players being more explicit in their descriptions, provided the player isn't being overly verbose or ponderous. Which is why you'll see me suggest "goal and approach" be tied to being "reasonably specific" and "succinct." There is also rules support for players being reasonably specific as to what they are doing, particularly as it relates to hidden objects. The player's approach matters for the DM determining automatic success or failure or whether some kind of roll is appropriate.

This specific aspect of play does not require any particular "playstyle" as you point out in your post unless that "playstyle" is opposed for some reason to players saying what they want to do and hope to achieve. What happens in threads like this though is examples are provided that end up bringing other aspects of a DM/group's approach into the discussion which is then conflated with the above.

In this particular thread, the OP was examining the meaningful consequences for failure for certain actions. "Goal and approach" helps with this because the player being explicit about what the character is doing and hopes to achieve makes it easier to see if the proposed action has a meaningful consequence for failure. If it doesn't, then there is no ability check. That an ability check cannot be called for without a meaningful consequence for failure (among other things) is not a "playstyle" though. Those are the rules of the game, not something that @Ovinomancer, @Charlaquin or myself simply made up. What constitutes a "meaningful consequence for failure" is up to individual DMs. And, of course, nobody is required to follow the rules if they don't want to.

What is probably long overdue is for someone (not it!) who associates their approach to playing with both "goal and approach" and other specific aspects of play to lay this all out in a single thread for reference later. Principles, techniques, etc. plus any rules that support it. The thread can then be bookmarked for reference when the matter inevitably arises in subsequent threads as different DMs discuss how they'd handle this game situation or that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What some are calling "goal and approach" is really the player being explicit about what they are doing and hoping to accomplish. This makes it easier for the DM to adjudicate the action. It stands somewhat in opposition to players just asking to make ability checks without much else in the way of description. There is also nothing in the rules that supports players asking to make ability checks. (Though previous editions of the game do support this.)

It strikes me as odd that anyone would argue against players being more explicit in their descriptions, provided the player isn't being overly verbose or ponderous. Which is why you'll see me suggest "goal and approach" be tied to being "reasonably specific" and "succinct." There is also rules support for players being reasonably specific as to what they are doing, particularly as it relates to hidden objects. The player's approach matters for the DM determining automatic success or failure or whether some kind of roll is appropriate.

This specific aspect of play does not require any particular "playstyle" as you point out in your post unless that "playstyle" is opposed for some reason to players saying what they want to do and hope to achieve. What happens in threads like this though is examples are provided that end up bringing other aspects of a DM/group's approach into the discussion which is then conflated with the above.

In this particular thread, the OP was examining the meaningful consequences for failure for certain actions. "Goal and approach" helps with this because the player being explicit about what the character is doing and hopes to achieve makes it easier to see if the proposed action has a meaningful consequence for failure. If it doesn't, then there is no ability check. That an ability check cannot be called for without a meaningful consequence for failure (among other things) is not a "playstyle" though. Those are the rules of the game, not something that @Ovinomancer, @Charlaquin or myself simply made up. What constitutes a "meaningful consequence for failure" is up to individual DMs. And, of course, nobody is required to follow the rules if they don't want to.

What is probably long overdue is for someone (not it!) who associates their approach to playing with both "goal and approach" and other specific aspects of play to lay this all out in a single thread for reference later. Principles, techniques, etc. plus any rules that support it. The thread can then be bookmarked for reference when the matter inevitably arises in subsequent threads as different DMs discuss how they'd handle this game situation or that.

I/m pretty sure I just heard @iserith volunteer for this. Good on him!

 

[iserith]

I/m pretty sure I just heard @iserith volunteer for this. Good on him!

Dude, I said "Not it!" in the last paragraph. By the rules, that means someone else has to do it.

 

[Umbran]

It’s tongue-in-cheekily referencing “older editions” as a play on this community’s edition wars.

Whole thing is clowning. Pretty decent clowning, actually.

Yes, but this is the other side of some of the resistance you see.

The point about this being a un-navigated viewpoint change is valid. And on top of that, how you say things matters, especially in plain text. What you see as "decent clowning" is to someone else a callback to something that really, really cheesed them off. You are effectively connecting a change of viewpoint to a painful past experience.

And people wonder why some folks push back?