D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[iserith]

As an observation, it seems to me that the framing techniques @Ovinomancer considers to be a necessary part of goal-and-approach may be required specifically when one is trying to emphasize high-stakes, point-of-action action declarations. If I understand correctly, a low-stakes action declaration of walking down a hallway (approach) to get to the other side (goal) is undesirable at @Ovinomancer's table. It makes sense to me that if one want to avoid low-stakes action declarations one has to exclusively frame high-stakes situations. (I just personally don't see low-stakes goal-and-approach action declarations, like character movement, as undesirable, and therefore see no issue with describing a hallway as part of my description of the environment.) @Ovinomancer, if I'm misunderstanding, please let me know.

In any case, goal-and-approach clearly means slightly/somewhat/significantly different things to different people. (I mean, you and @Ovinomancer are disagreeing about whether you agree on what the concept requires. ) Nomenclature will be a bit tricky if you do put together a summary thread.

The definition has become muddled in my view, yes. Goal and approach is just player a player stating, well, a goal and an approach. But it's now become lumped together with other techniques like telegraphing or associated with particular personalities on the forums and further confused by the attempts of some people to break it down and refute the basis of some aspects of it which are tied to the game's rules. (Hint: Some aspects are directly tied to the rules and others, like telegraphing, are not. Not verbatim, anyway.) The method of play is fantastic in my view, but the discussions surrounding it are a mess and need cleaning up.

I don't really see how the game is playable without at least some low-stakes or no-stakes action declarations, even if one's preference is to focus on conflicts with higher stakes. But then, that's all relative.

 

[iserith]

I don’t think what you’re saying here is necessarily in conflict with what Iserith said. Goal and Approach, per se doesn’t require telegraphing, and I think it would be false to claim that the rules say it does. But, utilizing G&A without utilizing telegraphing is probably going to lead to some... mixed results, if we’re being generous. I think many of the examples and whatabouts that ask “well, how would you G&A folks deal with this” actually demonstrate this fact very effectively. Yeah, if you don’t like to make heavy use of telegraphing, expecting your players to phrase all their actions in a G&A framework would probably not work super well for you. I think this may be where the two sides are talking past each other. We’re each taking our own style of narration as a given. And our respective styles of action resolution just don’t gel well with each other’s styles of narration.

As long as the DM is describing the environment to provide the basic scope of options that present themselves (as the rules say to do), then players should be able to state what they hope to achieve and how their characters set about achieving it.

So, to those saying, “G&A can be a useful tool, but it doesn’t work for every situation,” I think you’re right about that. For example, in a situation where you are keeping information that the characters would not have access to hidden from the players, G&A might not work super well. What I think may not be getting communicated as effectively as it could is that those of us who embrace G&A have found that by adjusting the narrative framework of our games to more consistently accommodate G&A, we have found the results to be more to our liking than when we adjusted our action resolution techniques to accommodate the narrative frameworks we had used in previous editions. Your mileage may vary, and if you like the way your game runs just fine, don’t feel obligated to adopt our techniques.

I can give a goal and approach for any example fictional situation set before me, even the silliest ones, provided the basic scope of options are presented by the DM. It's just that I cannot see some of the posts of the people who may be trying to throw you or Ovinomancer off with said silly examples.

 

[cmad1977]

Yeah, there was some great discussion about several of the examples (forgery, stealth, and knowledge checks). The general pattern of not rolling until the success/failure state obtains is going to be a hard one for people used to the old way.

I think one of the really important points was about requiring players to do more of the 'work'.

It’s definitely hard for some players to understand that when they say they ‘sneak up to the rear of the building and look in the window’ they don’t need to roll anything.

When ducking for cover because the one of the mooks heads to the window for a smoke? Roll stealth.

 

[Oofta]

It's just that I cannot see some of the posts of the people who may be trying to throw you or Ovinomancer off with said silly examples.

Seems like a self-inflicted wound to me. That, and "don't listen to those who disagree with me".

I would be happy to go through any serious example and explain why I do what I do. We may disagree because there is no one true way. I'll stop replying to endless loops eventually but otherwise I do my best to respond.

 

[Umbran]

The definition has become muddled in my view, yes. Goal and approach is just player a player stating, well, a goal and an approach. But it's now become lumped together with other techniques like telegraphing ...

I agree that, in terms of definition, they are muddled.

I also think that sticking only to definition, without also engaging with the practical use, severely limits the value that can be gained from the discussion.

 

[iserith]

Agreed; that by itself is not enough info. Even if it's just an empty hallway this needs to be told to the players: "Leaving to the north is an empty hallway, no end found as far as your light goes, and no obvious doors or intersections" will do. (or just drawing it on a board or battlemap). It's then up to the players what to do with it - stride boldly down it and see where it goes, or check it carefully for traps, or search it for secret doors, or ignore it and go somewhere else, or whatever.

Really it just looks like you're talking about a preference and adding embellishment here. That there is a hallway is sufficient to state a goal and approach for the players. It's boring, sure, and more detail is better in my view, too. Still, the players can have their characters do stuff even with that little context and the DM can narrate the result of those actions, then repeat the play loop. Perhaps as a result of the PCs' actions, the basic scope of options has changed and there's now revealed environment for the DM to describe.

For who, though?

Telegraphing that the 'empty' north hallway is somehow more than it seems (as opposed, say, to two other nigh-identical empty hallways leaving - one east, one west - from the same room) seems to me like a passive way of leading the players/PCs by the nose...which is great for the DM but not much fun for the players if said players enjoy exploration.

It has little to do with the DM's desire to have the players take any particular course of action. It perhaps gives the DM the satisfaction of knowing that he or she runs a fair game without "gotchas" that encourages players to pay attention to gain a better chance of success. It potentially removes the impetus for standard operating procedures which by virtue of their rote nature can be a little stale. To some degree it forces the DM to be more descriptive, hopefully without becoming ponderous, which lends itself to a more immersive experience.

There's two ways for PCs (and players) to learn information: the DM flat-out tells them about things they can see, and they have to dig for things that may or may not be present that they can't see. If there's a chance they could miss something even on searching for it, at some point out come the dice; and if there's no chance they'll miss it (or you-as-DM aren't going to let them miss it) then what's the point of hiding it in the first place?

Telegraphing just serves to make the non-obvious obvious, and where's the mystery in that?

The DM decides what is obvious and what is not obvious. There is nothing that is by default not obvious. And telegraphing isn't making anything obvious - it's just a clue in the environment. The blood stain on the wall opposite the door. An acrid smell in the air of an otherwise empty chamber. A hollow sound when traversing the stone floor. These things invite exploration rather than obviate it. If the players investigate, perhaps they find a trap or perhaps they fail to do so. Or maybe they don't investigate - it's up to them, after all - and they run afoul of the trap that you telegraphed. When they then think about the clues you provided, they know they could have avoided their fate but didn't, for which they can only blame themselves rather than the DM for hitting the party with "gotchas." Oh, that explains the blood stain on the wall - argh!

 

[Bawylie]

There's two ways for PCs (and players) to learn information: the DM flat-out tells them about things they can see, and they have to dig for things that may or may not be present that they can't see. If there's a chance they could miss something even on searching for it, at some point out come the dice; and if there's no chance they'll miss it (or you-as-DM aren't going to let them miss it) then what's the point of hiding it in the first place?

Telegraphing just serves to make the non-obvious obvious, and where's the mystery in that?

A door telegraphs the presence of a room - doesn’t make that room’s contents or occupants known prior to entry.

Wrapping paper telegraphs the presence of a gift, but...

Seems to me there’s a definition of telegraphing that does not “just serve to make the non-obvious obvious” and that there are maybe more uses than you’re allowing.

 

[iserith]

I agree that, in terms of definition, they are muddled.

I also think that sticking only to definition, without also engaging with the practical use, severely limits the value that can be gained from the discussion.

I've said several times in this thread alone and countless times in other threads why it's valuable in my view to have players be reasonably specific about what they want to achieve and how they set about achieving it: Because it makes it easier for the DM to adjudicate the action, including determining if there's a need for an ability check, which ability check and skill proficiency applies if needed, plus the DC, without unnecessarily assuming or establishing for the player what his or her character is doing. It makes it so the DM and player are more on the same page. It helps avoid miscommunication between the action and the intent.

A player being reasonably specific about what they want to do achieve and how he or she sets about achieving it is simply the player doing the best job he or she can in performing Step 2 of the conversation of the game: "The players describe what they want to do." The better that each participant in the game, including the DM, do at performing their rules-prescribed steps, the smoother the game runs. Stating a goal and approach is one way to do that.

 

[Bawylie]

I've said several times in this thread alone and countless times in other threads why it's valuable in my view to have players be reasonably specific about what they want to achieve and how they set about achieving it: Because it makes it easier for the DM to adjudicate the action, including determining if there's a need for an ability check, which ability check and skill proficiency applies if needed, plus the DC, without unnecessarily assuming or establishing for the player what his or her character is doing. It makes it so the DM and player are more on the same page. It helps avoid miscommunication between the action and the intent.

A player being reasonably specific about what they want to do achieve and how he or she sets about achieving it is simply the player doing the best job he or she can in performing Step 2 of the conversation of the game: "The players describe what they want to do." The better that each participant in the game, including the DM, do at performing their rules-prescribed steps, the smoother the game runs. Stating a goal and approach is one way to do that.

For me, it beats throwing a die and waiting on the DM to tell me what my character did, leaving my contribution to exaggerated reactions and mugging.

 

[Oofta]

I would just add that according to the DMG, relying on passive perception to notice traps is also acceptable. Personally, sometimes I broadcast sometimes I don't.

A trap’s description specifies the checks and DCs needed to detect it, disable it, or both. A character actively looking for a trap can attempt a Wisdom (Perception) check against the trap’s DC. You can also compare the DC to detect the trap with each character’s passive Wisdom (Perception) score to determine whether anyone in the party notices the trap in passing.​