D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Xetheral]

I think the term “goal and approach” as a description of the set of techniques I, Ovinomancer, and others employ is causing undue miscommunication. And I accept a large part of the responsibility for coining it. Let me try to clear some things up.

Those of us who use these techniques strive to at all times follow the flow of play described in the beginning part of the PHB, wherein the DM first describes the environment, then the players describe what they want to do, then the DM determines the results (possibly calling for a die roll to help in this determination), and then describes the results. I don’t think this particular part of what we do is especially controversial. I think pretty much everyone who runs 5e does this, to a certain extent. There are two major places where I think the two sides differ: how we interpret “a player describes what they want to do” and the methods we use for determining the results of said description. I think where things are getting muddled is in the conflation of these two points.

When those of us on my side of this debate read “the player describes what they want to do,” our interpretation is that this need be a description of the character’s activity in the fiction. “I cast fireball” is a description of the character’s activity in the fiction; the fireball spell exists in the world of the fiction, and casting it is understood to be an activity that involves particular magic words, gestures, and uses of particular materials to produce a particular result. “I make an Insight check” is not a description of the character’s activity in the fiction.

Related to, but separate from this, we strive to eliminate the need for the DM to make assumptions about “what [the player] wants to do” in order to determine the result. In the case of spellcasting, this generally requires very little effort. The rules provide explicit instructions for what mechanics to employ to to resolve the particular effects produced by the particular activities understood to be performed by a character casting the spell. In the case of an attempt to recognize that an NPC is lying, it is more difficult to resolve the outcome without making assumptions about the character’s activity in the fiction. To do so, the DM needs to know specifically what activity the character is performing in the fiction. So, where specific resolution procedures are not provided by the rules, and the DM is expected to use their best judgment to decide which mechanics, if any, to employ, we ask that the players communicate both what they as a player want to achieve, and what their character is doing that they hope will result in the desired outcome, in order to make our determination of the results as easy and assumption-free as possible.

(Emphasis added.) From my perspective the controversy on the bolded part stems from the insistence on striving to follow that flow of play "at all times", and whether or not that exclusivity is mandated/suggested/implied by the rules of 5e or is instead a style preference.

I don't think there is any way to objectively resolve that controversy, but I'm flagging it since you mentioned you didn't think the bolded part was controversial. (Admittedly, the degree to which such exclusivity is supported by the rules is a side issue, and not relevant to the instant discussion of understanding GAA, so my caveat may be out of the scope of your post.)

I had to take a break before I responded to this one, because reading this made me really angry and my first instinct would not have been appropriate.

If you think that this is a difference between you and the “G&A” folks, then you are not understanding us, because we don’t care about extra descriptive details either. “I pick the lock with thieves’ tools” vs, “I carefully insert the pick and lever into the lock, pushing down lightly with the pin to test the resistance of each of the tumblers, then gently apply just enough force to lower and lock them into position, one at a time, until they’re all in place and turn the lever” doesn’t make a difference to me. “I Attack the orc with my longsword” vs. “I lunge at the orc, feinting high, but then turning my blade low at the last moment, trying to get past his guard and jam the blade into the gap between his fauld and his grieves” doesn’t make a difference to me. “I cast fireball at that area” vs. “I give my wand a swish and a flick as I say ‘Incendio’ and point it at that spot, causing flames to erupt in a 20-foot radius around it” doesn’t make a difference to me. What makes a difference to me is “I try to read him to see if he’s lying” vs. “I watch his face for micro-expressions to see if I can figure out what he’s really thinking.” I care about clarity of intent and action, not detail.

From my standpoint, I don't see a qualitative difference between your fourth example and the first three:

• "I pick the lock with thieves’ tools"
• "I Attack the orc with my longsword"
• "I cast fireball at that area"
• "I try to read him to see if he’s lying"

The clarity of intent and action in these examples seems roughly identical to me, which makes it difficult for me to understand where you're coming from. Could you expand your explanation of why you see the fourth example as meaningfully different from the first three?

 

[Oofta]

I love emphasizing all of the decisions a player makes including character build. Comes up all the time in my games. What's your point?

And Insight is super useful in my games. Comes up all the time. Used, usually, at least once per session, often more. And you're 100% right -- none of my players ever ask to make an insight check. It's weird how we've told you all of this before, over and over, and yet, here I am, telling you again.

Insight is not a button you press to detect lies in my game. It's a tool I use, as DM, to resolve uncertainty in many social interactions where a PC has declared an action to try to elicit information from an NPC. Which happens all the time for a number of reasons. Why this continues to elude your understanding, I cannot say.

I disagree, that's different.

There is nothing in the description of insight or other knowledge related skills that indicates any action other than mental activity.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I disagree, that's different.

There is nothing in the description of insight or other knowledge related skills that indicates any action other than mental activity.

Again, if you really want to make this skill a button on your character sheet that you press to get the DM to maybe give you some more information so you can get to doing something, go ahead. Have fun. My problem is where you insist that it's only this; that you cannot ever have it be anything other than a button you press to ask the DM to maybe tell you more so you can actually do something.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Then you wonder why people compare having this conversation with nailing jello to the wall.

When have I ever expressed wonderment at that?

On the contrary, I understand it all too well.

 

[Xetheral]

Well, yes. If you, as DM, present an NPC where a large part of the challenge of the scene is determining that this NPC is lying, and you wish to gate that knowledge behind a check because you enjoy the play, then you'll find very little use for goal and approach because it actively fights against your goals of play. We've been telling you this for ages, now, across multiple threads. You set up play in ways that don't work with goal and approach. Cool.

That's not a fault of goal and approach, though.

Again, if you really want to make this skill a button on your character sheet that you press to get the DM to maybe give you some more information so you can get to doing something, go ahead. Have fun. My problem is where you insist that it's only this; that you cannot ever have it be anything other than a button you press to ask the DM to maybe tell you more so you can actually do something.

What if whether or not the NPC is lying is not part of any challenge of a scene presented by the DM, but is instead information sought by a PC for their own purposes? In such a circumstance critical information isn't being gated behind a check, so insight wouldn't be "a button you press... so you can actually do something". Instead, being good at insight in such a context would mean the character has a greater likelihood of being able to detect the NPC's deceitfulness (or other emotional state) and use that information for decision-making (either now or in the future).

I think that should still compatible with Goal and Approach. The character wants additional information about an NPC's emotional state and declares an approach to acquire it. The difficulty I see is that eventually the description of the approach is going to be become standard in circumstances where the DM didn't intend that NPC's emotional state to be important and thus didn't provide a telegraph that the player can use to customize their action declaration.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If all you need is one hand free in order to cast in 5e

Yes, that's been the case since 3.0, IIRC.

then my point about spellcasting being easier now than in 0e-1e gains another bit of evidence.

As you have any more bits of evidence of that, you'd have a bit torrent.

In 1e by RAW the caster had to be completely unfettered and able to freely move without obstacle or interruption. You couldn't cast if your feet were tied, or your fingers bound, etc.; or from any position except standing upright.

That's about how I remember it. You couldn't - unlike the iconic illo of Emerikol the Choatic - cast from the back of a moving, let alone galloping, mount, for instance.

Spellcasting is objectively much easier in 5e than it has been in any other edition, save maybe 4e. Why would you need to gather evidence for that? No one disputes that fact.

In 4e range/area spells still provoked AoOs, and sustaining a spell required an action every round. Spellcasting has gotten easier in every edition, it's about the most consistent change from one ed to the next. Aside from doing away with concentration entirely, I can't imagine how 6e will manage to be yet softer on casters.

With respect to G&A, the mere act of casting is 'easier' in the sense that it carries no uncertainty, in itself.

I like the analogy of a lie as the social interaction equivalent of a trap. If the DM doesn’t give the players any indication that it is there in their description of the environment, the DM is not fulfilling their role adequately, and it is unreasonable for them to expect the players to fulfill their role when they lack the necessary information to do so. It is on DM, under goal and approach, to describe the environment in sufficient detail for the players to be able to declare their action. If the inkeep lies, the DM should describe a cue to indicate it, just as (s)he would describe a cue to indicate the presence of a trap.

The usual response to this is: “but then your players will always know when anyone is lying/when there’s a trap, and will never need to make a roll for it. To which I say, lies and traps are not the only social and exploratory hazards and features that I telegraph. Players must pay attention to my description of the environment if they hope to both notice telegraphs and accurately determine what they indicate. As well, even if you think you know what a telegraph indicates, it is smart play to take action to follow up on your suspicions and confirm or deny them with certainty rather than risk having guessed wrong. It has not been my experience that players always see everything coming as a result of my telegraphing.

That seems elaborate (and even a little pre-skill-system old-school).
I thought 5e had retained Passive Insight?

I strongly disagree. The rules of D&D 5e, as I read them anyway, define skills as specific applications of abilities, and define ability checks as tools for resolving uncertainty in actions. It is my belief that, if an activity is not an “action,” then it is not appropriate to resolve by way of an Ability (Skill) check.

Nod. That's a fair interpretation. It does mean the DM will be making some skill checks behind the screen - because the 'action' is not being taken by the PC, and may involve determining whether the PC is aware of something - and there may even have to be some obfuscation about it, especially if you're goin' for an immersive player experience.

That 'action' orientation of G&A is why I think it'd be nice to use in a player-always-rolls paradigm, with rolls taking place when they matter to the action, not necessarily in perfect temporal unison.

I see them as akin to Insight in the sense of not really being “actions,” and find his attempts to resolve this discrepancy by asking that his players describe attempts to recall lore as an action (such as “I think back to my military training to try and remember how best to kill trolls”) as a poor fit with the way I prefer to run the game.

What sort of action declarations do you prefer players to use when trying to portray their knowledgeable characters? Or are you just careful to describe the setting & situation in terms of how each character understands it based on their perceptivity and knowledge?

I'm curious, because I've occasionally found it awkward on the DM side, and often disappointing on the player side.

 

[Oofta]

Again, if you really want to make this skill a button on your character sheet that you press to get the DM to maybe give you some more information so you can get to doing something, go ahead. Have fun. My problem is where you insist that it's only this; that you cannot ever have it be anything other than a button you press to ask the DM to maybe tell you more so you can actually do something.

It's not "pushing a button". It's using dice to resolve uncertainty. Can the PC get a read on the NPC? Did they happen to ever learn this tidbit of information and can they recall it.

If they succeed, great. They make progress towards their goal. Fail? Another path can be taken.

It seems like you want to redefine something that has no action so that it fits GAA. Square peg, round hole.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It's not "pushing a button". It's using dice to resolve uncertainty. Can the PC get a read on the NPC? Did they happen to ever learn this tidbit of information and can they recall it.

If they succeed, great. They make progress towards their goal. Fail? Another path can be taken.

It seems like you want to redefine something that has no action so that it fits GAA. Square peg, round hole.

I think he means "pushing a button" in that it (like saying "I search for traps") doesn't actually require any interaction with the environment. It's a phrase that...supposedly...works with any NPC, in any situation. It doesn't matter what the DM has narrated, or how he has described the NPC, or what the stakes are, or anything else. "I roll Insight to see if he's lying" doesn't take any of that into account.

It's a button you push.

Now, the DM (assuming he/she allows this sort of thing) might take all that other stuff into account when giving the answer. But the player hasn't done so. They have just (drumroll...) pushed the "detect lie" button.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What if whether or not the NPC is lying is not part of any challenge of a scene presented by the DM, but is instead information sought by a PC for their own purposes? In such a circumstance critical information isn't being gated behind a check, so insight wouldn't be "a button you press... so you can actually do something". Instead, being good at insight in such a context would mean the character has a greater likelihood of being able to detect the NPC's deceitfulness (or other emotional state) and use that information for decision-making (either now or in the future).

I think that should still compatible with Goal and Approach. The character wants additional information about an NPC's emotional state and declares an approach to acquire it. The difficulty I see is that eventually the description of the approach is going to be become standard in circumstances where the DM didn't intend that NPC's emotional state to be important and thus didn't provide a telegraph that the player can use to customize their action declaration.

I'm not following your argument here at all -- it appears you're arguing for a different approach based on the the idea that the DM may fail to present a scene adequately, and so asking for rolls is a way to protect against DM failure to properly present the scene?

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's not "pushing a button". It's using dice to resolve uncertainty. Can the PC get a read on the NPC? Did they happen to ever learn this tidbit of information and can they recall it.

If they succeed, great. They make progress towards their goal. Fail? Another path can be taken.

Pushing a button is probably a bit too dismissive, but it is an accurate description. It doesn't matter what's happening in the fiction, I can say, "Can I roll Insight to tell if they're lying?" There's no interaction with the fiction here, it's a stock ask that gets the result of being able to roll dice in an attempt to get the DM to tell me more stuff. It's functionally equivalent to pressing a button, like in a video game where you have an extra-sense to detect things. You press the button, and get a ping. Same effect here.

And, this is how a lot of D&D has been played for a long time. It's not bad, in and of itself. I, myself, played D&D for a long time using these methods and thought nothing of it -- it was expected and how those skills worked. I press my Insight skill button and, if I roll well, the DM tells me secret stuff.

It seems like you want to redefine something that has no action so that it fits GAA. Square peg, round hole.

No, this is on you. You play with Insight being a button-press and are arguing that it should be for everyone. I'm absolutely saying you can use it that way, but I don't. There's only one of us trying to declare how you're supposed to play.