D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Xetheral]

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?

Thanks for letting me know I wasn't clear! I'll try to answer your question and explain my point differently.

In an open-ended game like D&D, I don't see how it would be possible for a DM to always be able to predict what the PCs will find important to be able to include it in an upfront scene description. Sometimes a PC will have an idea the DM didn't consider (and therefore didn't include all the relevant information for evaluating that plan), or it could be the PCs take the entire scene in a completely unexpected direction (rendering moot the DM's analysis of what information is important). I wouldn't classify either situation as a "failure to properly present the scene" on the part of the DM.

As a trivial example, a PC could deliberately change the topic of conversation in a non-confrontatinal social scene and watch for whether the new topic appears to make the NPC uncomfortable. Since the scene had been framed as non-confrontational, the DM hasn't yet had a reason (or opportunity) to telegraph that the NPC is/isn't concealing their emotional state, so the PC doesn't have anything to unique to this situation to structure their action declaration around. Accordingly, they'll probably go with something generic when describing their approach, like "... by watching their body language for signs of discomfort".

On the one hand, the PC declaring a goal (find out if NPC has knowledge of topic x) and an approach (by changing the topic of the conversation to x and watching their body language for signs of discomfort) seems to be exactly the sort of thing the PC should be able to do in Goal and Approach. On the other hand, the described approach isn't specific to some unique detail telegraphed by the DM (because the DM didn't know that such would be relevant or have an opportunity to include it before the player altered the scene) and would apply to just about any similar situation.

My question is, do you consider permitting an action declaration with a generic Approach to be in keeping with Goal and Approach as you see it? If yes, how is permitting a generic Approach functionally different than "pushing the Insight button"? If no, does that mean that under G&A certain types of actions (e.g. reading the emotional state of an NPC) are only available to the PCs when the DM accurately predicted that such actions would be important to them and included appropriate telegraphs permitting situation-specific Approach declarations?

 

[Bawylie]

Thanks for letting me know I wasn't clear! I'll try to answer your question and explain my point differently.

In an open-ended game like D&D, I don't see how it would be possible for a DM to always be able to predict what the PCs will find important to be able to include it in an upfront scene description. Sometimes a PC will have an idea the DM didn't consider (and therefore didn't include all the relevant information for evaluating that plan), or it could be the PCs take the entire scene in a completely unexpected direction (rendering moot the DM's analysis of what information is important). I wouldn't classify either situation as a "failure to properly present the scene" on the part of the DM.

As a trivial example, a PC could deliberately change the topic of conversation in a non-confrontatinal social scene and watch for whether the new topic appears to make the NPC uncomfortable. Since the scene had been framed as non-confrontational, the DM hasn't yet had a reason (or opportunity) to telegraph that the NPC is/isn't concealing their emotional state, so the PC doesn't have anything to unique to this situation to structure their action declaration around. Accordingly, they'll probably go with something generic when describing their approach, like "... by watching their body language for signs of discomfort".

On the one hand, the PC declaring a goal (find out if NPC has knowledge of topic x) and an approach (by changing the topic of the conversation to x and watching their body language for signs of discomfort) seems to be exactly the sort of thing the PC should be able to do in Goal and Approach. On the other hand, the described approach isn't specific to some unique detail telegraphed by the DM (because the DM didn't know that such would be relevant or have an opportunity to include it before the player altered the scene) and would apply to just about any similar situation.

My question is, do you consider permitting an action declaration with a generic Approach to be in keeping with Goal and Approach as you see it? If yes, how is permitting a generic Approach functionally different than "pushing the Insight button"? If no, does that mean that under G&A certain types of actions (e.g. reading the emotional state of an NPC) are only available to the PCs when the DM accurately predicted that such actions would be important to them and included appropriate telegraphs permitting situation-specific Approach declarations?

Yes.

It’s functionally different because it has some in-universe action, cost, stakes, and/or changes attached.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I endeavor to do the latter. In particular, I look to characters’ backgrounds and Proficiencies to inform what additional details their characters might be aware of.

It does strike me as the ideal way to go. But it also requires you know the PCs pretty well, and/or have crib notes on their abilities/skills/special senses/etc. Between that and tracking bonds/flaws/etc for Inspiration, I was getting memory errors - I tossed out inspiration.

To give this a more concrete example, let’s imagine an idol found in a dungeon. A character proficient in the Religion skill might know that it depicts the Dwarves goddess Mordra, who presides over the dead (I’m making this up as I go, but presumably this information would be determined ahead of time in an actual game),

I'm actually all for making it up as I go....
...only problem's remembering it later.

and that statues of her are often reliquaries. A character proficient in History might recognize that it is made from a rare mineral that was mined in the underdark before the dwarf/duergar schism. A character proficient in Arcana might recognize that this mineral has unique resonant properties that make it ideal for use as an arcane focus. A character with the stonecunning feature would probably know both of those details.
If the players want to find out if it has magical properties, they could handle it during a short rest, as described in the rules, or cast Detect Magic and/or Identify. If they want to find out if it has any secret compartments or mechanisms, they could examine it for any seams, feel it for catches or moving parts. etc, etc.

See, that sounds great. When you give players the information the character should have, up-front, they'll eventually stop pestering your for checks, and start declaring actions...

 

[Xetheral]

The fourth doesn’t tell me what the character is actually doing. Picking a lock with thieves’ tools is a very specific action. I know exactly what that looks like. Attacking someone with a sword, again, pretty clear-cut. The fireball spell involves specific gestures and incantations. But “trying to read someone” is vague and unclear. I don’t know what’s being done by the character in the attempt to read the other person. Are they watching for micro-expressions? Are they listening for changes in speech pattern or cadence? Are they observing body language? There’s a lot of things “try to read” might mean. To me, it’s like saying “I try to unlock the door” instead of “I try to pick the lock with thieves tools,” or “I try to kill the orc” instead of “I Attack the orc with my longsword,” or “I use magic” instead of “I cast fireball.”

I guess I just don't see how trying to read someone is vague or unclear: to me, reading someone's emotional state is a holistic activity that includes all of the things you mentioned. When I'm trying to read a friend's emotional state, I'm not going to pick one thing to focus on to the exclusion of other possible signs.

Maybe you disagree, and in your experience reading someone's emotional state does indeed involve application of a specific technique to the exclusion of other techniques. If so, are there really more such techniques than there are ways to attack someone with a longsword?

I realize the multitude of ways to attack with a longsword aren't relevant to action resolution because they are all resolved identically. But I have a hard time seeing how the different techniques you've described for reading someone lead to different resolutions. Do you decide on the fly whether that particular NPC is more expressive through body language than they are through micro-expressions, permitting an auto-success for one approach and requiring a WIS check for the other? If you're not going into that level of granularity for NPC expressiveness, why does it matter which approach they declare?

5e does have something it calls “passive checks,” but by my reading they are meant to work differently than passive Perception and Insight did in 4e. The PHB describes passive checks as being used to represent the average effort of a task performed continuously, or at the DM’s discretion, to make checks in secret. One could certainly argue that a character is repeatedly observing the body language of the people they are in conversation with to try to determine their intentions, or that it is appropriate to make a secret check to see if the PC notices when the NPC lies, and for a long time that was how I handled these situations. But I found it to be unsatisfactory. It requires me to assume PC behavior, which I don’t like to do, and the result is just that sometimes the dice tell me not to give the players the information they would need to be able to engage with the hazard. I’d rather not hide the game from my players.

It certainly is very old-school, at least by my understanding of old-school D&D.


Yep, though as I said above, I do this less than I used to, cause the only effect it seemed to have was locking players out of being able to interact with the game based on the random result of a die roll.


I more or less do this. There are some times when the NPCs roll, such as when attacking PCs in combat, but most of the time it’s the players making rolls in my games, abs they’re always being made when they’re relevant to the action (the classic example being stealth - I don’t ask you to roll when you first declare sneaking off, I ask you to do it when you’re at risk of being discovered).


I endeavor to do the latter. In particular, I look to characters’ backgrounds and Proficiencies to inform what additional details their characters might be aware of. When a player wants to learn something about a feature of the environment that they don’t already know as a result of their prior training, they need to take some sort of investigative action, perhaps by closely examining something, or interacting with it. To give this a more concrete example, let’s imagine an idol found in a dungeon. A character proficient in the Religion skill might know that it depicts the Dwarves goddess Mordra, who presides over the dead (I’m making this up as I go, but presumably this information would be determined ahead of time in an actual game), and that statues of her are often reliquaries. A character proficient in History might recognize that it is made from a rare mineral that was mined in the underdark before the dwarf/duergar schism. A character proficient in Arcana might recognize that this mineral has unique resonant properties that make it ideal for use as an arcane focus. A character with the stonecunning feature would probably know both of those details. If the players want to find out if it has magical properties, they could handle it during a short rest, as described in the rules, or cast Detect Magic and/or Identify. If they want to find out if it has any secret compartments or mechanisms, they could examine it for any seams, feel it for catches or moving parts. etc, etc.

I like the idol example, and have a follow-up question: what if the player wants more information about Modra, rather than know more about the idol itself? Examining the idol more closely won't inform the PC whether (e.g.) Modra has any particular enemies in the Elvish pantheon. What action can the player declare for their PC at your table to find out such information, and how do you resolve it? Do you just give the information to them or withhold it based on whether you think the character would know? Do you decide whether or not to give it to them based on whether they are proficient in Religion? Do you call for an INT check?

 

[Lanefan]

The fourth doesn’t tell me what the character is actually doing. Picking a lock with thieves’ tools is a very specific action. I know exactly what that looks like. Attacking someone with a sword, again, pretty clear-cut. The fireball spell involves specific gestures and incantations. But “trying to read someone” is vague and unclear. I don’t know what’s being done by the character in the attempt to read the other person. Are they watching for micro-expressions? Are they listening for changes in speech pattern or cadence? Are they observing body language? There’s a lot of things “try to read” might mean. To me, it’s like saying “I try to unlock the door” instead of “I try to pick the lock with thieves tools,” or “I try to kill the orc” instead of “I Attack the orc with my longsword,” or “I use magic” instead of “I cast fireball.”

From the player side, there shouldn't be any difference between the four.

Why's that?

Because all four declarations are simply invoking game mechanics that the player (in theory) has access to and control over: pick locks chance; to-hit chance; spellcasting mechanics; and social skill mechanics.

The simplest way to achieve what you seem to be after here would be to entirely remove the social-skill game mechanics. No more Insight. No more Diplomacy (or equivalent). Etc. And then, the player would have to be more specific on how the PC is approaching these things because there'd be no hard-coded player-side mechanics to fall back on.

 

[Charlaquin]

It does strike me as the ideal way to go. But it also requires you know the PCs pretty well, and/or have crib notes on their abilities/skills/special senses/etc. Between that and tracking bonds/flaws/etc for Inspiration, I was getting memory errors - I tossed out inspiration.
I'm actually all for making it up as I go....
...only problem's remembering it later. See, that sounds great. When you give players the information the character should have, up-front, they'll eventually stop pestering your for checks, and start declaring actions...

Oh, I have my players self-manage their ideals, traits, bonds, and flaws. In my current campaign, I say that players can claim Inspiration for acting out those traits once per session each, and to just tell me when they do so. I leave it up to the player’s judgment what constitutes “acting out” one of those traits. Theoretically each player could claim Inspiration up to five times per session, though my group hasn’t been. Some of them don’t really care, some aren’t used to claiming it proactively, and some are too reluctant to spend it when they have it.

For my next campaign, I plan to change the rule to be that players can claim Inspiration any time they or the group suffer a setback as a result of their flaw (no per-session limit), and when they have Inspiration, they can spend it to gain advantage on any action that is influenced by one of their personality traits, motivated by their bond, or aligned with their ideal. I’ve used this house rule before, and found it very successful, which is why I want to see if it works better for this group of players. At a read, it sounds more restrictive, and it is, but my experience has been that the restrictions encourage claiming and using Inspiration when you have the chance, instead of holding out for a hypothetical more important roll.

 

[Tony Vargas]

For my next campaign, I plan to change the rule to be that players can claim Inspiration any time they or the group suffer a setback as a result of their flaw (no per-session limit), and when they have Inspiration, they can spend it to gain advantage on any action that is influenced by one of their personality traits, motivated by their bond, or aligned with their ideal. I’ve used this house rule before, and found it very successful, which is why I want to see if it works better for this group of players. At a read, it sounds more restrictive, and it is, but my experience has been that the restrictions encourage claiming and using Inspiration when you have the chance, instead of holding out for a hypothetical more important roll.

That does sound more constructive.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Why's that?
Because all four declarations are simply invoking game mechanics that the player (in theory) has access to and control over: pick locks chance; to-hit chance; spellcasting mechanics; and social skill mechanics.

In the G&A interpretation of the 5e play-loop, though, the player only has access to spellcasting mechanics, and even that might be revoked given the right circumstance & DM judgement. The other mechanics resolve uncertainty, and it's the DM that determines if there is uncertainty to be resolved. Everything about the presentation of combat mechanics implies that combat is always uncertain, but that doesn't remove the DM's authority to determine that a particular combat action might be automatically successful or impossible. As for tool use and social checks, determination of uncertainly is entirely in the DM's court by default.

 

[Charlaquin]

I guess I just don't see how trying to read someone is vague or unclear: to me, reading someone's emotional state is a holistic activity that includes all of the things you mentioned. When I'm trying to read a friend's emotional state, I'm not going to pick one thing to focus on to the exclusion of other possible signs.

Maybe you disagree, and in your experience reading someone's emotional state does indeed involve application of a specific technique to the exclusion of other techniques. If so, are there really more such techniques than there are ways to attack someone with a longsword?

I realize the multitude of ways to attack with a longsword aren't relevant to action resolution because they are all resolved identically. But I have a hard time seeing how the different techniques you've described for reading someone lead to different resolutions. Do you decide on the fly whether that particular NPC is more expressive through body language than they are through micro-expressions, permitting an auto-success for one approach and requiring a WIS check for the other? If you're not going into that level of granularity for NPC expressiveness, why does it matter which approach they declare?

Well, see, I wouldn’t expect my players to describe specific, pro-active attempts to catch the NPC in a lie. I find Insight to be one of those non-action “actions” that I would handle more like I do the example of the Dwarven idol below, or better yet, like a trap. Throughout the conversation, I am describing the NPC’s behavior, putting out telegraphs that might give the players an indication of the character’s emotional state, which they can interpret as they will. If the NPC lies, I’ll include a tell of some sort in my description. This gives the players something to follow up on to confirm their suspicions about the character’s intentions, by way of an action. For instance, if you notice that I keep describing the guy’s mustache twitching at the ends of some sentences, but not others, you might suspect that it’s indicative of those statements being false. Rather than take that assumption and roll with it, you might want to say that you’re watching for his mustache twitch to try to recognize a pattern as to when it does or doesn’t.

I like the idol example, and have a follow-up question: what if the player wants more information about Modra, rather than know more about the idol itself? Examining the idol more closely won't inform the PC whether (e.g.) Modra has any particular enemies in the Elvish pantheon. What action can the player declare for their PC at your table to find out such information, and how do you resolve it? Do you just give the information to them or withhold it based on whether you think the character would know? Do you decide whether or not to give it to them based on whether they are proficient in Religion? Do you call for an INT check?

Ahh. Now, at this point I think it’s important to note that this is how I personally would handle it. Other DMs who use goal and approach might have different answers. But I would be perfectly happy for the player to ask follow-up questions about Mordra, and to answer them according to the character’s background, Proficiencies, and how generally available I think that knowledge is. Some things I will just tell you, some might require research to learn, and that research might require one or more checks to resolve. But I won’t ever ask you to make an Intelligence (Skill) check in response to a question, because a question isn’t an action. Some goal and approach DMs might see this as “20 questions,” and I get that, but I’m personally not bothered by it.

 

[Charlaquin]

From the player side, there shouldn't be any difference between the four.

Why's that?

Because all four declarations are simply invoking game mechanics that the player (in theory) has access to and control over: pick locks chance; to-hit chance; spellcasting mechanics; and social skill mechanics.

The simplest way to achieve what you seem to be after here would be to entirely remove the social-skill game mechanics. No more Insight. No more Diplomacy (or equivalent). Etc. And then, the player would have to be more specific on how the PC is approaching these things because there'd be no hard-coded player-side mechanics to fall back on.

I disagree that skills are a game mechanic the player has control over. As they are written in 5e, I see them as a tool the DM uses to help in action adjudication.