Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Consequences of Failure
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 7800706" data-attributes="member: 6802765"><p>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 <em>larger</em> weakness of goal-and-approach than a failure to be able to handle the proposed examples would be.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Xetheral, post: 7800706, member: 6802765"] 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 [I]larger[/I] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Consequences of Failure
Top