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="iserith" data-source="post: 7800744" data-attributes="member: 97077"><p>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 <em>do </em>support this.)</p><p></p><p>It strikes me as odd that anyone would argue <em>against </em>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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 [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER], [USER=6779196]@Charlaquin[/USER] 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="iserith, post: 7800744, member: 97077"] 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 [I]do [/I]support this.) It strikes me as odd that anyone would argue [I]against [/I]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 [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER], [USER=6779196]@Charlaquin[/USER] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Consequences of Failure
Top