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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
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="pemerton" data-source="post: 7809776" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I thikn you're confused about the purpose of my post. I'm not arguing against "goal and approach" as such. I'm agreeeing with [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] that there is a significant difference between 5e's approach to the resolution of combat and non-combat activities.</p><p></p><p>Non-combat activities require the player to describe what his/her PC is doing by reference to the fiction (eg <em>what are you doing to try and find a trap on the door?</em>) In light of that describiption, the GM decides whether or not a check is required, and if it is (i) sets a DC, (ii) determines the ability to be checked, (iii) decides whether any skill might be applicable, and (iv) establishes consequences. This is what Campbell is describing as "fiction first". It seems to be pretty close to what has been called, in this thread, "goal and approach". It is familiar to me from a range of RPGs, including 4e D&D skill challenge resolution.</p><p></p><p>In combat, by way of contrast, both the player's decision-space and the GM's adjudication-space are structured in mechanical ways: there is an action economy, a standard suite of options, often a suite of class abilities that interact with those options (<em>extra attack</em>, <em>advantage on attack rolls</em>, <em>bonus to damage</em>, etc), and consequences typically defined in mechanical terms (taking damage, suffering a condition, etc). The player doesn't have to describe what his/her PC is doing by refernce to the fiction (eg <em>what are you doing with you sword to the orc?</em>), only in mechanical terms. The fiction plays a role in adjudication primarily (not exclusively) in relation to positioning, cover and other features of terrain/geography.</p><p></p><p>To elaborate that last point, and set up a contrast between combat and non-combat: in non-combat one part of the fiction that the GM is expected to establish, that players might incorporate into their framing of action declarations, etc is NPC psychological states. Examples arise in relation to sneaking around (where the rules expressly canvass that players and GMs might consider whether or not NPCs are distracted) and social interaction. Whereas nothing in the rules suggests that psychological states of NPCs are relevant to the adjudication of combat in the way that (say) terrain is. The GM imposing a penalty to hit (or disadantage on an attack roll, etc) for attacking up a rise is standard stuff; but the GM adjusting the chance to hit on the basis of someone's anger or fear or guilt or whatever, outside of a mechanical framework such as barbarian rage, I think would be very non-standard. I don't recall ever seeing a D&D GM post an example of this.</p><p></p><p>[USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER], I'm sorry your post inherited and perhaps exacerbated some of my poor tagging and so it took me a couple of goes to parse. But to answer your question (if I've got it right), I don't think my views about 5e non-combat nor about 5e combat have changed.</p><p></p><p>In a formal sense there is nothing stopping a 5e GM adjudicating the action declaration <em>I kill the ogre by chopping off its head with my greatsword</em> in the same way that s/he adjudicates the action declaraition <em>I befriend the ogre by offering it a basket of foodstuffs</em>. But the presentation of the rules on ability checks, contrasted with the presenttion of the rules for combat, to my reading very strongly implies that these two declarations are to be adjudicated very differently. No doubt there are many differences between 5e and 4e D&D, but I don't think that this particular aspect is one of them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7809776, member: 42582"] I thikn you're confused about the purpose of my post. I'm not arguing against "goal and approach" as such. I'm agreeeing with [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] that there is a significant difference between 5e's approach to the resolution of combat and non-combat activities. Non-combat activities require the player to describe what his/her PC is doing by reference to the fiction (eg [I]what are you doing to try and find a trap on the door?[/I]) In light of that describiption, the GM decides whether or not a check is required, and if it is (i) sets a DC, (ii) determines the ability to be checked, (iii) decides whether any skill might be applicable, and (iv) establishes consequences. This is what Campbell is describing as "fiction first". It seems to be pretty close to what has been called, in this thread, "goal and approach". It is familiar to me from a range of RPGs, including 4e D&D skill challenge resolution. In combat, by way of contrast, both the player's decision-space and the GM's adjudication-space are structured in mechanical ways: there is an action economy, a standard suite of options, often a suite of class abilities that interact with those options ([I]extra attack[/I], [I]advantage on attack rolls[/I], [I]bonus to damage[/I], etc), and consequences typically defined in mechanical terms (taking damage, suffering a condition, etc). The player doesn't have to describe what his/her PC is doing by refernce to the fiction (eg [I]what are you doing with you sword to the orc?[/I]), only in mechanical terms. The fiction plays a role in adjudication primarily (not exclusively) in relation to positioning, cover and other features of terrain/geography. To elaborate that last point, and set up a contrast between combat and non-combat: in non-combat one part of the fiction that the GM is expected to establish, that players might incorporate into their framing of action declarations, etc is NPC psychological states. Examples arise in relation to sneaking around (where the rules expressly canvass that players and GMs might consider whether or not NPCs are distracted) and social interaction. Whereas nothing in the rules suggests that psychological states of NPCs are relevant to the adjudication of combat in the way that (say) terrain is. The GM imposing a penalty to hit (or disadantage on an attack roll, etc) for attacking up a rise is standard stuff; but the GM adjusting the chance to hit on the basis of someone's anger or fear or guilt or whatever, outside of a mechanical framework such as barbarian rage, I think would be very non-standard. I don't recall ever seeing a D&D GM post an example of this. [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER], I'm sorry your post inherited and perhaps exacerbated some of my poor tagging and so it took me a couple of goes to parse. But to answer your question (if I've got it right), I don't think my views about 5e non-combat nor about 5e combat have changed. In a formal sense there is nothing stopping a 5e GM adjudicating the action declaration [I]I kill the ogre by chopping off its head with my greatsword[/I] in the same way that s/he adjudicates the action declaraition [I]I befriend the ogre by offering it a basket of foodstuffs[/I]. But the presentation of the rules on ability checks, contrasted with the presenttion of the rules for combat, to my reading very strongly implies that these two declarations are to be adjudicated very differently. No doubt there are many differences between 5e and 4e D&D, but I don't think that this particular aspect is one of them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Consequences of Failure
Top