D&D 5E How to Adjudicate Actions in D&D 5e

[iserith]

WOTC should hire you, Iserith. I'll pass these examples to.my players.

Thanks for the kind words - it's the dream of every longtime DM to be able to work on games, eh?

Let me know what your players say. I'm interested in feedback chiefly from a player perspective.

 

[iserith]

Great examples, [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], I really dont have much to add, other than I loved the names - I'm sure Gary, Patron Saint of Gaming Puns, would approve.

Thanks! I do love me a stupid name.

 

[Greg Benage]

Lack-Toes stated he was going to swim over and "defend" her. I think the fiction in the stakes follows - by getting to her in time, the shark will break off its attack. Failure indicates whatever the DM wants it to indicate because the DM, per the basic conversation of the game, narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.

Absolutely. To be clear, I have no issue with the DM deciding that the shark breaks off its attack if Lack-Toes manages to reach Rosemary. I only struggle with the DM's choice to disclose the shark's reaction to the player ahead of time.

By definition, if players buy into the stakes (or to follow a plot or whatever), then railroading is not occurring as there is no coercion - instead there is consent.

Two points. First, I said "railroad-y" rather than "railroading." I don't think your resolution style is railroading. I think it has a railroad-y quality because the narration potentially closes off player decisions and character actions. Second, I believe we disagree that coercion is required for railroading, but it's probably just semantics. I think the absence of meaningful choice is sufficient for railroading; you might call that "coercion." I don't know. I do know that the player doesn't get to decide what he does when he reaches Rosemary before the shark, because you've already told him. I do know that the player doesn't get to decide what he does when the snake-men catch up to him, because you've already told him. Whether this counts as "coercion" or not, or whether it is "railroad-y" or actual "railroading" isn't particularly important to me.

But I'd also say that if the players agree these decisions aren't important or meaningful, or that the outcomes you've described ahead of time are desirable, there's nothing objectionable to the "railroad-y" (or just "narrative" or whatever) task resolution for the players at the table. For that matter, I'm not a zealot on these matters. I expect I'd enjoy one of your games. However, my constant "negotiation" to constrain the stakes to the actual action I've declared and reign in the "storytelling" would likely become tiresome to you and your players rather quickly!

 

[iserith]

Absolutely. To be clear, I have no issue with the DM deciding that the shark breaks off its attack if Lack-Toes manages to reach Rosemary. I only struggle with the DM's choice to disclose the shark's reaction to the player ahead of time.

Let's look at it from another direction that I'm sure plenty of players can appreciate: Has there ever been a time when you've taken an action, made a roll (or maybe not), and then the result was not what you had in mind? Did it prompt you to object by saying, "If I would have known X, I wouldn't have tried to Y?" Or "Can we retcon? My character would have known that Z was at stake..." I know I've seen this exact situation in people's games.

Going over the stakes before the roll ensures that the DM and player are on the same page with the goal and approach of the character and the intent of the player. So when Lack-Toes says he's going to swim quickly to Rosemary to defend her, I know that a success on that check means the shark breaks off and that this result is sufficient to fulfill the player's stated goal ("defend Rosemary"), approach ("get to her before the shark can"), and intent ("Rosemary not eaten by shark"). What failure means also becomes easy to establish.

I leave any issues of the wall between player and character knowledge to the players to work out for themselves. I'm communicating stakes to the player to better facilitate the playing of the game. If he or she would like to establish that the character has some knowledge of the stakes, that's cool - it's reasonable to assume in many cases that the character has an idea of what the risks are. It's also cool if the player chooses to play the character as oblivious to those things. Either of these approaches might even be worth Inspiration from time to time.

Two points. First, I said "railroad-y" rather than "railroading." I don't think your resolution style is railroading. I think it has a railroad-y quality because the narration potentially closes off player decisions and character actions. Second, I believe we disagree that coercion is required for railroading, but it's probably just semantics. I think the absence of meaningful choice is sufficient for railroading; you might call that "coercion." I don't know. I do know that the player doesn't get to decide what he does when he reaches Rosemary before the shark, because you've already told him. I do know that the player doesn't get to decide what he does when the snake-men catch up to him, because you've already told him. Whether this counts as "coercion" or not, or whether it is "railroad-y" or actual "railroading" isn't particularly important to me.

But I'd also say that if the players agree these decisions aren't important or meaningful, or that the outcomes you've described ahead of time are desirable, there's nothing objectionable to the "railroad-y" (or just "narrative" or whatever) task resolution for the players at the table. For that matter, I'm not a zealot on these matters. I expect I'd enjoy one of your games.

It's largely a semantic issue. The outcomes arise from the players' goal and approach. So it's not "railroad-y" insofar as the output is derived from the player's input. Had they not set foot on the particular course, it would still be infinitely possible. But once they've picked an approach and goal, other possibilities are closed off, until the outcome is determined. The opportunity for meaningful choice is thus preserved in all cases: While some choices are eliminated by the stakes we agree to (for example, fighting the yuan-ti if they catch up to you), other choices are made available by the change in situation (e.g. negotiating for your life before the Great Abomination or staging a jail-break or whatever).

However, my constant "negotiation" to constrain the stakes to the actual action I've declared and reign in the "storytelling" would likely become tiresome to you and your players rather quickly!

This is why I recommend DMs and players engage in a Session Zero prior to play, so that these kinds of conflicts don't happen. In any case, it's not so much a matter of "renegotiation" to constrain the stakes as it is a means by which we make sure to fulfill the desire of the player with regard to goal and approach and, failing that due to a bad roll, the games goes in an interesting direction.

Thanks again for the feedback and discussion.

 

[Manbearcat]

Two points. First, I said "railroad-y" rather than "railroading." I don't think your resolution style is railroading. I think it has a railroad-y quality because the narration potentially closes off player decisions and character actions. Second, I believe we disagree that coercion is required for railroading, but it's probably just semantics. I think the absence of meaningful choice is sufficient for railroading; you might call that "coercion." I don't know. I do know that the player doesn't get to decide what he does when he reaches Rosemary before the shark, because you've already told him. I do know that the player doesn't get to decide what he does when the snake-men catch up to him, because you've already told him. Whether this counts as "coercion" or not, or whether it is "railroad-y" or actual "railroading" isn't particularly important to me.

Going over the stakes before the roll ensures that the DM and player are on the same page with the goal and approach of the character and the intent of the player.

<snip>

I leave any issues of the wall between player and character knowledge to the players to work out for themselves. I'm communicating stakes to the player to better facilitate the playing of the game.

<snip>

In any case, it's not so much a matter of "renegotiation" to constrain the stakes as it is a means by which we make sure to fulfill the desire of the player with regard to goal and approach and, failing that due to a bad roll, the games goes in an interesting direction.

I think what is happening here between the two of you is a product of two agendas that find themselves butting heads in D&D.

Agenda 1: The play procedure of action declaration and resolution (mechanical and the fallout within the fiction) is solely about testing the proficiency of the hero to succeed or fail at a physical task. The intent is micro-based and not particularly difficult to discern; eg "I try to jump across the gap from this rooftop to that rooftop" while in the midst of evading pursuit. The question isn't whether I evade the pursuit. It is whether I am proficient enough to the jump across the gap. "What happens next" is left up to the GM to decide.

Agenda 2: The play procedure of action declaration and resolution (mechanical and the fallout within the fiction) is about testing the hero's protagonism in a high-stakes conflict.. The intent is macro-based and requires telegraphing of said intent and clarity on both it and the stakes involved. Rather than "can I clear this distance with my jump", what is important is "the evasion of pursuit". Intent, stakes and the measure of the PC's protagonism orbit around that premise. Failing in "a rooftop jump" may or may not yield a complication related to clearing the distance to make the leap. What it will yield, for certain, is a complication (or, depending on the system, possibly a decisive answer in the negative...eg "you're no longer evading pursuit...you're caught up with/cornered, etc") related to the question of "does this hero possess the protagonistic mettle to evade this particular pursuit?"

 

[Greg Benage]

Let's look at it from another direction that I'm sure plenty of players can appreciate: Has there ever been a time when you've taken an action, made a roll (or maybe not), and then the result was not what you had in mind? Did it prompt you to object by saying, "If I would have known X, I wouldn't have tried to Y?" Or "Can we retcon? My character would have known that Z was at stake..." I know I've seen this exact situation in people's games.

Absolutely. That's why I agreed that it was important for the players to know the stakes. However, I have never had a player object by saying, "Oh, I only tried to reach Rosemary because I thought the shark would break off its attack. I didn't know it would try to bite me instead! Can we retcon that?"

In any case, I understand your motivations and the play-style that drives them. Thank you for the explanation.

 

[iserith]

I think what is happening here between the two of you is a product of two agendas that find themselves butting heads in D&D.

Agenda 1: The play procedure of action declaration and resolution (mechanical and the fallout within the fiction) is solely about testing the proficiency of the hero to succeed or fail at a physical task. The intent is micro-based and not particularly difficult to discern; eg "I try to jump across the gap from this rooftop to that rooftop" while in the midst of evading pursuit. The question isn't whether I evade the pursuit. It is whether I am proficient enough to the jump across the gap. "What happens next" is left up to the GM to decide.

Agenda 2: The play procedure of action declaration and resolution (mechanical and the fallout within the fiction) is about testing the hero's protagonism in a high-stakes conflict.. The intent is macro-based and requires telegraphing of said intent and clarity on both it and the stakes involved. Rather than "can I clear this distance with my jump", what is important is "the evasion of pursuit". Intent, stakes and the measure of the PC's protagonism orbit around that premise. Failing in "a rooftop jump" may or may not yield a complication related to clearing the distance to make the leap. What it will yield, for certain, is a complication (or, depending on the system, possibly a decisive answer in the negative...eg "you're no longer evading pursuit...you're caught up with/cornered, etc") related to the question of "does this hero possess the protagonistic mettle to evade this particular pursuit?"

There's likely some truth to this. I wouldn't call it an "agenda" per se as I use either approach depending on whatever I think will help us achieve the goals of play - that is, having a good time together and creating an exciting, memorable story during the game. I don't recall offhand but I think I showed the use of both in the guide.

 

[Manbearcat]

There's likely some truth to this. I wouldn't call it an "agenda" per se as I use either approach depending on whatever I think will help us achieve the goals of play - that is, having a good time together and creating an exciting, memorable story during the game. I don't recall offhand but I think I showed the use of both in the guide.

I'm using agenda here as the broad goal that underwrites techniques 1 and 2 above (and the resolution mechanics that perpetuate them) have some immutable features that sow tension with one another, at best, or are outright incompatible, at worst.

You see it all the time on these boards and elsewhere. The first time I brought up invoking a nigh-impassable gorge as a complication in an "evade pursuit" skill challenge (where the PC failed a primary Nature check - his effort to locate a scant trail sign while trying to navigate the previously traveled topography in a high speed escape on horseback), several folks (who are definitely in camp 1 above) were incredulous (to say the least). So much so, "Schrodinger's Gorge" basically became a meme on these boards for a few years.

The agenda that 1 above is premised upon (and the system that it relies upon) is interested in a very specific experience and deviation from it is not welcome. That experience being high resolution (temporally and spatially) exploration whereby the table conversation, play procedures, and resolution mechanics work toward putting each player wholly (insofar as they are capable) and only in the OODA (observe, orient, decide, act) Loop of their character as they move through a "living, breathing, fantasy world."

Hard scene framing lowers the temporal and spatial resolution of the setting exploration thus altering the nature of the OODA Loop that the player engages with in the course of the play conversation. A focus on thematic situation, dramatic stakes, their dynamic resolution, and the fallout of that resolution prioritizes creating exciting Story NOW (!) rather than prioritizing capturing a 1st person, high-res (spatially and temporally) OODA Loop-driven exploration of a fantasy setting. Actor/director stance capabilities for PCs further subordinates that (some folks will call it "immersive") coupling of the player's OODA Loop with that of the character. This is, of course, agenda 2.

1 and 2 don't do very well together. You can't "toggle" from one to the other. Either the system will fight you, or the players will fight you because they feel it is "jarring" (as has been described so many times), or both will fight you. I am a very good, tenured sim GM, though I do not enjoy it (really at all) anymore. I am a very good Story NOW (!) GM and I enjoy it utterly. However, my lack of enthusiasm for 1 and my complete enthusiasm for 2 wouldn't mean anything to certain players. If I ran a sim game for (say) [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION], he (she?) would have an absolute ball, regardless of my lack of enjoyment (assuming I don't show it). If I ran an awesome Dungeon World, 4e, Dogs in the Vineyward, Shadows of Yesterday or anything Cortex + for Saelorn, the level of awesome that comes out of play and my own immense enjoyment wouldn't carry the day. The experience would flat out suck for him (her).

 

[iserith]

I think what is happening here between the two of you is a product of two agendas that find themselves butting heads in D&D.

Agenda 1: The play procedure of action declaration and resolution (mechanical and the fallout within the fiction) is solely about testing the proficiency of the hero to succeed or fail at a physical task. The intent is micro-based and not particularly difficult to discern; eg "I try to jump across the gap from this rooftop to that rooftop" while in the midst of evading pursuit. The question isn't whether I evade the pursuit. It is whether I am proficient enough to the jump across the gap. "What happens next" is left up to the GM to decide.

Agenda 2: The play procedure of action declaration and resolution (mechanical and the fallout within the fiction) is about testing the hero's protagonism in a high-stakes conflict.. The intent is macro-based and requires telegraphing of said intent and clarity on both it and the stakes involved. Rather than "can I clear this distance with my jump", what is important is "the evasion of pursuit". Intent, stakes and the measure of the PC's protagonism orbit around that premise. Failing in "a rooftop jump" may or may not yield a complication related to clearing the distance to make the leap. What it will yield, for certain, is a complication (or, depending on the system, possibly a decisive answer in the negative...eg "you're no longer evading pursuit...you're caught up with/cornered, etc") related to the question of "does this hero possess the protagonistic mettle to evade this particular pursuit?"

I'm using agenda here as the broad goal that underwrites techniques 1 and 2 above (and the resolution mechanics that perpetuate them) have some immutable features that sow tension with one another, at best, or are outright incompatible, at worst.

You see it all the time on these boards and elsewhere. The first time I brought up invoking a nigh-impassable gorge as a complication in an "evade pursuit" skill challenge (where the PC failed a primary Nature check - his effort to locate a scant trail sign while trying to navigate the previously traveled topography in a high speed escape on horseback), several folks (who are definitely in camp 1 above) were incredulous (to say the least). So much so, "Schrodinger's Gorge" basically became a meme on these boards for a few years.

The agenda that 1 above is premised upon (and the system that it relies upon) is interested in a very specific experience and deviation from it is not welcome. That experience being high resolution (temporally and spatially) exploration whereby the table conversation, play procedures, and resolution mechanics work toward putting each player wholly (insofar as they are capable) and only in the OODA (observe, orient, decide, act) Loop of their character as they move through a "living, breathing, fantasy world."

Hard scene framing lowers the temporal and spatial resolution of the setting exploration thus altering the nature of the OODA Loop that the player engages with in the course of the play conversation. A focus on thematic situation, dramatic stakes, their dynamic resolution, and the fallout of that resolution prioritizes creating exciting Story NOW (!) rather than prioritizing capturing a 1st person, high-res (spatially and temporally) OODA Loop-driven exploration of a fantasy setting. Actor/director stance capabilities for PCs further subordinates that (some folks will call it "immersive") coupling of the player's OODA Loop with that of the character. This is, of course, agenda 2.

1 and 2 don't do very well together. You can't "toggle" from one to the other. Either the system will fight you, or the players will fight you because they feel it is "jarring" (as has been described so many times), or both will fight you. I am a very good, tenured sim GM, though I do not enjoy it (really at all) anymore. I am a very good Story NOW (!) GM and I enjoy it utterly. However, my lack of enthusiasm for 1 and my complete enthusiasm for 2 wouldn't mean anything to certain players. If I ran a sim game for (say) [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION], he (she?) would have an absolute ball, regardless of my lack of enjoyment (assuming I don't show it). If I ran an awesome Dungeon World, 4e, Dogs in the Vineyward, Shadows of Yesterday or anything Cortex + for Saelorn, the level of awesome that comes out of play and my own immense enjoyment wouldn't carry the day. The experience would flat out suck for him (her).

No offense intended, but I don't buy into Forge waffle anymore. I have done and continue to use both approaches in the same game, within the same session, with dozens and dozens of players of varying backgrounds and interests with no trouble at all. (I've been running many pickup games via Roll20 since 2012.) Perhaps there is some player out there that would sit at my table and have a terrible time, but I've yet to find that person. When the rubber hits the road - or the die hits the table, as it were - Forge waffle just doesn't matter if I can still deliver a good gaming experience and achieve the goals of play using whatever tools I have at my disposal.

 

[Manbearcat]

No offense intended, but I don't buy into Forge waffle anymore. I have done and continue to use both approaches in the same game, within the same session, with dozens and dozens of players of varying backgrounds and interests with no trouble at all. (I've been running many pickup games via Roll20 since 2012.) Perhaps there is some player out there that would sit at my table and have a terrible time, but I've yet to find that person. When the rubber hits the road - or the die hits the table, as it were - Forge waffle just doesn't matter if I can still deliver a good gaming experience and achieve the goals of play using whatever tools I have at my disposal.

No offense taken (putting aside the fact that you didn't address my post). And let's forget about "Forge waffle."

What is going on when someone says "it feels rail-roady" (of which it is not remotely railroady...at all...partially for the reasons you conveyed above and partially for other reasons) when they're exposed to closed scene-based mechanics with hard transitions and overt, dramatic stakes...when they're used to/expecting open world, serial exploration without transitions, or with very soft transitions, and without a prioritization of dramatic stakes and outcomes?

What is going on is precisely what I outlined above (which isn't "Forge waffle"). They're looking for an intensive causal logic chain (with high resolution spatial and temporal information) that they can construct and deconstruct via the OODA Loop of their character. They're looking for that because they feel it maximizes their immersion and it maximizes their agency to make informed action declarations and affect outcomes (because that is pretty much what happens in real life).

Consequently, consider the following exchange (complexity 3 SC, at 7 successes and 1 failure):

GM: The pursuit of the snake-men is relentless. As you behold the stars in the sky, the thundering hooves of their stallions beat the ground mercilessly. As you crest a rise, you can see you're finally nearing the safe egress of the forested borderlands, but the arid badlands are not so quick to give up their mysteries. The rain-starved earth is fraught with horse-laming fissures, deadly canyon drop-offs, and dizzying switchbacks at every turn. And the snake-men know their territory well...you've been through here but once. A spear clangs off the dusty ground. They're gaining...

What are you doing?

Player: We're entering the borderland territory? I led the expedition through the badlands so I know the way (uses an Advantage). The priest who asked us to capture the idol personally debriefed me on the treacherous terrain and the trail-signs. While dodging a hail of spears and precarious hazards with my deft horsemanship, I use my knowledge of these territories to locate one of the obscured trail signs and lead us out of this insufferable place and to the protective boughs of the forest! <Rolls primary Nature check with an Advantage and fails>

GM: Everything seems to look the same in the deep dark of night. You crest a final rise and you're certain you missed the trail sign you were looking for when you're greeted by the foreboding sight of a nigh-impassable gorge with a river running some 100 feet below. It would take a hell of an effort to leap the gorge with your horses (the arbor-laden other side is much lower than this), but it isn't out of the realm of possibility.

You can almost see the whites of the snake-mens' eyes. You're cornered and the horde is almost upon you! <7 successes and 2 failures...literally on the err precipice of climax and denoument>

---

A player who is expecting a tight causal logic chain and a tight coupling of OODA Loop between their own sensory experience/decision-making and that of their character is going to be given some serious pause by all this. They're going to be thinking things like:

1) Um, there should probably be several checks that need to be made here to deal with various dangers; horsemanship to avoid topographical hazards, horsemanship to increase the speed of the horses (or checks by the horses themselves), dodging spears, discerning/perceiving trail signs? You're going to abstract all of that into one check?

2) Um, where did the gorge come from? I mean I know this is an enormous badlands and we only canvassed a small area when I led the expedition through here to the snake-men's temple. However, it seems likely that I would have certainly marked this most inconvenient gorge. Even though I failed to find the trail sign out of the badlands, would I really stumble upon this not so inconspicuous gorge on the way out?

In 1 above, the player is looking for discrete checks or micro-task resolution to better represent the experience of "being there" or inhabiting the OODA Loop of the character. The sense is that this higher resolution exploration of setting maximizes agency and immersion to them.

In 2 above, the player is looking for a more mundane, or less dramatic, complication for their failure because they feel it is more appropriate from a causal logic perspective. They aren't interested in Indiana Jones tropes, dramatic momentum and climax.

Perhaps you can engage with that (doesn't look like "Forge waffle" to me)?