Roll for Effect or Intent?

[Charlaquin]

Sure, you can! All that's needed is for the GM to not maintain the relationship between succeeding at the task and achieving the intent. I think it's common for GMs to break this relationship. Here's a post from just up thread:

Hyperbole aside, we can make the example more reasonable by imagining this action declaration:

"I throw a rock at a far away tree (task) to distract the guard momentarily (intent)."

This seems like something that would not only be possible for the PC to do, provided there are small rocks around to pick up and the area is wooded, but that fits well within the genre conventions of most games. (Think Obi-Wan distracting storm troopers on the Death Star.)

So the GM calls for a roll to see if the rock hits the tree. On a success, the GM says, "The rock hits the trunk of a distant tree, making a distinct noise, but the guard is unfazed and stands implacably guarding the way in," because the GM has decided (for whatever reason) that it will never work in their game or just doesn't work in this circumstance.

All I see in this description is a bad DM…

 

[Hriston]

If there was no chance for the player to succeed, the GM should not have asked for a roll.

Maybe you missed it. The player succeeded at hitting the tree.

 

[Hriston]

Double post.

I will add that I think players are usually "rolling for intent" from their perspective.

And yet 2/3 of respondents to the poll have voted for "Effect".

 

[Reynard]

Maybe you missed it. The player succeeded at hitting the tree.

And it did nothing. That's a failure.

 

[Hriston]

And it did nothing. That's a failure.

It made the sound the player wanted. Success!

 

[Reynard]

And yet 2/3 of respondents to the poll have voted for "Effect".

The question is badly phrased and the descriptions in the OP are biased to make it sound like magical funtime storytime roleplaying.

If a player saus "I want to throw and rock to distract the guard" they are NOT asking to hit the tree. They are asking to distract the guard. The GM in that case should say, "You toss a rock but the guard does not turn. Perhaps they are well trained, ort something else is going on, but you doin't think that is going to work to sneak by."

Asking for a roll, havcing the player succeed on the check, then fail on the action muddles the basic play process. On top of that, in some games, players might use resources to increase the chances of success of the roll, not realizing that there is NO chance of success, despite the GM asking for a roll.

It is flat out bad GMing by any measure.

 

[Hriston]

All I see in this description is a bad DM…

You have a preference. And yet you don't seem to have voted.

 

[Reynard]

It made the sound the player wanted. Success!

I would literally leave that table.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Sure, you can! All that's needed is for the GM to not maintain the relationship between succeeding at the task and achieving the intent. I think it's common for GMs to break this relationship. Here's a post from just up thread:

Hyperbole aside, we can make the example more reasonable by imagining this action declaration:

"I throw a rock at a far away tree (task) to distract the guard momentarily (intent)."

This seems like something that would not only be possible for the PC to do, provided there are small rocks around to pick up and the area is wooded, but that fits well within the genre conventions of most games. (Think Obi-Wan distracting storm troopers on the Death Star.)

So the GM calls for a roll to see if the rock hits the tree. On a success, the GM says, "The rock hits the trunk of a distant tree, making a distinct noise, but the guard is unfazed and stands implacably guarding the way in," because the GM has decided (for whatever reason) that it will never work in their game or just doesn't work in this circumstance.

Why would the player fail to achieve their intent on a successful roll? That seems contrary to the spirit of the rules (at least for 5e) and would frustrate players to no end. In other words, the roll is not to see if the task alone succeeds, it's to see if the task achieves the intent. In trying to make your point, I think you've unintentionally conflated two intents/goals here: hit the tree, distract the guard. I think that's the point @Reynard is making.

So, really, the outcome you've just described in the given scenario is the player failing the roll for their PC to distract the guard (intent or goal) by throwing the rock at a tree (task or approach). Task and intent are both integral parts of the action declaration of the player as @Charlaquin succinctly describes above.

On a failed roll, the GM could then describe the outcome any way they want. Maybe the rock missed the tree entirely. Or, as the case may be as you described, sure the rock hit the tree but it didn't automatically distract the guard b/c... reasons. The GM can come up with anything that makes sense in the fiction based on the results of the dice. Now the players have a new set of circumstances to deal with: "rock hits tree, guard may or may not have noticed but is acting unfazed, what do you do next?"

 

[Reynard]

Why would the player fail to achieve their intent on a successful roll? That seems contrary to the spirit of the rules (at least for 5e) and would frustrate players to no end. In other words, the roll is not to see if the task alone succeeds, it's to see if the task achieves the intent. In trying to make your point, I think you've unintentionally conflated two intents/goals here: hit the tree, distract the guard. I think that's the point @Reynard is making.

So, really, the outcome you've just described in the given scenario is the player failing the roll for their PC to distract the guard (intent or goal) by throwing the rock at a tree (task or approach). Task and intent are both integral parts of the action declaration of the player as @Charlaquin succinctly describes above.

On a failed roll, the GM could then describe the outcome any way they want. Maybe the rock missed the tree entirely. Or, as the case may be as you described, sure the rock hit the tree but it didn't automatically distract the guard b/c... reasons. The GM can come up with anything that makes sense in the fiction based on the results of the dice. Now the players have a new set of circumstances to deal with: "rock hits tree, guard may or may not have noticed but is acting unfazed, what do you do next?"

I don't think the GM should call for a roll. Just describe what happens when the PC throws a rock. Otherwise, you are confusing the play loop (especially in 5E and similar systems, where resources might be expended to improve the roll). Also, asking for unnecessary rolls just bogs down the game.

Some GMs just can't help themselves (Mercer does this on CR too often). They call for a roll as a knee-jerk reaction to the player trying anything. Rolls should be consequential.