Roll for Effect or Intent?

[Charlaquin]

That is NOT the 5E play loop. The 5E play loop is that the GM describes the scene, the players ask questions, the GM responds, and this continues until there is a point of uncertainty, at which time the GM decides how to resolve that uncertainty (usually calling for an ability check of some kind). The entire point is resolving the uncertainty. If a task cannot succeed or fail, there is no uncertainty and a roll is not called for.

If the GM calls for a roll in the situation, that means, by definition, that the roll must resolve some uncertainty either way. If the roll is a success -- based on the DC the GM set -- then the uncertainty should be resolved positively.

Asking questions is actually not described as part of the play loop in either 5e PHB. Both say the DM describes the scenario and the players describe what they want to do.

Granted, asking questions to clarify aspects of the description of the environment that might not have been clear is, I think, taken for granted by these descriptions of the gameplay loop. But I like that it isn’t explicitly stated to be part of the play loop, because asking questions doesn’t really move the gameplay forward. It actually stalls gameplay, because time spent asking and answering questions is time that no action is occurring in the fiction. This is why I try to encourage my players to declare actions with intent to reveal the information they want instead of asking questions. “I look for an exit” is better than “do I see any exits.”

 

[Charlaquin]

My position is that it I'd the GM's job to listen to the players and adjudicate THAT, not to play a shell game against the players. There is nothing more frustrating than an intentionally obtuse GM that says things like "You hit the tree and nothing happens" when the intent of the player was clear.

Yeah, it’s like the jerkass genie trope, where the genie actively looks for ways to (mis)interpret your wish that will result in a negative outcome for you.

I’ll admit, in my youth I had a stint of being That GM. It’s frankly embarrassing now, but that was just… what I thought you were supposed to do. In my mind that was part of the challenge - that you had to think carefully about your action declarations and phrase them precisely or you might not achieve what you were hoping for. In retrospect, I realize now that I was mostly just using it as an excuse to show off how clever I (thought) I was. Teenagers, man. They suck.

 

[Charlaquin]

If I as a person in the real world throw a stone at a tree, and I hit, I might hope that it distracts the nearby guard, but I cannot guarantee that it will.

Right, which is why there’s a die roll. To resolve the uncertainty in whether or not you accomplish what you wanted to do.

 

[Charlaquin]

The player wants to throw a rock. It might or might not hit the tree. Everything else is GM-determined.

No, the player wants to distract the guard. Explicitly so in the example being discussed.

 

[soviet]

Games that actually factually have player-determined stakes of rolls, such that they are binding on the participants, also include text about how to negotiate those stakes and how binding they are. I can't find this section in my PHB, can anyone help me out?

 

[soviet]

Can I throw a stone to heal someone? That's possible in a CR game.

 

[Dausuul]

Note: Poll for entertainment and research purposes only.

Roll for Effect [Task Oriented Rolls]: The roll is made to determine if the task the character is trying to accomplish is successful.
Roll for Intent [Goal Oriented Rolls]: The roll is made to determine if the goal the character is tying to accomplish is successful.

Example Scenario A: The PC wants to sneak into a walled compound, break into a locked office, and steal documents containing compromising information they can use to blackmail a rival NPC.
Roll for Effect: The player rolls to determine if the PC can scale the wall to enter the compound. The player then rolls to determine if the PC can pick the lock on the office door so they can get inside. The player then rolls to see if the PC can find documents containing compromising information.
Roll for Intent: The player rolls to determine if the PC successfully blackmails the NPC.

Example Scenario B: The PC wants to decipher an ancient scroll to gain access to a ritual that will banish a Demon.
Roll for Effect: The player rolls to determine if the PC can decipher the text on the scroll. The player then rolls to determine if the PC has the knowledge/skill to perform the ritual. The player then rolls to determine if the PC performs the ritual correctly.
Roll for Intent: The player rolls to determine if the PC banishes the Demon.

Example Scenario C: The PC wants to gain an audience with the king so they ask the king to send troops to the border to help defend against an invading army.
Roll for Effect: The player rolls to determine if the PC can gain an audience with the king. The player then rolls to determine if the PC can convince the king to send troops to the border. The player then rolls to determine if the PC can effectively command the troops in battle.
Roll for Intent: The player rolls to determine if PC successfully defends the kingdom from the invading army.

So, while I understand the "Roll for Intent" in principle, I have trouble translating that to what is supposed to happen at the table. I am not sure how to implement "goal oriented rolls" in play. So for anyone who voted for "Roll for Intent" (or who didn't but understands and has utilized it) how do you do it?

My biggest issue is when to call for roll(s). Do you...
A) Call for the roll at the beginning of the scene, then have the result determine how to narrate the events of the scene?
B) Begin describing the scene, pause during a "tense" moment to roll, then finish the narration based on the result of the roll?
C) Narrate the events of the scene, then roll at the end to determine if the goal is ,in fact, accomplished?
D) Something else? (please explain)

Thanks for participating!

[Edit: changed example A roll for intent end goal]

My ideal, though implementation is challenging, is "roll for circumstances."

In other words: Action resolution is handled through a mix of roleplay and deterministic rules. You either have the skill to open a given lock, or you don't. The dice then tell you what complications you have to deal with: Maybe the guard on patrol will arrive before you have time to get the lock open. Maybe the lock is rusted and you'll damage your lockpicks opening it (compromising your ability to get past the next one). Maybe the light here is bad and you can't open the lock without more illumination. Maybe you detect someone on the other side of the door who will hear you working.

The key here is that the random element puts a challenge in front of you, and then you figure out how to meet it with the tools at hand. The guard is coming, what do you want to do about that? Maybe you look for another way in. Maybe you send the bard to chat up the guard and buy you time. Maybe you set an ambush. Because you roll before attempting the task, your choices are more meaningful, and you don't get the scenario where the expert rolls a series of nat 1s and looks like an idiot.

The hard part is coming up with a table of complications or circumstances that can apply in a given scenario, without putting an insane burden on the DM. This seems like something an LLM-based tool might be super helpful with.

 

[Emerikol]

“I look for an exit” is better than “do I see any exits.”

On occasion this doesn't matter but if you are standing in the doorway of a room the former I think implies you are entering the room and actively looking whereas the latter is you are standing there looking. That could really matter in some instances.

 

[Charlaquin]

Can I throw a stone to heal someone?

No. You can describe trying to do so, and the DM, determining the approach has no reasonable chance of achieving the goal, will narrate the results of failure without calling for a roll.

That's possible in a CR game.

Critical… Role…?

 

[Charlaquin]

On occasion this doesn't matter but if you are standing in the doorway of a room the former I think implies you are entering the room and actively looking whereas the latter is you are standing there looking. That could really matter in some instances.

Yes, which is why it’s preferable, because something is actually happening in the fiction.