Roll for Effect or Intent?

[Reynard]

See, I would rule that hitting the tree with a thrown rock is trivially easy and doesn’t require a roll. The roll is not to determine if the rock hits the tree, but to determine if the rock hitting the tree successfully distracts the guard. And I would probably rule that on a failure, the guard hears the sound but is more alert to possible intruders rather than distracted.

It is actually a pretty good scenario to apply Daggerheart's results matrix:
Critical Success: "The rock not only hits the tree and gets the guard's attention, but it bounces off so hard it beans him right between the eyes, knocking him out."
Success with Hope: "The rock hits the tree and gets the guard's attention, and bounces a good distance away, making the guard head that way to inspect."
Success with Fear: "The rock hits the tree and get's the guard's attention, he is turned away from you for now but you can tell by his body language that he is on high alert."
Failure with hope: "You shot misses the tree but makes enough rustling noises to get the guard's attention for a brief second. Quick, what do you do?"
Faire with Fear: "The rock hits a tree, just one only a few feet in front of you. the guard turns sharply in your direction and peers into the gloom."

 

[soviet]

Now you are being disingenuous.

No. In a conflict resolution game this would be something you can do.

Weird. The subject seems to be about effect versus intent. You decided to reframe the conversation to favor your preferred jargon.

Please explain to me the difference between conflict resolution and rolling for intent.

 

[soviet]

Do you actually believe that some folks here are saying that they have "player-determined stakes of rolls" simply because they have players express the desired goal/intent of the declared actions?

Having players express the desired goal and then have that be the expected outcome of a successful roll. How is that not player determined stakes?

 

[Charlaquin]

It is actually a pretty good scenario to apply Daggerheart's results matrix:
Critical Success: "The rock not only hits the tree and gets the guard's attention, but it bounces off so hard it beans him right between the eyes, knocking him out."
Success with Hope: "The rock hits the tree and gets the guard's attention, and bounces a good distance away, making the guard head that way to inspect."
Success with Fear: "The rock hits the tree and get's the guard's attention, he is turned away from you for now but you can tell by his body language that he is on high alert."
Failure with hope: "You shot misses the tree but makes enough rustling noises to get the guard's attention for a brief second. Quick, what do you do?"
Faire with Fear: "The rock hits a tree, just one only a few feet in front of you. the guard turns sharply in your direction and peers into the gloom."

Yeah, that’s certainly a way to do it. I prefer keeping the number of possible outcomes to two, three, or four myself, just to keep the decision of whether or not to go through with the roll easier. A binary “on X or higher, you get your goal, on Y or lower, this other thing happens” is easy to analyze and make a decision about with confidence. A critical success and/or critical failure option tends not to complicate it too much more. This succeed or fail with hope or with fear and a possible critical success sounds like analysis paralysis city to me. But, a lot of folks like that wide range of possible outcomes. I think especially if you tend to lean more heavily on rolling to make stuff happen, instead of the goal being to eliminate the risk of failure, more options than pass or fail becomes more appealing.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

5E muddies the conversation a bit because the thread has so far cast resolution in terms of rolls, i.e. "Roll for Effect"/"Roll for Intent", whereas in 5E, outside of the combat system, which is a conflict resolution system, the DM is part of the resolution system which, now that I think of it, is firmly task resolution. Here's why: the DM's ability to decide unilaterally that a PC's task fails to achieve its intent without going to mechanical resolution divorces task and intent at the outset. So in the example, the DM decides throwing a stone at a tree cannot distract the guard and so doesn't call for a roll. The stone hits the tree (task succeeds), but the intent is not realized (failure). This ensures a roll is only made when, in the DM's opinion, it is possible (but not certain) for a task to achieve the desired intent. This is not the only way an RPG can resolve action declarations. "Say yes or roll the dice" is another.

A DM can decide that the task or the intent is impossible. "I shoot the moon with an arrow to intimidate the elven archer". Nope, you can't shoot the moon but there might be another way to intimidate the archer. Task auto-fail. "I persuade the king to give me his crown". Nope, the king is not giving up his crown under any circumstances (including if you roll unbidden and get a 20, but that's another thread altogether), however you might be able to persuade the king to do something else. Intent auto-fail.

Out of curiosity, would the "Say yes or roll the dice" resolution style allow a PC to attempt something typically impossible in a game world, like shooting the moon with an arrow?

No, hitting the tree is not a goal. It's a means to an end (distracting the guard). I'm saying task resolution only resolves whether you hit the tree or not. To take 5E as an example, the DM only calls for a roll if, in their opinion, hitting the tree will distract the guard. Mechanical resolution then tells you whether you hit the tree or not.

It would seem that hitting the tree with a rock certainly was the goal resolved by the dice roll. We're just layering on the distraction of the guard as a secondary goal that may or may not be satisfied by hitting the tree with the rock. But that seemingly is at the whim of the GM in this scenario. Perhaps we're just making distinctions here that may not be so different in the end.

Yes, in the example, the GM had decided there was no way hitting the tree would distract the guard. I agree that if the GM was playing by the rules of 5E they would not call for a roll at that point, but I don't think @bloodtide follows that rule (if they play 5E). They can correct me if I'm wrong about that. One reason they might have for calling for a roll is to impose consequences on a failure, which was implied when they said a search party might be sent out if the PC was really unlucky.

I guess... I would find that play experience tedious. I'm trying different tasks which may or may not succeed on their own. And their success may or may not help me achieve my goals, which is what I consider the point of RPGs. The task and intent are inextricably linked, in my mind. I'm trying something (task or approach) to accomplish something in the fiction (intent or goal). Sure, if there is uncertainty that the task can accomplish the intent, a roll is called. A failed roll might be that the rock missed the tree but that alone would not be a meaningful consequence. I guess other games don't have meaningful consequences for failed rolls. Indeed, some D&D tables roll. A lot. Without meaningful consequences. It works for some. I'm kind of rambling here... sorry.

My preference is for conflict resolution, but I'm alright with 5E run by a principled DM who only calls for rolls when the outcome is uncertain. I could give you examples where I've tolerated rolling well but not (or only partially) achieving my intent. This was, again, in a 5E game where the DCs were mostly hidden and success was left up to the DM to decide.

I'm not sure what the "but" here is distinguising. If Conflict Resolution is not "calling for rolls when the outcome is uncertain", what is it? Honest question.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Having players express the desired goal and then have that be the expected outcome of a successful roll. How is that not player determined stakes?

If the goal is possible in the fiction, sure. If you want "a PC's goal in this scene" to be defined as "player determined stakes", I guess you are right.
If the goal is really not possible in the fiction, then the DM says so and the player can come up with an alternative, if they so choose.
See above with my example of a PC wanting to persuade the king to give up his crown. Not going to happen. No roll. The player's desired outcome is not feasible - and, if truly ridiculous, is possibly bad faith play, IMO.

 

[bloodtide]

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."

As it was asked, the above is a perfect example of what I call a Buddy DM. See how the DM just gives away free information? When the DM gives a nice, reasonable suggestion for a reason the PCs action did not work it deescalates the situation. In most cases the players would have never though of the obvious reasonable thing the DM tells them, but when the DM tells them, they will nod and agree it makes sense.

As opposed to my DM style where I never give the players any free information or even suggestions. "The guard does not turn".....the end.

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.

I very much agree that asking for a roll when the task is impossible, or near impossible, is a bad thing.

The above is why a great many players love the "roll for intent". If your doing the game play that way the player would be rolling to distract the guard, not do an effect like hit the tree.

 

[soviet]

If the goal is possible in the fiction, sure. If you want "a PC's goal in this scene" to be defined as "player determined stakes", I guess you are right.
If the goal is really not possible in the fiction, then the DM says so and the player can come up with an alternative, if they so choose.
See above with my example of a PC wanting to persuade the king to give up his crown. Not going to happen. No roll. The player's desired outcome is not feasible - and, if truly ridiculous, is possibly bad faith play, IMO.

There's a ton of player-defined stakes games out there (including one I wrote) and they all tend to have a big discussion about this stuff, including guidelines for what may or may not be permissible stakes, how to navigate different expectations, etc. This solves the 'I persuade the king to give me the crown and a million gold pieces' issue. That's one of the reasons why I don't think 5e has any such intention RAW - it's at best a couple of vague words about 'what the player wants to do' and then no further discussion whatsoever.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

There's a ton of player-defined stakes games out there (including one I wrote) and they all tend to have a big discussion about this stuff, including guidelines for what may or may not be permissible stakes, how to navigate different expectations, etc. This solves the 'I persuade the king to give me the crown and a million gold pieces' issue.

Cool.

That's one of the reasons why I don't think 5e has any such intention RAW - it's at best a couple of vague words about 'what the player wants to do' and then no further discussion whatsoever.

Sorry, I'm not following... "such intention" of what, exactly? Of player-defined stakes? Or, as I would put it, of players telling the DM what their PC is hoping to accomplish via their actions?

 

[soviet]

Sorry, I'm not following... "such intention" of what, exactly? Of player-defined stakes? Or, as I would put it, of players telling the DM what their PC is hoping to accomplish via their actions?

I have read you at various points as saying that D&D does feature rolling for intent instead of rolling for effect.

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.

Not to get too pedantic but... the player describes what their character wants to do. 5e2014 PHB p6

Ok, so player wants their character to distract the guard. How does the DM resolve that? They can't without actually taking control of the character which, to me, is a most unsatisfying play experience. After all, roleplaying one's character is "a player determining how [their] character thinks, acts, and talks".

So, we've established what the character wants to do (the goal/intent). We need to know how (the approach/task) so that the DM has something to adjudicate. At that point, the DM can decide the outcome, sometimes with dice.

Or flip it around. We know the player wants their character to throw a rock at the tree (approach/task). Great. Why? What are we trying to accomplish here? As DM, it's not my job to take control of the minds of the PCs and decide for them what they are hoping to accomplish (goal/intent) with their actions - they need to tall me so, again, I have something to adjudicate. Sure, sometimes it is super obvious but I'd rather the players engage with the game instead of me making assumptions about what their characters are thinking.

TL;DR: Goal and approach are implicit to the 5e rules. Yes, it is shortfall that the rules don't explicitly spell this out, but here we are.

What I'm saying is that

i) I don't think this is true. I don't think D&D seeks to resolve intent or goal at all.

ii) If it were true, there are a whole set of direct instructions the game text needs to include about the parameters of these statements of intent, and the extent of any GM veto (if any), that it does not include and has never included, which makes me further think that point i is correct.