Roll for Effect or Intent?

[Hriston]

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.

I'm assuming you're talking about 5E here. If I understand correctly, you would say the PC's task/approach auto-succeeds because it's trivially easy, but you would deny them automatic success on their intent/goal and put it to a roll possibly leading to its failure. I'd say this is task resolution because it doesn't actively maintain the relationship between task and intent. It also raises a few questions for me. What's the basis for failure once you've decided that hitting the tree can distract the guard and that the PC hits the tree automatically? Is there some particular way they need to hit the tree to succeed at distracting the guard, in which case the task is actually hitting the tree in that particular way? If not, why is the player rolling and what ability do they use for the check? It seems to have nothing to do with anything the PC has any control over and is just a random roll to see if the guard becomes distracted when the rock automatically hits the tree.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

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





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.

I have no idea how you can think that, but there must be some reason.

I mean, to me, it’s self evident.

Player: “I swing my sword at the orc cultist to hit it (task/effect/approach) to try to damage or even kill it (intent/goal)”
[rolls high]
DM: “you hit! But sorry, no damage!”
Player: “!”

Or…

Player “I use my grappling hook to climb the wall (task/effect/approach) to try to see over it (intent/goal)”
[rolls high enough to beat the DC]
DM “You succeed in climbing the wall but sorry, you can’t see over it”
Player “uh….”

D&D absolutely seeks to resolve intent. It’s how the game moves forward and, you know, how the adventurers actually get things done.

TL;DR: I think what we have here is the famous Cool Hand Luke line.

 

[billd91]

I think people are getting pretty pedantic about the whole task/goal thing. D&D is vague enough that a roll might be either or both. Taking a look at the play examples, in one case you've got Gareth looking at a painting to assess its age. Task or goal? Effect or intent? Immaterial - they're pretty much the same. The player (Phillip) wanted to know the age of the painting - both a goal and a task, really. It's appraising the age of the painting to... know its age.

The issue of throwing the rock to distract the guard is both as well - anyone just thinking the task is throwing the rock is really just putting that poor player on. It's ridiculous to focus on that level of trivial detail when you know for a fact the PC is trying to distract the guard. Moreover, whether distracting the guard or throwing the rock is a task depends on your granularity, not on any inherent nature of the event at hand.
Checking if that actually distracts the guard is the real nature of the task here - you can even use varying difficulties to determine how distracted the guard is. DC 10, the guard notices it enough that it might keep him from hearing something else, but probably otherwise dismisses it as an annoying cat/raccoon in the woods. DC 15, the guard actually looks over there which might enable a PC to sneak by in another direction (see Obi-Wan's Death Star stealth antics), DC 30, the guard actually leaves his post because PC Hercules hit the tree hard enough to knock it down and the guard had to go over and see what the hell was going on.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm assuming you're talking about 5E here. If I understand correctly, you would say the PC's task/approach auto-succeeds because it's trivially easy, but you would deny them automatic success on their intent/goal and put it to a roll possibly leading to its failure.

No. Because goal and approach are both essential and inseparable parts of the action. There’s no automatically succeeding on the approach but needing to roll for the goal. There is an action that is composed of both goal and approach, and if the results of that action are uncertain, one roll to resolve that uncertainty. In this particular example, the action is trying to to distract the guard by throwing a rock at a tree. That is something that could succeed or fail, with a meaningful difference between the two, so we use a roll. On a success, throwing the rock at the tree succeeds in distracting the guard. On a failure, it does not. The way I would narrate this is that the rock hits the tree, and the noise alerts the guard rather than distracting him, because that makes the failure consequential. If failure simply meant the rock missed the tree, it would not represent a change in the circumstances. Nothing would prevent the player from attempting again and again until they succeed.

I'd say this is task resolution because it doesn't actively maintain the relationship between task and intent.

What…? This is word salad to me.

It also raises a few questions for me. What's the basis for failure once you've decided that hitting the tree can distract the guard and that the PC hits the tree automatically? Is there some particular way they need to hit the tree to succeed at distracting the guard, in which case the task is actually hitting the tree in that particular way?

I don’t understand what you’re asking.

If not, why is the player rolling and what ability do they use for the check?

The player is rolling because the outcome of the action they declared is uncertain - it could reasonably succeed or fail to achieve the goal, and there’s a meaningful consequence for failure. I’d call for a Dexterity check personally, since the action involves precision and aim. If the character has a relevant proficiency (maybe deception?), the player could add their proficiency bonus.

It seems to have nothing to do with anything the PC has any control over and is just a random roll to see if the guard becomes distracted when the rock automatically hits the tree.

It’s a roll to resolve the outcome of the action that was declared by the player.

 

[Hriston]

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, my understanding of systems that use that principle, like Burning Wheel in which it is phrased as "Roll the dice or say, 'yes'", for an action declaration to be permissible, it needs to pass the following two tests, both of which are decided (informally) by table consensus: a) it has to be within genre, and b) it has to have whatever fictional positioning is required. Depending on the game, your "shooting the moon" example might fail the first test, unless it's a mythical type setting where characters do things like that, and would probably fail the second too, unless the character has an ultra long range moon-shooting arrow or something. Notice I said "table consensus". This is not a power the GM can exercise unilaterally.

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.

I think it's important to keep in mind what the player's action declaration was. The player described their character aiming and throwing a rock at a tree. That's the task. Why are they trying to hit the tree with the rock? Is their intent just a matter of wanting to hit a tree with a rock? I don't think so. I think it's clear the intent of throwing the rock is to distract the guard. Task resolution leaves the achievement of that intent at the whim of the GM. Conflict resolution, on the other hand, maintains the relationship between task and intent. If the character hits the tree, they distract the guard.

I guess... I would find that play experience tedious.

Me too but perhaps for different reasons. I like to play by declaring actions for my character based on a common understanding of the fiction. If the GM has decided my actions aren't going to work based on information they haven't given me and that I have to poke around trying to find out, I'm going to get a little annoyed.

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.

Conflict resolution is maintaining the relationship between task and intent. The DM, in 5E, is free to break that connection by unilaterally deciding the task has no chance to accomplish its intent, often by referencing information hidden from the players. That's why the ability check system is task resolution unless you import something like "say yes or roll the dice" from outside the game.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think people are getting pretty pedantic about the whole task/goal thing. D&D is vague enough that a roll might be either or both. Taking a look at the play examples, in one case you've got Gareth looking at a painting to assess its age. Task or goal? Effect or intent? Immaterial - they're pretty much the same. The player (Phillip) wanted to know the age of the painting - both a goal and a task, really. It's appraising the age of the painting to... know its age.

I’d say the goal is to know the painting’s age and the approach is by looking at it. But, I agree with your broader point, I’m just proving it by being needlessly pedantic.

 

[bloodtide]

Me too but perhaps for different reasons. I like to play by declaring actions for my character based on a common understanding of the fiction. If the GM has decided my actions aren't going to work based on information they haven't given me and that I have to poke around trying to find out, I'm going to get a little annoyed.

Conflict resolution is maintaining the relationship between task and intent. The DM, in 5E, is free to break that connection by unilaterally deciding the task has no chance to accomplish its intent, often by referencing information hidden from the players. That's why the ability check system is task resolution unless you import something like "say yes or roll the dice" from outside the game.

The way I do this in my game is to simply ask the player: "What would distract your character if your character was the guard?"

Plenty of players will answer "Nothing! My Character is Impossible to Distract Ever!". When given this answer, this closes the question of that PC ever being able to take any action with out a direct in-the-rules mechanical element. I'll simply give the answer back of "nothing". So if the PC tosses a rock, my response would be "nothing distracts the guard ever".

If the player is willing to Role Play(the acting kind) their character, and not be Metagame Perfect, I will ask the player for three things that would distract their PC guard. A role playing(acting kind) of player will already have a write up of their characters personality. This will include things like flaws, weaknesses, vices, likes and obsessions. So this type of player won't have too much of a problem giving me three things that would distract their PC. This forms a nice baseline of what "will work" in the game.

Of course, I run a tight game. So I will "check" a players Role Playing(the acting kind) often, just through normal game play. And if the player refuses to Role Play(acting), or always wants to say "everything is always and exception", then I will bump them fast down to the "nothing ever works" spot.

 

[GMMichael]

It also raises a few questions for me. What's the basis for failure once you've decided that hitting the tree can distract the guard and that the PC hits the tree automatically? Is there some particular way they need to hit the tree to succeed at distracting the guard, in which case the task is actually hitting the tree in that particular way? If not, why is the player rolling and what ability do they use for the check? It seems to have nothing to do with anything the PC has any control over and is just a random roll to see if the guard becomes distracted when the rock automatically hits the tree.

Modos RPG avoids all of this with Pro/Con/Tie results. Beat the GM's roll, and your outcome is favorable. (The rock misses the tree but beans the guard, knocking her out.) If GM beats your roll, your outcome is unfavorable. (You hit the tree, but threw some dirt too, which hit the guard in your direction.) If you Tie, come up with a neutral result. (The rock hits the tree, which wakes up the guard.)

both of which are decided (informally) by table consensus

This hurts my autocratic GM-ears.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

Y’all, there’s better ways to express disagreement than accusing others of pulling your leg or stirring the pot. And if you honestly believe that’s what another poster is doing, don’t confront them by making it personal.

Instead, disengage (politely) and/or report the posts you’ve found problematic. All that public accusations do is escalate tensions.

 

[Hriston]

No. Because goal and approach are both essential and inseparable parts of the action. There’s no automatically succeeding on the approach but needing to roll for the goal. There is an action that is composed of both goal and approach, and if the results of that action are uncertain, one roll to resolve that uncertainty. In this particular example, the action is trying to to distract the guard by throwing a rock at a tree. That is something that could succeed or fail, with a meaningful difference between the two, so we use a roll. On a success, throwing the rock at the tree succeeds in distracting the guard. On a failure, it does not. The way I would narrate this is that the rock hits the tree, and the noise alerts the guard rather than distracting him, because that makes the failure consequential. If failure simply meant the rock missed the tree, it would not represent a change in the circumstances. Nothing would prevent the player from attempting again and again until they succeed.

Okay, I think I was a bit confused because you said hitting the tree with a thrown rock (the task/approach) is trivially easy and wouldn't require a roll. By that, I understood you to mean the task would automatically succeed, no roll required, and it does appear that you are having the rock hit the tree on both success and failure of the die roll. Likewise, you're calling for the roll to determine if the intent is accomplished, so I'm not sure what about my post you're objecting to except that I'm talking about task and intent as two things that can succeed or fail independently, which is what it looks to me like they're doing in your description of your adjudication, but after reading your post I think I was wrong about that.

What…? This is word salad to me.

What I mean by "maintain the relationship between task and intent" is that task and intent both either succeed or fail together, similar to what you're saying above. Task resolution only cares about the success or failure of the task, so you can succeed on the task but fail on the intent, or fail on the task but succeed on the intent, "breaking" the relationship between the two. I thought that's what you were describing happening in your adjudication, but I now think I was mistaken.

I don’t understand what you’re asking.

I'm asking two things or maybe the same thing in two different ways. It has to do with you having said the stone hits the tree on both success and failure. I've been calling that the task, but it's an oversimplification or shorthand for hitting the tree in such a way that would prove successful in distracting the guard, which I think has led to our miscommunication. In an earlier post, you had basically dismissed that task as trivially easy, leading me to believe you were ruling it an auto-success. My questions were an attempt to understand why then you were calling for a roll and if it was because you were subbing in a different task (hitting the tree just right, or something else) rather than the one you had said you'd let succeed automatically (just plain hitting the tree), which I now think is probably what you meant.

The player is rolling because the outcome of the action they declared is uncertain - it could reasonably succeed or fail to achieve the goal, and there’s a meaningful consequence for failure. I’d call for a Dexterity check personally, since the action involves precision and aim. If the character has a relevant proficiency (maybe deception?), the player could add their proficiency bonus.

It’s a roll to resolve the outcome of the action that was declared by the player.

I think you missed the "If not" at the beginning of my question which referred to my previous question which you don't seem to have understood. My bad for not having been more clear. From your response here, though, especially that you'd call for a Dex check, I'd say you do seem to be using the die roll to resolve whether the task (throwing the rock) is performed in such a way as to achieve the intent (distracting the guard), thus maintaining the relationship, in this ruling anyway, between task and intent. I'd say our miscommunication here highlights the difficulty of knowing what GMing principles might be in play from moment to moment that would allow a task resolution system like 5E's ability check system to possibly result in something that looks more like conflict resolution.