Roll for Effect or Intent?

[bloodtide]

It is always a wonder to me that you espouse such anti-protagonist preferences. Please don't take that as a dig. If you are having a good time and your players are returning to the table, more power to you.

But the idea that a player can't toss a rock to distract a guard is wild to me. It is such a well established trope, it is effectively a law of nature. I mean, what horrors would await a character trying to swing on a chandelier or challenge the killer of their father to a duel?

Well, it can be said that I am very much against Silly Action Movie Stuff and Silly TV Stuff. And all those Tropes. Like how often you see the magic "off button" on the back of peoples heads. One hit to the head and 'click' the person is knocked out.

I'm not saying it is impossible to distract any guard. And some guards, like very dumb goblins might fall for the 'toss a rock'. But the average NPC won't. Again , just like the average player would not fall for it.

I love swashbuckling, so swinging works great in my games. As does a challenge to a duel.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don’t understand this dichotomy at all. Every action should have both an intent and an approach to trying to achieve it. A roll is called for to resolve uncertainty in whether the approach succeeds in achieving the intent or not. You can’t divorce one from the other.

 

[Reynard]

Well, it can be said that I am very much against Silly Action Movie Stuff and Silly TV Stuff. And all those Tropes. Like how often you see the magic "off button" on the back of peoples heads. One hit to the head and 'click' the person is knocked out.

I'm not saying it is impossible to distract any guard. And some guards, like very dumb goblins might fall for the 'toss a rock'. But the average NPC won't. Again , just like the average player would not fall for it.

I love swashbuckling, so swinging works great in my games. As does a challenge to a duel.

This is the kind of arbitrary adjudication I want solid rules to eliminate, as a player.

 

[bloodtide]

This is the kind of arbitrary adjudication I want solid rules to eliminate, as a player.

It is the kind of rule I ignore as a DM. So guess we are two sides of a coin.

 

[Hriston]

I don’t understand this dichotomy at all. Every action should have both an intent and an approach to trying to achieve it. A roll is called for to resolve uncertainty in whether the approach succeeds in achieving the intent or not. You can’t divorce one from the other.

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:

*A lone guard is at a back door. The player says and demands "As I hide in the woods I throw a rock far away. When it hits the tree the guard abandons his post and goes into the woods looking for the source of the sound for an hour and keeps his back to the door at all times so I can get in!"

Yep, the above will never work in my game. Though if the player is unlucky a guard patrol might be sent out to investigate the noise....

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.

 

[soviet]

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.

Exactly. The player can make the same action declaration in either case. The question is what the rules resolve. Do the rules resolve whether the rock hits the tree, leaving the GM to decide how (or whether) the guard reacts? Or do the rules also resolve (i.e. determine) the guard's reaction?

 

[soviet]

'I want to vote for the Leapords Eating People's Faces Party, but Mr GM, just so we're clear, I'm assuming we agree that no Leapords will eat my face.' [rolls dice nervously]

 

[Hriston]

Exactly. The player can make the same action declaration in either case. The question is what the rules resolve. Do the rules resolve whether the rock hits the tree, leaving the GM to decide how (or whether) the guard reacts? Or do the rules also resolve (i.e. determine) the guard's reaction?

Agreed, with the caveat that the rules include principles followed by the GM, like this:

A roll is called for to resolve uncertainty in whether the approach succeeds in achieving the intent or not.

Another, slightly different, principle I try to follow is "Say yes or roll the dice."

 

[Reynard]

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.

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

 

[Reynard]

Double post.

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