clearstream
(He, Him)
This casts interesting light on @AbdulAlhazred's comment on intent. One problem in these examples is that the intent is identical - in both cases the player character wants a discount. What changes is the approach, which as @Swarmkeeper points out, intuitively matters.Hello Mr. Merchant, I as the rescuer of the town would like a discount"
"Roll a persuasion check"
"5"
"He doesn't care. No discount."
or conversely,
My characters says: Hey stupid Shopkeeper, I'm the hero of this city, give me a discount!
"Roll a persuasion check"
"20"
"He gives you 10% off"
In other words, there is a huge disconnect between what the player is saying and the results.
Reflecting on rubrics such as "to do it, do it" I feel like intent is a slight red-herring. What's more at issue is whether the dice roll is determining character performance (their skill expression), or whether it is directing what players can add to the common fiction. Goal and approach can both be taken as inputs that help line up consequences. Goal alone usually isn't sufficient... and besides, which goal? Say I'm opening a safe to find the dirt to incriminate the chancellor. That's three intents. Open safe. Find dirt. Incriminate the chancellor. The usefulness of knowing those intents is that it helps line up what to add to our fiction, and a reason to draw attention to intents over acts is that while performance is not at issue - the character does what they do - fulfilling the intent indeed may be frustrated. Intent is a fact that happens to supervene on consequence resolution.
With "to do it, do it", character performance isn't at issue - they did what they did and that triggered the roll. The roll is not going to undo the triggering fiction: it's going to direct what to add to the fiction next. That can add to the triggering fiction in a way that takes it to a new place. This is resolving what happens, not what happened. It's one reason for only rolling when there are consequences that matter: the roll is about consequences. In this mode the wargaming assumption of dice as factors unknown can be a distraction, as whatever factors we don't know we cannot very well add to our fiction. On the other hand, a result can inspire a notion that wasn't considered before now, but fits.
With a consequences approach, players can't expect polar-opposite descriptions of their character's approach to line up with the same consequences. Which is pretty much what the Social Interaction system does. However, the Social Interaction system is not an exception to the general approach on offer in the 5e rules (taken as a whole), it's a pre-formulation.
@M_Natas consider the following
Norms at our table can lead us to fill in some fiction based on the number rolled (c.f. much commentary on player expectations around nat 1s and nat 20s.) That can be forward-going just as effectively as the consequences approach. By which I mean, it need not undo anything that went before, but rather can entail adding something to our fiction to dissolve the dissonance. I see the DC-adjustment approach as PHB 5e, whereas I see the consequences approach as DMG 5e. That's because I don't really see anything in the PHB that would lead one to a consequences approach, whereas text in the DMG spells it out.Hello Mr. Merchant, I as the rescuer of the town would like a discount"
"Roll a persuasion check" DM has DC 10 in mind.
"5"
"He doesn't care. No discount."
or conversely,
My characters says: Hey stupid Shopkeeper, I'm the hero of this city, give me a discount!
"Roll a persuasion check" DM has DC 20 in mind, due to the approach.
"20"
"He gives you 10% off"
Last edited: