It Shouldn't Be "Mother May I" [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

pwykersotz

2016-03-26, 03:08 PM

So I was perusing the hackslashmaster (http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/p/index.html) blog (thanks again, Max!) and I came across a prescient bit of insight regarding skills. (Here's the full article. (http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2012/03/skills-conclusion-with-10-rules.html))

Skills should not be used as a method to avoid DM Tyranny, nor as a method to enforce DM Tyranny. They should be used as part of a negotiated process where the player understands the possible consequences of the use of a skill before rolling. They should not be used by the player in an attempt to bypass play, nor by the DM in an attempt to deny the players the fruits of their labors. In an ideal, the consequences should be negotiated as a group process.

I immediately thought of the many threads we've had regarding the 5e skills being "Mother May I?" and how I've always thought that while the argument wasn't on point, it wasn't really directly refutable either. I don't run my games that way, I set a baseline of expectation regarding skills and I stick to them. My players are all on the same page and they have a solid idea of what their character can actually do in a given situation.

I think that the above quote is relevant. 5e gives a lot of flexibility within the confines of its rules to determine the type of game you want to play. Each table can define what Easy/Hard/Impossible is to them and run with it. I find this a tremendous strength of the system. It even allows my table to run entirely different campaign styles with only a quick discussion of the new values, rather than trying to codify entirely new tables.

That said, the concerns of those who don't want to play a game of DM Fiat should be recognized. The DC's should not be arbitrary, they should be grounded in expectation that is set between GM and players. The flexibility of the system leaves itself open to abuse if this step is not taken. Also, I do agree that the PHB did not go into enough detail about this facet of play. I think it would have been valuable to have this portion of the game explicitly listed. Or maybe it is, and I'm just really bad at seeing it.

In short, I think the 5e skill system did something important. It removed the ability for the players to "bypass play", something which I would never want to add back in. But because of a lack of explicit detail and explanation, it left in the ability for the DM to take over and make wilder calls that have the potential to be "DM Tyranny." I think the proper solution is not to restore the player power for equal abuse, but instead to ensure the DM will not abuse his power through pre-campaign discourse. And of course the DM should be trusted when they agree to a standard unless they later prove otherwise (because if you can't trust the DM, you can't really play, or at least might as well be playing a DM-less game of some sort).

Thoughts?

Slipperychicken

2016-03-26, 03:56 PM

pwykersotz

2016-03-26, 04:02 PM

I think that all we need are about one or two examples for each skill or ability at each DC. That way the book doesn't pretend to list all possible examples (thereby restricting people only to what the book says can be done), or fill chapters with examples that no-one wants to read, but it would provide guidance regarding what each DC means.

The trade-off to such a system would be a reduction in flexibility. My gritty campaign and my epic fantasy campaign would need entirely different examples. And hard-coded examples have the effect of drawing people toward them, creating a finite number of choices and discouraging meddling with the system.

That's not necessarily a downside, but I think the required exchange should be recognized.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-03-26, 04:16 PM

The trade-off to such a system would be a reduction in flexibility. My gritty campaign and my epic fantasy campaign would need entirely different examples. And hard-coded examples have the effect of drawing people toward them, creating a finite number of choices and discouraging meddling with the system.

That's not necessarily a downside, but I think the required exchange should be recognized.
If that's the intention, one can address it directly- say "here are some examples for a gritty game, here are some examples for a heroic game, here are some examples for a mythic game. Discuss what sort of paradigm you're using with your players."

But I say "if," because I'm not convinced that's true. Skills and what they can accomplish were left largely undefined, but pretty much everything else in the game has solid rules. Classes, spells, feats, monsters... they're all written for a specific power level. The Monk gets the ability to run on water at 9th; that certainly implies that running on water is not something a normal Acrobatics check can accomplish. The existence of Spider Climb makes a compelling case that climbing across perfectly smooth surfaces isn't otherwise possible. And so on. I've been designing a game with a variable power scale, and it involves considerably more than not defining skill difficulties.

MrStabby

2016-03-26, 04:27 PM

I am going to disagree slightly here. DM tyranny by itself is a bad thing but in reality it is often pretty beneficial.

If you have a game with a bad DM then you are almost certainly not going to have fun in the long run. Any DM that abuses their power (or even subjectively uses it in a way you don't appreciate). There is always a way for a poor DM to spoil a game.

If you operate a system that gives the DM more explicit powers and lets them put the way they use their powers forward in a very visible way early on then it helps identify problems with DMs sooner and with greater confidence that others are seeing the same thing.

I am not saying that if you don't like they way they adjudicate skills you should storm out but it gives a point of discussion and gives a reference point you can discuss.

pwykersotz

2016-03-26, 04:43 PM

If that's the intention, one can address it directly- say "here are some examples for a gritty game, here are some examples for a heroic game, here are some examples for a mythic game. Discuss what sort of paradigm you're using with your players."

But I say "if," because I'm not convinced that's true. Skills and what they can accomplish were left largely undefined, but pretty much everything else in the game has solid rules. Classes, spells, feats, monsters... they're all written for a specific power level. The Monk gets the ability to run on water at 9th; that certainly implies that running on water is not something a normal Acrobatics check can accomplish. The existence of Spider Climb makes a compelling case that climbing across perfectly smooth surfaces isn't otherwise possible. And so on. I've been designing a game with a variable power scale, and it involves considerably more than not defining skill difficulties.

Oh, I know. I've been following the thread and contributed a couple times. It's good stuff. :smallsmile:

The problem is that it can lead to decisions which make the game worse. If the sensibilities of a table indicate that almost all the DC's should be decreased by 5 on the "Athletics" table, except the DC's for jumping which are fine and instead of the DC's for climbing which should be increased by 10, this puts the GM in a tough spot. What the table would agree on as the norm is challenged by the books and labeled as the style of game you want to run. Most games that I have been a part of sacrifice the table mentality for the book DC's. After all, they're professionally designed, they must be the more correct way to run things. This mentality would, in my opinion, be bad for the game that the particular table is running.

As for implicit disqualification, I dont' see it. I saw it with previous editions which had the codified skill use. Hard-coded DC's create the same bar you're claiming that the spell does. But your Spider Climb example doesn't hold when you read the spell and it says nothing about "perfectly smooth surfaces". Only that you gain a climbing speed and you leave your hands free, literally walking on the walls and ceiling. And the Monk ability clarifies "without falling". It's the ability to ignore a skill check when you do it, which to me implies that it could indeed normally happen. There's just no risk anymore.

Either way, I'm not against descriptions. That's not really what I'm discussing at all. Describing that Athletics covers at minimum Running, Jumping, Lifting, Pushing, Pulling, Frisbee Golf, Flexing your sick guns, and Benchpressing Cattle is great. That the game supposes that if you get into a situation where another stat would fill in better (like Dex for running over an obstacle course) is another bonus in this regard. The system as listed isn't perfect (I said as much in the OP), but the system should not be considered Mother May I where you depend on the whims of the DM. It should be a conversation in which a balance is agreed upon.

Edit:

I am going to disagree slightly here. DM tyranny by itself is a bad thing but in reality it is often pretty beneficial.

If you have a game with a bad DM then you are almost certainly not going to have fun in the long run. Any DM that abuses their power (or even subjectively uses it in a way you don't appreciate). There is always a way for a poor DM to spoil a game.

If you operate a system that gives the DM more explicit powers and lets them put the way they use their powers forward in a very visible way early on then it helps identify problems with DMs sooner and with greater confidence that others are seeing the same thing.

I am not saying that if you don't like they way they adjudicate skills you should storm out but it gives a point of discussion and gives a reference point you can discuss.

The bolded tells me we are largely in agreement about what is important.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-03-26, 04:53 PM

The problem is that it can lead to decisions which make the game worse. If the sensibilities of a table indicate that almost all the DC's should be decreased by 5 on the "Athletics" table, except the DC's for jumping which are fine and instead of the DC's for climbing which should be increased by 10, this puts the GM in a tough spot. What the table would agree on as the norm is challenged by the books and labeled as the style of game you want to run. Most games that I have been a part of sacrifice the table mentality for the book DC's. After all, they're professionally designed, they must be the more correct way to run things. This mentality would, in my opinion, be bad for the game that the particular table is running.
I dunno, I see this argument a lot and it doesn't feel right to me. I don't think I've ever seen a GM/group say "well, we think X but the book says Y, so Y;" at least not for skills. It seems like it's inventing a problem that never existed before to excuse a problem that recently arose.

As for implicit disqualification, I dont' see it. I saw it with previous editions which had the codified skill use. Hard-coded DC's create the same bar you're claiming that the spell does. But your Spider Climb example doesn't hold when you read the spell and it says nothing about "perfectly smooth surfaces". Only that you gain a climbing speed and you leave your hands free, literally walking on the walls and ceiling. And the Monk ability clarifies "without falling". It's the ability to ignore a skill check when you do it, which to me implies that it could indeed normally happen. There's just no risk anymore.
Disqualification might be a bit much, but there's certainly a strong implication that this is not the norm. If the Monk gets a feature to run across water, that implies that, at the very least, running across water is a feat appropriate for mid level characters.

The system as listed isn't perfect (I said as much in the OP), but the system should not be considered Mother May I where you depend on the whims of the DM. It should be a conversation in which a balance is agreed upon.
Oh, to be sure. I just don't think it does a good job at all at explaining that. If a game is going to dump a lot of work on the GM, it should at least have the courtesy to warn you.

pwykersotz

2016-03-26, 05:15 PM

I dunno, I see this argument a lot and it doesn't feel right to me. I don't think I've ever seen a GM/group say "well, we think X but the book says Y, so Y;" at least not for skills. It seems like it's inventing a problem that never existed before to excuse a problem that recently arose.

Disqualification might be a bit much, but there's certainly a strong implication that this is not the norm. If the Monk gets a feature to run across water, that implies that, at the very least, running across water is a feat appropriate for mid level characters.

Oh, to be sure. I just don't think it does a good job at all at explaining that. If a game is going to dump a lot of work on the GM, it should at least have the courtesy to warn you.

I've seen the decision to abide by the book over otherwise common sense quite a lot in person. I am glad that it isn't something you've had to experience.

As for running on water and spider climb, the ability to do it without fail is pretty powerful. The system is designed around failure chance in all things. The abilities/spells are just a different sort of immunity. I can agree that there is a minor implication there, but perhaps my longstanding 3.5 mindset is showing, because compared to the disincentives offered by that system, this is incredibly minimal.

And yeah, we can agree that the core books could have used more clarity with regard to intent. I didn't originally believe this, but I realize that I just automatically filled in blanks that are nonetheless blanks. I'm not sure I agree it's a lot of work for the GM, but that might just be different playstyles/expectations.

Pex

2016-03-26, 05:26 PM

Honest question.

What do you mean by players bypassing play?

Hrugner

2016-03-26, 05:50 PM

I see it as more of a DM's problem than a player's problem. It's a little more work to frame your game expectations, but still doable. Being consistent in what parts of reality your dropping for game purposes can however be tedious, with set DCs you can at least go back to those DCs to check yourself.

If the DM remains consistent, and doesn't say "no", then the players can experiment in game to find how close they are to various activities. If the DM isn't consistent, then the players can't experiment and expand their character's knowledge of what they are capable of. Static DC charts help with that consistency, but there are other ways.

pwykersotz

2016-03-26, 05:59 PM

Honest question.

What do you mean by players bypassing play?

Since those are quoted words, I'll quote from another of his articles (http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2010/11/on-perception-and-observation.html) that I believes help sum it up as I understand it:

"The hallway ahead looks darker."
"Wait, why does it look dark?"
"You don't know."
"I check out the walls and floor, prodding ahead with the pole."
"You notice that the walls and floor appear to have dark stains on them."
"What kind of stains, I rub my finger along them."
"You see that the walls are covered in soot."
"I look closer on the tops and bottoms of the walls ahead."
"In the darkness you see several vents."
"We go the other way."

Or.

"Roll your search/observation/perception"
"I got a 17"
"Flaming jets burn you"

Or.

"Roll your search/Observation/perception"
"I got a 27"
"You find a trap"

Basically, using skills in certain ways can duplicate and hence bypass otherwise interactive and fun gametime. In this case rolling to find traps is bypassing play.

Jormengand

2016-03-26, 06:02 PM

The existence of Spider Climb makes a compelling case that climbing across perfectly smooth surfaces isn't otherwise possible.

Not in 3.5 it didn't. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#climb)

Tanarii

2016-03-26, 06:22 PM

Hrugner

2016-03-26, 07:06 PM

How on earth could defense of player agency be bad for a game?

Tanarii

2016-03-26, 07:37 PM

Pex

2016-03-26, 07:55 PM

Basically, using skills in certain ways can duplicate and hence bypass otherwise interactive and fun gametime. In this case rolling to find traps is bypassing play.

Back in 2E you couldn't just search a room. If you didn't describe exactly what you were doing you couldn't do anything which was a problem. You had to say: "I search the bed. I take the pillow out of the pillow case. I search the pillow case. I cut open the pillow. I look under the blanket. I look under the sheet. I tear open the mattress. I look under the bed. I test the springs. I check for a hidden compartment in the bed posts." You can't just look for secret doors. You had to describe exactly where and how, and if you don't trigger what the DM is thinking you never find it. Worse was searching for traps. The thief player had to describe everything he does, and many times the DM says "Hah! You didn't say you checked the ceiling. Rocks fall on you." (Platitudes to illustrate the point.) The 3E search check and Take 10/Take 20 was to get rid of all that. You can still have your descriptions, but as hopefully players are not real burglars, you no longer had to be one to play one. Descriptions were encouraged by suggesting the DM give a +2 to the roll for inspired roleplaying on any skill check such as fluent words for diplomacy or intimidate, but I think it's a feature, not a bug, that it's not so necessary to be eloquent in real life to use a social skill. Warrior player do not swing real swords at the game table. Spellcaster players do not mumble incantations unless quoting Harry Potter or something for the lulz. I am not a doctor, and I shouldn't be one to use a heal check. I remember back in 2E the DM wouldn't let my cleric treat a poisoned NPC because I, the player, hadn't a clue how to treat poison in real life to say what my character does. That type of play should not be encouraged in 5E or ever.

pwykersotz

2016-03-26, 08:14 PM

Back in 2E you couldn't just search a room. If you didn't describe exactly what you were doing you couldn't do anything which was a problem. You had to say: "I search the bed. I take the pillow out of the pillow case. I search the pillow case. I cut open the pillow. I look under the blanket. I look under the sheet. I tear open the mattress. I look under the bed. I test the springs. I check for a hidden compartment in the bed posts." You can't just look for secret doors. You had to describe exactly where and how, and if you don't trigger what the DM is thinking you never find it. Worse was searching for traps. The thief player had to describe everything he does, and many times the DM says "Hah! You didn't say you checked the ceiling. Rocks fall on you." (Platitudes to illustrate the point.) The 3E search check and Take 10/Take 20 was to get rid of all that. You can still have your descriptions, but as hopefully players are not real burglars, you no longer had to be one to play one. Descriptions were encouraged by suggesting the DM give a +2 to the roll for inspired roleplaying on any skill check such as fluent words for diplomacy or intimidate, but I think it's a feature, not a bug, that it's not so necessary to be eloquent in real life to use a social skill. Warrior player do not swing real swords at the game table. Spellcaster players do not mumble incantations unless quoting Harry Potter or something for the lulz. I am not a doctor, and I shouldn't be one to use a heal check. I remember back in 2E the DM wouldn't let my cleric treat a poisoned NPC because I, the player, hadn't a clue how to treat poison in real life to say what my character does. That type of play should not be encouraged in 5E or ever.

I find myself in complete agreement with you on every one of your examples. It's tangential to my main point, but yes, you're right, players should not be expected to have medical degrees to play a Cleric, or somesuch. But they should be interested in what is going on. If the DM says there are seven long stones in an odd pattern in the center of a room, they probably shouldn't need to roll an Investigation check. They should probably go up and see if the stones make a known arcane pattern or if any of them can be moved, or if there are any strange markings on them. And the GM should tell them what they find with full honesty. It's incredibly unfun to me to have a DM say "Roll Investigation to look for small markings", then to roll low and not find specifically what you were looking for, even though it was there the whole time.

Tanarii

2016-03-26, 08:29 PM

It's incredibly unfun to me to have a DM say "Roll Investigation to look for small markings", then to roll low and not find specifically what you were looking for, even though it was there the whole time.Checks are supposed to be there for where there is some reasonable question as to a chance of success or failure, and there is a meaningful difference between success and failure. Meaningful as in creates tension, as well as significantly different outcomes.

AngryDM does a good job of addressing how to adjudicate actions like a boss: http://angrydm.com/2013/04/adjudicate-actions-like-a-boss/

mephnick

2016-03-26, 08:39 PM

I feel like people who think the game is "Mother May I" must be very bad at socializing with others, flinch at any form of authority, or have some traumatic experience in their past that leaves them unable to trust another human being. This goes for DMs and players.

It's a social party game. Everything has always been up for debate and compromise at my table. I question their decisions if they don't make sense to me and they question my rulings if they don't make sense to them. We have a dialogue and it gets settled..you know, like functioning adults. There's no begging or spite. Some of stuff I read on here boggles my mind. I want to hug the people that yell about DM FIAT and ask them "Who hurt you? Why are you like this?"

Hrugner

2016-03-26, 08:41 PM

Because it's almost always misused by people that don't understand the concept of agency and what it means. It's become a trendy term to misapply to RPGs.

Hackslashmaster regularly shows his misunderstanding. For example http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2011/09/on-list-of-ways-youre-ruining-your-game.html

He pretty much nailed it. Nullifying the point of a player being at the table is denying player agency. All of his examples are variations on that theme. Where do you see him misunderstanding?

MaxWilson

2016-03-26, 09:02 PM

I have. Lots of times. If a rule is written, many player and DMs insist it's what is used unless there's a ---- good reason to change it.

I feel kind of this way about opportunity attacks. The way they work in 5E is wildly insane (retreating in melee is safer than standing your ground, but 5E treats it as more dangerous). I have a potential fix in mind*, but none of my players are as exercised as I am about the issue (although they acknowledge that it makes no sense as written), so for now we're sticking with the rule as written because it's pretty deeply embedded in the system.

There's a complexity cost to each house rule, and I don't like introducing them without a pretty good reason. Sometimes that means just accepting that I'm playing a slightly different game than one I would have designed.

* The fix: eliminate the Disengage action. Differentiate between forward (full speed) and backward movement (half speed). Moving backwards away from an enemy does not trigger an opportunity attack, but turning your back on him does. Clear implication: beholders, black puddings, etc. are immune to opportunity attacks because they have 360' awareness at all times. Thieves who would otherwise have done Cunning Action: Disengage will now simply Dash backwards, which is functionally identical. But now it's possible for a fighter to back off slightly from one opponent, without taking an opportunity attack, and attack another instead.

This still doesn't fix the insanity of Warcaster though. Why does turning your back on me make it faster to Polymorph me? Who knows? It just does.

Edit: Argh. Look what you've done! I think you've made me persuade myself that this house rule is elegant enough to be worth adopting. Now it's irrelevant to the thread! Nice Job Breaking It, Hero. :-)

pwykersotz

2016-03-26, 09:37 PM

I feel kind of this way about opportunity attacks. The way they work in 5E is wildly insane (retreating in melee is safer than standing your ground, but 5E treats it as more dangerous). I have a potential fix in mind*, but none of my players are as exercised as I am about the issue (although they acknowledge that it makes no sense as written), so for now we're sticking with the rule as written because it's pretty deeply embedded in the system.

There's a complexity cost to each house rule, and I don't like introducing them without a pretty good reason. Sometimes that means just accepting that I'm playing a slightly different game than one I would have designed.

* The fix: eliminate the Disengage action. Differentiate between forward (full speed) and backward movement (half speed). Moving backwards away from an enemy does not trigger an opportunity attack, but turning your back on him does. Clear implication: beholders, black puddings, etc. are immune to opportunity attacks because they have 360' awareness at all times. Thieves who would otherwise have done Cunning Action: Disengage will now simply Dash backwards, which is functionally identical. But now it's possible for a fighter to back off slightly from one opponent, without taking an opportunity attack, and attack another instead.

This still doesn't fix the insanity of Warcaster though. Why does turning your back on me make it faster to Polymorph me? Who knows? It just does.

Edit: Argh. Look what you've done! I think you've made me persuade myself that this house rule is elegant enough to be worth adopting. Now it's irrelevant to the thread! Nice Job Breaking It, Hero. :-)

While the description of turning your back might be key to understanding the idea behind it, isn't it more elegant to simply say that disengaging from an enemy takes 10 feet of movement? Or would that be too abstracted?

Slipperychicken

2016-03-26, 10:04 PM

I've also seen people yield to RAW over their best judgement, but that was in 3.x, where you had a lot more pressure to follow RAW even when it was nonsensical. Also, that ruleset at least seemed like it was trying to cover all possible use-cases, not leaving anything to interpretation.

I haven't seen much of it in 5e, and that may have to do with the way it's been written, but I think it's also because many of the players came from 3.x and are more sharply aware of the potential issues.

Telok

2016-03-26, 11:27 PM

Here's a graphic of the skill DCs vs. rolls at various stats and levels. It ought to help with this.
http://i375.photobucket.com/albums/oo198/jcc_telok/oldSkill_zpsae9md3ti.jpg (http://s375.photobucket.com/user/jcc_telok/media/oldSkill_zpsae9md3ti.jpg.html)

Pex

2016-03-26, 11:55 PM

pwykersotz

2016-03-27, 12:20 AM

I would not want to use 4E's method where the DC of a task is dependent on the level of the one doing the task. A task should have a DC based on its own existence. That a 10th level character could do it with ease while a 3rd level character would struggle due to having a higher +# to his roll is a feature, not a bug. The DC should not change to force the 10th level character have the same percentage chance as the 3rd level character. That defeats the purpose of being 10th level and better at doing things such as by increasing proficiency and ability score bonuses.

Also, a DM should not instinctively make everything DC 20. Naturally it's task dependent, but DC 15 or even DC 10 is a thing in 5E and not to be avoided. Some tasks shouldn't have a DC at all and just be something you can do. PCs are supposed to be able to do stuff.

Again, agreed on all counts. In the 5e paradigm, I believe a task should have a DC set on a combination of the scale set at the table and the situational modifiers. And the point of the scale is to use it, not to arbitrarily heighten everything to have a high failure rate just because. And don't forget the DC of 5. That exists too. :smallsmile:

I do believe that artificial bars can exist at the DM's discretion (you must be trained to make this check, you can't roll unless your Strength exceeds X, etc) assuming that such a system is discussed at the table, because it allows for custom fine-tuning, which this edition is primed to do. (Artificial boons are great too, such as only needing to make that Athletics check to lift the cage if your Strength is less than X or autopassing if you're trained.) It's sufficient in current form, but houserules make it fantastic table-to-table, expressing with minimal effort the different ways to play. Which is the opposite direction that hard-coded DC's would take it. Fine tuning a set of general guidelines into specific ones is far less work and more flexible than whitewashing the specific and trying to create a new structure in the absence of one.

Tanarii

2016-03-27, 12:34 AM

He pretty much nailed it. Nullifying the point of a player being at the table is denying player agency. All of his examples are variations on that theme. Where do you see him misunderstanding?While hackslashmaster is right about things not to do (second part), he's completely wrong about why. And his same assumptions about why led him to be completely wrong about 4e (the first part). His misunderstanding of what agency is led him to completely wrong conclusions.

"Player" agency = nullifying the player is a BS made up definition of agency, mainly by assigning it to the player. For a good understanding of agency, which is something that arises between both the player and a DM in conjunction, go read the article by AngryDM I linked above. Pay special attention to the parts talking about Intentions, Approaches, Outcomes and Consequences.

I would not want to use 4E's method where the DC of a task is dependent on the level of the one doing the task. A task should have a DC based on its own existence.
That's not how 4e DCs work, although it's a common mistake. DCs are based on their own existence. They scale to the level of the challenge, not the level of the person doing the task. The assumption is the challenge will generally be the same level as the person doing the task, but that's not a certain thing.

In other words, 4e DCs have two scales at the same time. Level of challenge, and difficulty of challenge.

Talakeal

2016-03-27, 12:37 AM

Checks are supposed to be there for where there is some reasonable question as to a chance of success or failure, and there is a meaningful difference between success and failure. Meaningful as in creates tension, as well as significantly different outcomes.

AngryDM does a good job of addressing how to adjudicate actions like a boss: http://angrydm.com/2013/04/adjudicate-actions-like-a-boss/

One problem I have with this philosophy is that "reasonable chance of failure" is almost completely arbitrary and changes based on the situation. If you roll there is a serious chance for anyone to suceed or fail, and in real life experts fail at routine tasks and laymen bumble through difficult tasks fairly often.

For example, if you have two people one with a plus eleven skill and the other with a plus two skill the second person will succeed when the first fails a disproportionate amount of the time given dofficulties of fifteen or twenty.

Now, you might just say the first guy automatically succeeds and the second guy automatically fails, but now you are robbing the scene of any tension or meaning.

And then it gets even wierder, imagine the plus eleven guy is suddenly incapacitated and the plus two guy steps in to complete the vital tasks. But you have already declared he automatically fails, so now you have denied the party the chance of success, and set a precedent for people with a plus two modifier never being able to even attempt similar tasks in the future.

Tanarii

2016-03-27, 12:45 AM

Now, you might just say the first guy automatically succeeds and the second guy automatically fails, but now you are robbing the scene of any tension or meaning.You missed the point of "reasonable question as to a chance of success or failure" if you're having one person automatically succeed and another automatically fail. It's a consideration if the task is so easy any adventurer can succeed, or so hard no adventurer can do it.

Ie is it even possible on one end, vs why am I wasting time making a check for this on the other.

Edit: you've generally missed the point. There may be times when a character's established background & prior in-game actions make it possible for them to do something automatically others can't, of course. Or more likely, have a chance to succeed where others just will fail. But that wasn't what I was referring to. To be clear as mud.

JoeJ

2016-03-27, 12:54 AM

For example, if you have two people one with a plus eleven skill and the other with a plus two skill the second person will succeed when the first fails a disproportionate amount of the time given dofficulties of fifteen or twenty.

Why is the second person trying at all? If the first person fails, they should try again.

It's important to understand the math behind the skills, and especially the difference between succeeding on the first attempt and succeeding eventually. An amateur with a +2 has about a 50/50 chance of hitting DC 12 on the first try. They can always succeed at DC 22, as long they're able to keep trying. The +11 expert can always hit a DC 31 if they're able to keep trying, and has about a 50/50 shot of making DC 21 on the first try.

Tanarii

2016-03-27, 01:00 AM

And those always succeeds are why there's no point in having checks if there's no meaningful difference between success and failure. Being able to try repeatedly until you succeed means there was no meaningful consequence of failure. Just skip the check.

Edit: note that lack of consequences of failure isn't the only way to make a check meaningful or not meaningful. It's just an easy one to understand, because the math of repeated checks without makes it clear why it should be the case.

JoeJ

2016-03-27, 01:03 AM

And those always succeeds are why there's no point in having checks if there's no meaningful difference between success and failure. Being able to try repeatedly until you succeed means there was no meaningful consequence of failure. Just skip the check.

Exactly. A check is only needed if there's time pressure, or if a failure means that something bad happens.

Telok

2016-03-27, 03:26 AM

That's not how 4e DCs work, although it's a common mistake. DCs are based on their own existence. They scale to the level of the challenge, not the level of the person doing the task. The assumption is the challenge will generally be the same level as the person doing the task, but that's not a certain thing.

In other words, 4e DCs have two scales at the same time. Level of challenge, and difficulty of challenge.

Well, sort of. It's quite true that a level 3, DC 12 check in 4e will always be a level 3, DC 12 check. But 4e is also very explicit about scaling the challenge to the characters. The 4e paradigm was not "You are level 20 and encounter a level 3 challenge with a DC of 12." It was explicitly "You are level 20 and you encounter a level 20 challenge with a DC of 28."

So sure, there were level 3 challenges around when the characters were level 20, but you never saw them in play. What you actually did in the game was the level appropriate challenges with the DCs scaled by the level of the challenge.

The issue here in 5e is that without any guidance about DCs or skills you get to hash out what a DC 15 skill check is and what you can do with a skill at every single table and they're all going to be a bit different. Mostly it's going to hurt first time DMs and players who don't already know what an appropriate DC or skill activity is. As an extra bonus everyone can make a DC 15 check and everyone can fail a DC 15 check (barring only high level dexterity skill expertise rogues and charisma skill expertise bards). Then everyone except the completely untrained and untalented can make a DC 20 while your level 20 maxxed stat and trained adventurer still fails it 40% of the time.

Look at us, we're experienced players and DMs and we can't agree on what the DCs are even supposed to represent for any particular skill. How is a new player or first time DM supposed to deal with this? Without guidelines or bases we're back to the AD&D days where the first thing I did when sitting down at a new table was play twenty questions about what they thought the rules meant.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-03-27, 08:32 AM

As an extra bonus everyone can make a DC 15 check and everyone can fail a DC 15 check (barring only high level dexterity skill expertise rogues and charisma skill expertise bards). Then everyone except the completely untrained and untalented can make a DC 20 while your level 20 maxxed stat and trained adventurer still fails it 40% of the time.

Look at us, we're experienced players and DMs and we can't agree on what the DCs are even supposed to represent for any particular skill. How is a new player or first time DM supposed to deal with this? Without guidelines or bases we're back to the AD&D days where the first thing I did when sitting down at a new table was play twenty questions about what they thought the rules meant.
This right here. Just so much of this. 5e's lack of explanation about skill DCs combines exceedingly poorly with its "everyone can succeed or fail on any check" mentality. There's no such thing as an expert-level task; for just about any DC experts will routinely fail and amateurs will routinely succeed, making it hard to determine what those DCs should really mean.

pwykersotz

2016-03-27, 10:07 AM

The issue here in 5e is that without any guidance about DCs or skills you get to hash out what a DC 15 skill check is and what you can do with a skill at every single table and they're all going to be a bit different. Mostly it's going to hurt first time DMs and players who don't already know what an appropriate DC or skill activity is. As an extra bonus everyone can make a DC 15 check and everyone can fail a DC 15 check (barring only high level dexterity skill expertise rogues and charisma skill expertise bards). Then everyone except the completely untrained and untalented can make a DC 20 while your level 20 maxxed stat and trained adventurer still fails it 40% of the time.

Look at us, we're experienced players and DMs and we can't agree on what the DCs are even supposed to represent for any particular skill. How is a new player or first time DM supposed to deal with this? Without guidelines or bases we're back to the AD&D days where the first thing I did when sitting down at a new table was play twenty questions about what they thought the rules meant.

The bolded is a benefit, if you're willing to see it that way. That's actually the whole point of the thread. Portability between tables is a lesser goal than the ability to craft a custom experience at a given table, in my view. And while you say it will hurt new DM's and Players, I think it will be better for them, as they're taught by the rules themselves to make the game their own. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, was one of the stated goals for this edition.

The RNG being greater than static modifiers is neither here nor there. It doesn't make a game better or worse, just towards or away from your personal tastes.

Slipperychicken

2016-03-27, 10:13 AM

This right here. Just so much of this. 5e's lack of explanation about skill DCs combines exceedingly poorly with its "everyone can succeed or fail on any check" mentality. There's no such thing as an expert-level task; for just about any DC experts will routinely fail and amateurs will routinely succeed, making it hard to determine what those DCs should really mean.

We should also assign blame to the d20 core mechanic. It's a uniform distribution, while in real life outcomes tend to be closer to a normal-ish curve. That is, outcomes IRL cluster around the mean, with outliers being less frequent the farther away they get from the mean. Also, if I swing a club at a pane of glass, I do not have a 5% chance to miss. That just isn't how it works.

gkathellar

2016-03-27, 10:22 AM

Skills and what they can accomplish were left largely undefined, but pretty much everything else in the game has solid rules. Classes, spells, feats, monsters... they're all written for a specific power level. The Monk gets the ability to run on water at 9th; that certainly implies that running on water is not something a normal Acrobatics check can accomplish. The existence of Spider Climb makes a compelling case that climbing across perfectly smooth surfaces isn't otherwise possible. And so on. I've been designing a game with a variable power scale, and it involves considerably more than not defining skill difficulties.

QFT. 5E has no shortage of assumptions about what can be accomplished by who at what point - it just doesn't bother to provide us with any clarity regarding those assumptions as they relate to skills. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks this is because it would require them to deal with the problematic relationship between bounded accuracy and skill checks. The more realistic cynic, on the other hand, thinks that it's just an obnoxious oversight.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-03-27, 10:44 AM

QFT. 5E has no shortage of assumptions about what can be accomplished by who at what point - it just doesn't bother to provide us with any clarity regarding those assumptions as they relate to skills. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks this is because it would require them to deal with the problematic relationship between bounded accuracy and skill checks. The more realistic cynic, on the other hand, thinks that it's just an obnoxious oversight.
Given past history, I don't think there's ever been any real image of how scaling is supposed to work; certainly not in any overarching apparent-power (rather than combat-power) sort of way. I'm pretty sure that disconnect is the root cause of martial-caster imbalance, for instance-- Fighters get Conan as their archetype, Wizards get Merlin and all the other fantasy sorcerers of vast and unspecified power (few to none of whom were really protagonists).

Pex

2016-03-27, 11:37 AM

Again, agreed on all counts. In the 5e paradigm, I believe a task should have a DC set on a combination of the scale set at the table and the situational modifiers. And the point of the scale is to use it, not to arbitrarily heighten everything to have a high failure rate just because. And don't forget the DC of 5. That exists too. :smallsmile:

I do believe that artificial bars can exist at the DM's discretion (you must be trained to make this check, you can't roll unless your Strength exceeds X, etc) assuming that such a system is discussed at the table, because it allows for custom fine-tuning, which this edition is primed to do. (Artificial boons are great too, such as only needing to make that Athletics check to lift the cage if your Strength is less than X or autopassing if you're trained.) It's sufficient in current form, but houserules make it fantastic table-to-table, expressing with minimal effort the different ways to play. Which is the opposite direction that hard-coded DC's would take it. Fine tuning a set of general guidelines into specific ones is far less work and more flexible than whitewashing the specific and trying to create a new structure in the absence of one.

Where you see this as a feature of 5E I see it as a bug because it means I have to relearn the game when I play with a different DM who has to set up his own method of skill resolution. Certainly in other systems different DMs can have their own house rules to change how things work, but like in Pathfinder there are predetermined guidelines for how things work. A DM doesn't have make up his own rules. A player knows what his character can do before he tries something. In 5E there aren't any guidelines so the DM has to make up his own rules - be a game designer. A player has no idea what his character can do until he tries something because it is inane to attempt to talk with the DM how to resolve every skill scenario at game session 0.

Tanarii

2016-03-27, 11:56 AM

Well, sort of. It's quite true that a level 3, DC 12 check in 4e will always be a level 3, DC 12 check. But 4e is also very explicit about scaling the challenge to the characters. The 4e paradigm was not "You are level 20 and encounter a level 3 challenge with a DC of 12." It was explicitly "You are level 20 and you encounter a level 20 challenge with a DC of 28."

So sure, there were level 3 challenges around when the characters were level 20, but you never saw them in play. What you actually did in the game was the level appropriate challenges with the DCs scaled by the level of the challenge.Technically it was "you are level 20 and you see challenges of about level 20, with a DC corresponding to the challenges level.

Yes, 4e does have an assumption you will encounter challenges approximately equal to those that will be challenging. Guess what? So does 5e. The difference is, 5e is intentionally designed so that bonuses don't scale, so you don't need to rework creatures or scale DCs as much to keep things challenges. The basic assumption is the same, the underlying math is different.

And in neither case do you have to operate under the assumption. You just need to understand how the math works so you'll know what happens when you intentionally break the underlying assumption.

The issue here in 5e is that without any guidance about DCs or skills you get to hash out what a DC 15 skill check is and what you can do with a skill at every single table and they're all going to be a bit different.They have guidance. Easy is something that will be resolved ~= 50% of the time by an untrained character in a single check. Hard is something that will be resolved ~= 50% of the time by a max level/attribute character in a single check. What's missing is the rest of Joe's math with an explicit description that eventually you'll succeed if you can try forever. (At least, I think it's missing).

Ability checks have a lot of guidance in both the PHB and DMG, at some length. including several explicit target DCs and how to use them for the most common tasks in the DMG, such as wilderness exploration, tracking, and social interactions. You just need to RTFM if you want to learn how to adjudicate actions on the fly without constant rules reference, which is how 5e is designed to be played. And if it's not explicit enough for you after that, you need to compile your own lists of "example" DCs for your table in advance and adjudicate actions by referring to those rules when the situations arise.

Edit: personally I find hardcoded specific examples to be a bane as a player. I need to reference the rules constantly before I take an action, as opposed to just known what constitutes Easy, Medium and Hard DCs. "The wall is rough and covered in cracks. It looks like an Easy climb even with these guys chasing you" is far faster way to tell me it's DC 10 than having to go look up what DC rough and covered in cracks is when being pursued by enemies.

JackPhoenix

2016-03-27, 12:23 PM

NewDM

2016-03-27, 01:48 PM

Since those are quoted words, I'll quote from another of his articles (http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2010/11/on-perception-and-observation.html) that I believes help sum it up as I understand it:

Basically, using skills in certain ways can duplicate and hence bypass otherwise interactive and fun gametime. In this case rolling to find traps is bypassing play.

This is a play style difference. Some players/DMs like rolling for everything, others like describing what they are doing in minute detail and trying to guess what the DM had in mind. A third group does both, where they describe in detail what their characters do and then roll to see if it succeeds. Just a play style choice.

I feel like people who think the game is "Mother May I" must be very bad at socializing with others, flinch at any form of authority, or have some traumatic experience in their past that leaves them unable to trust another human being. This goes for DMs and players.

It's a social party game. Everything has always been up for debate and compromise at my table. I question their decisions if they don't make sense to me and they question my rulings if they don't make sense to them. We have a dialogue and it gets settled..you know, like functioning adults. There's no begging or spite. Some of stuff I read on here boggles my mind. I want to hug the people that yell about DM FIAT and ask them "Who hurt you? Why are you like this?"

I think that people that don't think the game is mother may I are used to doing whatever people say and never think for themselves. Just kidding, but you might be able to see how your comment can be interpreted as insulting. :)

In reality the entire game is "mother may I?" from start to finish. Even if you don't bother asking, the DM is still going to tell you if you have a chance of succeeding or not and in 5e most of that 'chance' is directly related to how the DM sees the world. So you end up asking if you can do things anyway whether you use direct words or just say "I do X".

Well, sort of. It's quite true that a level 3, DC 12 check in 4e will always be a level 3, DC 12 check. But 4e is also very explicit about scaling the challenge to the characters. The 4e paradigm was not "You are level 20 and encounter a level 3 challenge with a DC of 12." It was explicitly "You are level 20 and you encounter a level 20 challenge with a DC of 28."

So sure, there were level 3 challenges around when the characters were level 20, but you never saw them in play. What you actually did in the game was the level appropriate challenges with the DCs scaled by the level of the challenge.

The main thing about 4e is similar to 5e. Those level 3 challenges were there, you were just expected to breeze through them without a check because their was no chance of failure.

Look at us, we're experienced players and DMs and we can't agree on what the DCs are even supposed to represent for any particular skill. How is a new player or first time DM supposed to deal with this? Without guidelines or bases we're back to the AD&D days where the first thing I did when sitting down at a new table was play twenty questions about what they thought the rules meant.

That's the main problem. Any game with rules has the expectation that people can just sit down and play and expect the same game, except 5E doesn't have that, except for combat of course. This makes it even more confusing for new players.

The bolded is a benefit, if you're willing to see it that way. That's actually the whole point of the thread. Portability between tables is a lesser goal than the ability to craft a custom experience at a given table, in my view. And while you say it will hurt new DM's and Players, I think it will be better for them, as they're taught by the rules themselves to make the game their own. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, was one of the stated goals for this edition.

The RNG being greater than static modifiers is neither here nor there. It doesn't make a game better or worse, just towards or away from your personal tastes.

Portability between tables is the basic idea behind having rules at all. If you didn't want that why have rules at all. It should instead read like this "If you attempt to do anything, discuss whether you succeed or fail with your DM".

I personally wouldn't want to play that game. I play a lot of pickup games and games with complete strangers online. I'd rather have a solid set of rules that everyone follows.

We should also assign blame to the d20 core mechanic. It's a uniform distribution, while in real life outcomes tend to be closer to a normal-ish curve. That is, outcomes IRL cluster around the mean, with outliers being less frequent the farther away they get from the mean. Also, if I swing a club at a pane of glass, I do not have a 5% chance to miss. That just isn't how it works.

In real life you have a lot of average people, but you also have a lot of people that are doing average stuff because there aren't enough openings for exceptional workers. I'd say its much more evenly distributed.

JoeJ

2016-03-27, 02:10 PM

pwykersotz

2016-03-27, 06:21 PM

Where you see this as a feature of 5E I see it as a bug because it means I have to relearn the game when I play with a different DM who has to set up his own method of skill resolution. Certainly in other systems different DMs can have their own house rules to change how things work, but like in Pathfinder there are predetermined guidelines for how things work. A DM doesn't have make up his own rules. A player knows what his character can do before he tries something. In 5E there aren't any guidelines so the DM has to make up his own rules - be a game designer. A player has no idea what his character can do until he tries something because it is inane to attempt to talk with the DM how to resolve every skill scenario at game session 0.

Which is fine, one man's bug is another man's feature. Like the excessive character creation time/nuanced character building options of GURPS. But the point is, at no point is this a Mother May I scenario. You're not begging the DM for scraps, you're using a system that is flexible from table to table. That you don't like it is fine, but it should at least be recognized for what it is rather than caricatured.

This is a play style difference. Some players/DMs like rolling for everything, others like describing what they are doing in minute detail and trying to guess what the DM had in mind. A third group does both, where they describe in detail what their characters do and then roll to see if it succeeds. Just a play style choice.

Portability between tables is the basic idea behind having rules at all. If you didn't want that why have rules at all. It should instead read like this "If you attempt to do anything, discuss whether you succeed or fail with your DM".

I personally wouldn't want to play that game. I play a lot of pickup games and games with complete strangers online. I'd rather have a solid set of rules that everyone follows.

Regarding the playstyle difference, yes, it is. It was tangential to my point, as I noted. It so happened that quote tackled more than my main thoughts.

As for your assertion that portability between tables is the point of rules, I can't help but feel that you're being incredibly over-simplistic in your assessment. See my above reply to Pex for more on that.

Shaofoo

2016-03-27, 06:36 PM

Portability between tables is the basic idea behind having rules at all. If you didn't want that why have rules at all. It should instead read like this "If you attempt to do anything, discuss whether you succeed or fail with your DM".

I personally wouldn't want to play that game. I play a lot of pickup games and games with complete strangers online. I'd rather have a solid set of rules that everyone follows.

The problem that Pex is bringing up is more akin to the DM being able to choose any skill for any challenge regardless of what the book says. If you build a Rogue that is meant for thieving then you can do that, it'd be a problem if the DM says that to Sneak you need Persuasion and you need proficiency in Dice to disarm traps and Sneaking is instead use to treat wounds. His complaint is because he doesn't have a direct table of DCs for him to crib that means that he has to "relearn" the game which is being melodramatic to be honest. He fails to mention that even in 3.x and PF the table DCs doesn't necesarily match up with the actual DCs due to either circumstance or just the DM directly changing the DCs because he is the DM. Quite frankly I would expect Pex to have a problem if the HP of an enemy didn't match the Monster Manual.

If you build a character with a certain skill set in mind you can do that and that proficiency should transfer through the games, if you can pick locks then you are expected to pick locks, at no point will your picking lock skill be made to bake bread and instead you had to learn how to perform sensual massages to pick locks. If that happens in a game that is a DM problem not the game system.

JoeJ

2016-03-27, 06:42 PM

If you build a character with a certain skill set in mind you can do that and that proficiency should transfer through the games, if you can pick locks then you are expected to pick locks, at no point will your picking lock skill be made to bake bread and instead you had to learn how to perform sensual massages to pick locks. If that happens in a game that is a DM problem not the game system.

Actually, that might be an interesting challenge (once). Maybe the door is a living creature and it will only open if it's fed a sufficiently delicious loaf of bread.

Telok

2016-03-27, 06:48 PM

The player also still knows what his character can do...it's written on his sheet. It doesn't matter if the DC for skill check is 15 or 20: if the character is proficient in the skill in question or have high enough ability score, he can do that (or try to), chance of success is still dependant on the roll...
Ok, I see this as partially false. The player doesn't know what his character can or can't accomplish because that's not written on the sheet or in the rules. What's written on the sheet is a number, a modifier to a d20 roll that's normally between -1 and +11. The player knows what he/she can roll. The DM, with very little guidance about what is 'hard' or 'easy', is the one who knows what the character can do. In this thread we've seen suggestions about minimum stats or proficencies just to allow a character to attempt something. If you follow that advice then players litereally don't know what the characters can or can't do unless they interrogate the DM constantly or can read minds.

This edition of D&D offloads the skill check system onto the DMs without any real guidance. Your character's skills will change depending on the DM, the campaign, the module (if you use published adventured), and even between sessions. As a player you are reduced to asking if you can do something with a skill, and heaven help you if you have a novice DM who doesn't read forums and can't remember what he ruled two weeks ago.

In addition the fact that one of the 'benefits' of this edition is the "anyone can succeed and anyone can fail" means that the die roll is always more important than the character sheet. Now combine that with the other 'benefit' people are touting, the "single check resolution". What a character can do on average is now meaningless because you aren't using averages or multiple rolls, everything is dependent on one roll and anyone can succeed or fail.

Combat isn't "DM, can I do ___?", it has rules and structure. Between tables, DMs, modules, and sessions there is little variance. Players know what their characters are capable of in combat, DMs have rules and guidance about how difficult the challenges are. The 5e skill system lacks all that, you have to ask "DM, can I do ___?" and then roll a die that is more important than what's on your character sheet.

georgie_leech

2016-03-27, 07:00 PM

The problem that Pex is bringing up is more akin to the DM being able to choose any skill for any challenge regardless of what the book says. If you build a Rogue that is meant for thieving then you can do that, it'd be a problem if the DM says that to Sneak you need Persuasion and you need proficiency in Dice to disarm traps and Sneaking is instead use to treat wounds. His complaint is because he doesn't have a direct table of DCs for him to crib that means that he has to "relearn" the game which is being melodramatic to be honest. He fails to mention that even in 3.x and PF the table DCs doesn't necesarily match up with the actual DCs due to either circumstance or just the DM directly changing the DCs because he is the DM. Quite frankly I would expect Pex to have a problem if the HP of an enemy didn't match the Monster Manual.

If you build a character with a certain skill set in mind you can do that and that proficiency should transfer through the games, if you can pick locks then you are expected to pick locks, at no point will your picking lock skill be made to bake bread and instead you had to learn how to perform sensual massages to pick locks. If that happens in a game that is a DM problem not the game system.

Slightly less exaggerated, the point isn't that random skills do random things, but tHat without guidance the numbers on your sheet don't tell you much about what your character can do. The same choices in character creation can mean different things to different DM's or even just different campaigns. In a Ye Olde Wacky Hijinks of the Adventurers, I might set the average non-important door as DC 10, or even auto success for someone with proper Thieves Tools and only call for a roll if they're trying to pick it with straw or something, because ease of access to places the adventurers shouldn't be contributes to the hijinks. If I'm running a more gritty, haunted mansion kind of adventure, I might set the DC in the 20-25 range, because a sense of being trapped and isolation is better served by lockpicking being very difficult. For an Urchin turned Fighter with a +2 Dex and +2 Proficiency, they can open most basic doors in 10 seconds or so in the first campaign. That same character making the same choices has extreme difficulty in the second doing the same thing, or even finding it totally impossible without aid if the DC is 25. What that character can do is determined by the DM, in other words. It's a valid complaint about the system; that it sacrifices clarity for flexibility. It may not be to the point of literally relearning the game with every DM, but it does require that players and DM's communicate expectations around skills ahead of time, in a way that 3.x and 4e largely avoided.

Shaofoo

2016-03-27, 07:13 PM

Slightly less exaggerated, the point isn't that random skills do random things, but tHat without guidance the numbers on your sheet don't tell you much about what your character can do. The same choices in character creation can mean different things to different DM's or even just different campaigns. In a Ye Olde Wacky Hijinks of the Adventurers, I might set the average non-important door as DC 10, or even auto success for someone with proper Thieves Tools and only call for a roll if they're trying to pick it with straw or something, because ease of access to places the adventurers shouldn't be contributes to the hijinks. If I'm running a more gritty, haunted mansion kind of adventure, I might set the DC in the 20-25 range, because a sense of being trapped and isolation is better served by lockpicking being very difficult. For an Urchin turned Fighter with a +2 Dex and +2 Proficiency, they can open most basic doors in 10 seconds or so in the first campaign. That same character making the same choices has extreme difficulty in the second doing the same thing, or even finding it totally impossible without aid if the DC is 25. What that character can do is determined by the DM, in other words. It's a valid complaint about the system; that it sacrifices clarity for flexibility. It may not be to the point of literally relearning the game with every DM, but it does require that players and DM's communicate expectations around skills ahead of time, in a way that 3.x and 4e largely avoided.

Except I still wouldn't call that "relearning the game". The fact that DCs can change doesn't somehow mean that you have to relearn your skill. If there is a door then you might want to pick the lock regardless if the DC is 10 or 100, picking a lock is what you will do and there is no other way to play the character that you made. You don't have to learn the game again just because the DCs change on you, there is no other skill that the DM might want you to learn instead of Thieves Tools and Thievery to pick locks, and the book gives clear guidelines what the skills do.

It would be a valid complaint if such a problem didn't exist in other versions of the game. A DM can prevent you from picking locks in older editions by either putting some absurdly high DC because he can (Yes the poor farmers with barely a gold to their name does have masterwork adamantine locks... no you can't take them and sell them because the walls around them are adamantine... no you can't take those either cause I just realized Adamantine is about as valuable as dirt.. no you can't have weapons easily made of Adamantine cause it is rare) or simple just say you can't because of reasons. There is no systematic way to ensure that you will be able to pick locks like you don't know if the guy that you built for swimming will ever trip across a large enough body of water for swimming to matter. You could build a guy meant for opening locks and never have a need to open locks because all doors are open. The game doesn't guarantee that you will be using the skill that you want to use but you can specialize in it so when it does happen then you can have the best chance, if the DM doesn't want you to then that isn't the game's fault.

Slipperychicken

2016-03-27, 07:44 PM

Except I still wouldn't call that "relearning the game". The fact that DCs can change doesn't somehow mean that you have to relearn your skill. If there is a door then you might want to pick the lock regardless if the DC is 10 or 100, picking a lock is what you will do and there is no other way to play the character that you made. You don't have to learn the game again just because the DCs change on you, there is no other skill that the DM might want you to learn instead of Thieves Tools and Thievery to pick locks, and the book gives clear guidelines what the skills do.

It does change how realistic each potential use is, which has a huge effect on playstyle. The issue isn't knowing that my thieves' tools let me pick locks, but intuiting how likely my character is to successfully pick this lock, and what happens if it doesn't work the first time.

One DM might say it's okay to slip past a half dozen chatting guards on a DC 15 check, while another might have them roll individually against your stealth result, making it far more difficult than expected. One DM could declare that convincing a guard to not arrest you is DC 20 persuasion, while another might declare it deception, and another still might balk at the idea and declare it impossible by any means.

For picking a lock, one DM might say that failure just means a little wasted time, another might say it means your lockpicks broke because he's bored of you lockpicking past everything, another might say it's a special dwarven lock that cannot be picked at or opened by any mortal tools aside from the right key, and so on and so forth. We even had someone post recently that he thinks no lock could be picked at all, because he found some obscure example of a lock that was difficult to get past at the time.

Because all of this is currently determined by the DM's whim without much in the way of guidelines, there can be enormous variation between tables. I could go on for a while about all the ways that can have consequences for playstyle. One DM's idea of 'pretty hard' can easily be 'stupid and suicidal' to another, and that matters because players need that information to make better decisions and feel as if they're being treated fairly.

Pex

2016-03-27, 08:01 PM

They have guidance. Easy is something that will be resolved ~= 50% of the time by an untrained character in a single check. Hard is something that will be resolved ~= 50% of the time by a max level/attribute character in a single check. What's missing is the rest of Joe's math with an explicit description that eventually you'll succeed if you can try forever. (At least, I think it's missing).

But they don't define what is easy or hard. What is easy for one DM is hard for another DM and impossible for a third DM. See many threads asking what to do when a player wants his character to identify a spell being cast.

The bolded parts are false. There's nothing to relearn, the game still works the same, you roll d20, add modifier and compare it to DC. The DC may vary from DM to DM, true, but by the same logic, you'd have to relearn a 3.5 or PF game every time the DM would add circumstance modifier to the check.

The player also still knows what his character can do...it's written on his sheet. It doesn't matter if the DC for skill check is 15 or 20: if the character is proficient in the skill in question or have high enough ability score, he can do that (or try to), chance of success is still dependant on the roll...just as it was in 3.5 and PF. Rollng a 1 on Perception doesn't mean your character is incapable of noticing things, it means he wasn't lucky this time...that is true in both systems.

In Pathfinder, I know exactly what my character can do. I want to identify a spell being cast. That's a Spellcraft roll of DC 15 + spell level. Looking at my total Spellcraft modifier on my character sheet, I know exactly how easily or hard or impossible I am at identifying a spell being cast. In 5E I have no idea until I want to try. Every DM has to make his own decision how to do it. Is it Knowledge Arcana? No, because it's a cleric so it's Knowledge Religion. But it's a warlock so it's Arcana. But Warlocks make Pacts with outer planar beings so it's Religion. Are you (edit) not proficient? You don't get a roll. But 5E's brilliance is that anyone can try anything regardless says another DM. The DC is 20 because it's hard. But I know the spell myself, maybe I should automatically know or at least only DC 10. But you're a sorcerer trying to identify a cleric spell. You don't get a roll I don't care if you're proficient in Religion. Religion is dogma, not spellcasting.

JoeJ

2016-03-27, 08:01 PM

It does change how realistic each potential use is, which has a huge effect on playstyle. The issue isn't knowing that my thieves' tools let me pick locks, but intuiting how likely my character is to successfully pick this lock, and what happens if it doesn't work the first time.

One DM might say it's okay to slip past a half dozen chatting guards on a DC 15 check, while another might have them roll individually against your stealth result, making it far more difficult than expected. One DM could declare that convincing a guard to not arrest you is DC 20 persuasion, while another might declare it deception, and another still might balk at the idea and declare it impossible by any means.

For picking a lock, one DM might say that failure just means a little wasted time, another might say it means your lockpicks broke because he's bored of you lockpicking past everything, another might say it's a special dwarven lock that cannot be picked at or opened by any mortal tools aside from the right key, and so on and so forth. We even had someone post recently that he thinks no lock could be picked at all, because he found some obscure example of a lock that was difficult to get past at the time.

Because all of this is currently determined by the DM's whim without much in the way of guidelines, there can be enormous variation between tables. I could go on for a while about all the ways that can have consequences for playstyle. One DM's idea of 'pretty hard' can easily be 'stupid and suicidal' to another, and that matters because players need that information to make better decisions and feel as if they're being treated fairly.

What do you mean between tables? Those are all things that can and should change from one instance to another at the same table, with the same DM. There are thousands of different kinds of locks and they're not all the same. They're not all even similar except in performing the basic function of holding something closed. How could you possibly know your chance of picking any particular lock until you get there and look at it? Why would you think that the difficulty of sneaking past one group of guards today would tell you anything at all about how hard it is to sneak past a different group of guards in a different place tomorrow? Why would you expect two different guards to be open to the same arguments about why they shouldn't arrest you? It would make absolutely no sense for the player to know what the DC for those things will be before they even get to the situation.

Shaofoo

2016-03-27, 08:02 PM

It does change how realistic each potential use is, which has a huge effect on playstyle. The issue isn't knowing that my thieves' tools let me pick locks, but intuiting how likely my character is to successfully pick this lock, and what happens if it doesn't work the first time.

One DM might say it's okay to slip past a half dozen chatting guards on a DC 15 check, while another might have them roll individually against your stealth result, making it far more difficult than expected. One DM could declare that convincing a guard to not arrest you is DC 20 persuasion, while another might declare it deception, and another still might balk at the idea and declare it impossible by any means.

For picking a lock, one DM might say that failure just means a little wasted time, another might say it means your lockpicks broke because he's bored of you lockpicking past everything, another might say it's a special dwarven lock that cannot be picked at or opened by any mortal tools aside from the right key, and so on and so forth. We even had someone post recently that he thinks no lock could be picked at all, because he found some obscure example of a lock that was difficult to get past at the time.

Because all of this is currently determined by the DM's whim without much in the way of guidelines, there can be enormous variation between tables. I could go on for a while about all the ways that can have consequences for playstyle. One DM's idea of 'pretty hard' can easily be 'stupid and suicidal' to another, and that matters because players need that information to make better decisions and feel as if they're being treated fairly.

Like I said variation between DMs is not a problem and if it is then it has existed way before 5e. The fact that other systems had tables is meaningless when the DMs could (by the book even) make up their own DCs if they want to. If you want to be the best lockpicker then you know what to do, the fact that you might not be as effective as you'd hope is not part of the deal, just like being the best basketmaker might not be the most important skill while adventuring. There is nothing that guarantees you that you will be bypassing X amount of doors because you chose a skill, you can pass a door that has a certain DC but if all the DCs are higher then there is nothing else that you can do.

If you feel that you are having a bad time and are treated unfairly then either talk to the DM or leave the table. I don't need rules to tell me I should be having a good time. This seems to be asking the game to perform the task of actual social encounters with actual humans.

D&D is not meant to be an universal system, it isn't even meant to be an universal fantasy system. If you feel that the system doesn't cater to your likes I am sure there is another system that will gladly accommodate you. But we have to actually identify which problems lie with the system and which ones lie with bad players/DM and which ones are only problems because we like to romanticize playing with bad players/DMs and wouldn't actually be a problem except for the outliers who are basically antisocial.

JackPhoenix

2016-03-27, 09:01 PM

In Pathfinder, I know exactly what my character can do. I want to identify a spell being cast. That's a Spellcraft roll of DC 15 + spell level. Looking at my total Spellcraft modifier on my character sheet, I know exactly how easily or hard or impossible I am at identifying a spell being cast. In 5E I have no idea until I want to try. Every DM has to make his own decision how to do it. Is it Knowledge Arcana? No, because it's a cleric so it's Knowledge Religion. But it's a warlock so it's Arcana. But Warlocks make Pacts with outer planar beings so it's Religion. Are you proficient? You don't get a roll. But 5E's brilliance is that anyone can try anything regardless says another DM. The DC is 20 because it's hard. But I know the spell myself, maybe I should automatically know or at least only DC 10. But you're a sorcerer trying to identify a cleric spell. You don't get a roll I don't care if you're proficient in Religion. Religion is dogma, not spellcasting.

Right, and in Pathfinder, the DM can decide you can't roll, because the spell is too obscure or new and you've never encountered it before, or because the battle is too noisy and you can't hear the caster's words. Or the sun is shining to your face and you have penalty because you can't see the gestures clearly, or just because your DM's an ***...your point?

In 5e, you know what's your total skill modifier, and what's your chance to succeed on easy, medium or hard task. So "I don't know what my character can do" isn't true. And the success in both systems is dependant on a dice roll...so your character can just as easily fail simple task with roll of 1 as he can succeed on a hard task with 20. (at least until the 3.x's screwed up math takes over and you're rolling d20 with +70 modifier...which I personally find stupid).

Shaofoo

2016-03-27, 09:24 PM

Are you proficient? You don't get a roll.

Training only skills does not exist in 5e, proficiency only adds the proficient modifier to the check, it doesn't unlock new ways to use a skill. Your DM might say that you can only do a check if you are proficient but that is on the DM, the system doesn't say anything like that.

It is these things I wonder why is it a problem in 5e and not in 3.x just because 3.x had tables even though the DM could just as easily chuck the tables out the door and if you don't like it then he could chuck you out the door with the tables. You could have an idea but in no way does the DC in the books means a seamless translation to the game at all times, you are still forced to "relearn the game" then and now.

Also if you read the skill description of Arcana then you will know that there is a catch all to identify spells only using Arcana, the DM might say that divine spells needs Religion but that is up to him. If you want to make a character that is as well versed as possible in spells as a whole then you better have Arcana, Religion and Nature (for Druid and Ranger spells) if you want to cover your bases. Religion is based around deities and religious acts, a Warlock is more of a deal made between two entities to gain something, there is nothing that requires worship or loyalty to your patron in order to gain power, just that the patron gives it to you (or you take it). Basically a Cleric and a Warlock don't have much in common besides they look up to a higher power.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-03-27, 09:38 PM

Training only skills does not exist in 5e, proficiency only adds the proficient modifier to the check, it doesn't unlock new ways to use a skill. Your DM might say that you can only do a check if you are proficient but that is on the DM, the system doesn't say anything like that.

It is these things I wonder why is it a problem in 5e and not in 3.x just because 3.x had tables even though the DM could just as easily chuck the tables out the door and if you don't like it then he could chuck you out the door with the tables. You could have an idea but in no way does the DC in the books means a seamless translation to the game at all times, you are still forced to "relearn the game" then and now.
3.x has a common frame of reference that 5e does not. 3.x has an assumed skill power level that 5e does not. It's the difference between saying "green lights usually mean go" and "green lights mean something." It's an extra conversation that wasn't necessary before. Knowing how DMs set difficulties has implications for character building and gameplay- can I dabble? Do I need to get Expertise to have a shot at doing the thing I want to do? Is a good ability enough, or will I need Proficiency to roll?

It's not inherently a bad thing; in some ways it's really nice that the system has that sort of flexibility. But there should be at least a little text warning about that, saying "these difficulties should be calibrated to the tone of your campaign; DMs should discuss what they see as appropriate challenges." Because not everyone will realize that.

Shaofoo

2016-03-27, 09:52 PM

3.x has a common frame of reference that 5e does not. 3.x has an assumed skill power level that 5e does not. It's the difference between saying "green lights usually mean go" and "green lights mean something." It's an extra conversation that wasn't necessary before. Knowing how DMs set difficulties has implications for character building and gameplay- can I dabble? Do I need to get Expertise to have a shot at doing the thing I want to do? Is a good ability enough, or will I need Proficiency to roll?

It's not inherently a bad thing; in some ways it's really nice that the system has that sort of flexibility. But there should be at least a little text warning about that, saying "these difficulties should be calibrated to the tone of your campaign; DMs should discuss what they see as appropriate challenges." Because not everyone will realize that.

I said before that a frame of reference could be useful for a DM that might need a bit of guidance but a player has no need to have a table to describe the DCs when the DM can set the DCs himself if he wants to.

I don't see how is this a 5e exclusive problem when in 3.x I could create a lockpicking master only for the DM to set all DCs to astronomical levels because no lockpicking allowed. There is nothing assumed in 3.x either, there is just the false pretense that there is some common ground because of the tables when the DM could easily overrule the tables and there is nothing that as a player you could do to stop him.

There are calibrated difficulties in 5e, you would know that something nearly impossible is a DC 30, if you wish to be the absolute best at a skill there are classes designed around skill use. It would be a bit of a problem if somehow there was no way to focus on skills but there is, if skills are such an important part then build the best that you can do.

Tanarii

2016-03-27, 10:23 PM

But they don't define what is easy or hard. What is easy for one DM is hard for another DM and impossible for a third DM. See many threads asking what to do when a player wants his character to identify a spell being cast.No they don't, but as a player you know what the difficulty is and you know what your chances of passing it are. That's enough to inform your decision as to if you take an action. It's also more 'realistic'. You asses the situation, and make a decision based on your known capabilities. Assuming you also do that in-character, that's Role Playing. Assessing situations, and making in-character decisions based on personality and capabilities. So it does what it says on the box.

In Pathfinder, I know exactly what my character can do. I want to identify a spell being cast. That's a Spellcraft roll of DC 15 + spell level. Looking at my total Spellcraft modifier on my character sheet, I know exactly how easily or hard or impossible I am at identifying a spell being cast. In 5E I have no idea until I want to try. Every DM has to make his own decision how to do it. Is it Knowledge Arcana? No, because it's a cleric so it's Knowledge Religion. But it's a warlock so it's Arcana. But Warlocks make Pacts with outer planar beings so it's Religion. Are you proficient? You don't get a roll. But 5E's brilliance is that anyone can try anything regardless says another DM. The DC is 20 because it's hard. But I know the spell myself, maybe I should automatically know or at least only DC 10. But you're a sorcerer trying to identify a cleric spell. You don't get a roll I don't care if you're proficient in Religion. Religion is dogma, not spellcasting.
Ignoring the specifics on the example, since you can't actually identify spells being cast at all in 5e without porting in some house-rules, I do understand your point. Like I said, if you're a DM and need specific DCs in advance, you need to write out a list of 'example' DCs, probably with reference to other game systems to think of commonly occurring situations/guidelines (including 3e). If you're a player and you need a crib sheet of specific DCs in advance, you have to find a DM that will provide them, or play a different system. And yes, absolutely can see where that'd be a problem for someone with that preference.

Pex

2016-03-27, 11:25 PM

Right, and in Pathfinder, the DM can decide you can't roll, because the spell is too obscure or new and you've never encountered it before, or because the battle is too noisy and you can't hear the caster's words. Or the sun is shining to your face and you have penalty because you can't see the gestures clearly, or just because your DM's an ***...your point?

In 5e, you know what's your total skill modifier, and what's your chance to succeed on easy, medium or hard task. So "I don't know what my character can do" isn't true. And the success in both systems is dependant on a dice roll...so your character can just as easily fail simple task with roll of 1 as he can succeed on a hard task with 20. (at least until the 3.x's screwed up math takes over and you're rolling d20 with +70 modifier...which I personally find stupid).

That the DM is not going by the book in Pathfinder would be a house rule to be defined before game starts. A specific guideline is in place. A DM has a foundation to work with if he decides to alter the skill and the player knows accordingly. However, as guidelines already exist a DM doesn't have to make up DCs on the spot for those DMs who don't want to make a house rule.

In 5E there are no guidelines. The DM has to make his ruling on the spot while another DM will make a different ruling. Whether identifying a spell being cast is easy, medium, or hard is undefined. The ruling is different from table to table so I have to relearn how to do it from table to table. I don't like having to relearn from table to table. The entire skill resolution system is forced into being a house rule. A Pathfinder DM can change things if he wants to, but he doesn't have to. The 5E DM has to make everything up.

pwykersotz

2016-03-28, 12:19 AM

JoeJ

2016-03-28, 01:07 AM

NewDM

2016-03-28, 04:40 AM

Combat isn't "DM, can I do ___?", it has rules and structure. Between tables, DMs, modules, and sessions there is little variance. Players know what their characters are capable of in combat, DMs have rules and guidance about how difficult the challenges are. The 5e skill system lacks all that, you have to ask "DM, can I do ___?" and then roll a die that is more important than what's on your character sheet.

This is the major problem I have with the 5E skill system. I'll list below attributes of the 5E skill system then explain why I think its not a good idea:

Very easy (5), Easy (10), Moderate (15), Hard (20), Very hard (25), Nearly impossible (30) DCs in the DMG.
The DM determines which DC category to use.
The DM is advised not to use very easy or nearly impossible (at least not until the the high level end of the game).
The DM can determine something is automatically successful or completely impossible.
1 is not an automatic failure, and 20 is not an automatic success (unless your DM wants it to be).
Players usually have a modifier between -2 and +11 with advantage/disadvantage (equivalent of +/-2 to +/-6 but never raises max roll) and expertise (+6) thrown on top. This means a player can make a modified roll of between -2 and 37.
Players only knows their modified roll
The DMG lists a few tables of example DCs for things like tracking, conversation reactions, and poisons (possibly more)

What I see here is that the weak point is that the DM decides what the DC is during play or during adventure creation. If you have a good DM that is fair, and you agree with their DCs for the most part, this isn't a problem. However, if that isn't true, this can cause problems.

You can end up with characters that were created around a specific idea that cannot perform and are therefore pretty much worthless. For instance if a player creates a rogue with proficiency in thieves tools and gets expertise in them and the DM decides that all locks are nearly impossible to pick, otherwise what good would they be at keeping thieves out. At that point a significant portion of that characters design is worthless until mid to high levels, and even then it has much less value than a wizard with knock and silence.

It really comes down to whether you've been playing with your DM long enough to get a feel for how they will set DCs and whether you play with random people on the internet or in game shops or at events. Its great for customizing the game to a specific long term group. Its horrible for first time DMs and pickup games with strangers.

This is actually why I liked 4E's system. You were not only given examples of what each DC was, but you were told X DC plus or minus a category was appropriate for Y level characters. 5E doesn't have that advantage. Everyone can succeed on a DC up to hard and even very skilled characters can fail on an easy DC.

(Off-topic: The DMG also has an improvised damage table with examples, that's nice.)

Zalabim

2016-03-28, 04:54 AM

What I see here is that the weak point is that the DM decides what the DC is during play or during adventure creation. If you have a good DM that is fair, and you agree with their DCs for the most part, this isn't a problem. However, if that isn't true, this can cause problems.

The only difference I see here from 3.x is that in 5E (and 4E) the DMG tells the DM what DC is supposed to represent easy, moderate, hard, very hard, or other challenges. 3.x gave tables of standalone described challenges, additional modifiers to those challenges, and opposed skill checks without ever indicating what's an appropriate obstacle for a party. So the DM is still left to decide what the DCs will be on the spot or when designing the adventure. I don't know if I'm going to be facing a smooth marble door with a magical lock or a sturdy oaken door with a poor quality lock, and may run into both in a level 1 adventure. I do know how hard it is to ride a horse, but I don't know how hard it is to prevent hits with mounted combat.

In my view, some advice is better than no advice, and bad advice (which many of 4E's DC tables also gave, see multiple errata) is worse than no advice.

Shaofoo

2016-03-28, 05:22 AM

That the DM is not going by the book in Pathfinder would be a house rule to be defined before game starts. A specific guideline is in place. A DM has a foundation to work with if he decides to alter the skill and the player knows accordingly. However, as guidelines already exist a DM doesn't have to make up DCs on the spot for those DMs who don't want to make a house rule.

In 5E there are no guidelines. The DM has to make his ruling on the spot while another DM will make a different ruling. Whether identifying a spell being cast is easy, medium, or hard is undefined. The ruling is different from table to table so I have to relearn how to do it from table to table. I don't like having to relearn from table to table. The entire skill resolution system is forced into being a house rule. A Pathfinder DM can change things if he wants to, but he doesn't have to. The 5E DM has to make everything up.

Except you fail to mention what happens when a DM in Pathfinder changes the table and you don't know. You would still be in the dark because you don't know the DC anyway and you will still have to learn the game, I would even say that it is worse because you came with an expectation and yet that expectation is broken because it doesn't match the table but in 5e you shouldn't have an expectation coming in.

If you don't like relearning from table to table I am not sure how is it different from PF and 5e, all I see is that you get a security blanket that you can cuddle to for the false sense of security when at any time (and without warning) the DCs can change on you.

This is the major problem I have with the 5E skill system. I'll list below attributes of the 5E skill system then explain why I think its not a good idea:

Very easy (5), Easy (10), Moderate (15), Hard (20), Very hard (25), Nearly impossible (30) DCs in the DMG.
The DM determines which DC category to use.
The DM is advised not to use very easy or nearly impossible (at least not until the the high level end of the game).
The DM can determine something is automatically successful or completely impossible.
1 is not an automatic failure, and 20 is not an automatic success (unless your DM wants it to be).
Players usually have a modifier between -2 and +11 with advantage/disadvantage (equivalent of +/-2 to +/-6 but never raises max roll) and expertise (+6) thrown on top. This means a player can make a modified roll of between -2 and 37.
Players only knows their modified roll
The DMG lists a few tables of example DCs for things like tracking, conversation reactions, and poisons (possibly more)

What I see here is that the weak point is that the DM decides what the DC is during play or during adventure creation. If you have a good DM that is fair, and you agree with their DCs for the most part, this isn't a problem. However, if that isn't true, this can cause problems.

You can end up with characters that were created around a specific idea that cannot perform and are therefore pretty much worthless. For instance if a player creates a rogue with proficiency in thieves tools and gets expertise in them and the DM decides that all locks are nearly impossible to pick, otherwise what good would they be at keeping thieves out. At that point a significant portion of that characters design is worthless until mid to high levels, and even then it has much less value than a wizard with knock and silence.

It really comes down to whether you've been playing with your DM long enough to get a feel for how they will set DCs and whether you play with random people on the internet or in game shops or at events. Its great for customizing the game to a specific long term group. Its horrible for first time DMs and pickup games with strangers.

This is actually why I liked 4E's system. You were not only given examples of what each DC was, but you were told X DC plus or minus a category was appropriate for Y level characters. 5E doesn't have that advantage. Everyone can succeed on a DC up to hard and even very skilled characters can fail on an easy DC.

(Off-topic: The DMG also has an improvised damage table with examples, that's nice.)

Couple of things

The DCs for Very Easy to Nearly Impossible are also found in the PHB, a player also has a reference as to how hard a skill would be.

Also a player's modified roll is actually up to +17 due to expertise there are some cases that can bump that up further. A Rogue can never roll below 10 on trained checks and can even take 20 on a check and a Bard can buff up his skill check with up to 2d12. At the higher level a Rogue can never roll below 27 on an expert roll, which means that Very Hard is 100% assured.

The game gives you the option to be the best at skills with two classes. If skills are of such importance then be a Bard or a Rogue (the Bard is even a full caster and can even get all the spells as well). There are options.

Also you seem to think that the DMs doing their job is a bad idea?

Tanarii

2016-03-28, 09:55 AM

In my view, some advice is better than no advice, and bad advice (which many of 4E's DC tables also gave, see multiple errata) is worse than no advice.
That's my view too, both as a player and a DM.

As a DM, knowing that my DCs should typically be set to 10-20, and those are considered Easy (meaning 50% chance of success), Medium or Hard, is far more useful than having to put adamantine locks or smooth slippery surfaces in my dungeon. I'm free to design my adventures however I like and have the ability to set my challenges however hard I feel will be appropriate to the design.

As a player, I appreciate knowing that challenges will be typically set in the range of DC 10 to 20, and the approximate DC (within a swing of 5) will be clearly communicated as part of the description, without sounding like its a game mechanical term and destroying immersion. I get fairly precise mechanical information without being jerked out of my non-mechanical mindset. In 3e, I have to either memorize a bunch of tables in advance, have access to a rule book (generally verboten during play), or be told explicitly what the DC is (destroys immersion).

As a 5e player, I have MORE information about what my character is capable of with his ability/skill bonus during play, which is the time when knowing what your character can do is most important.

NewDM

2016-03-28, 10:49 AM

Couple of things

The DCs for Very Easy to Nearly Impossible are also found in the PHB, a player also has a reference as to how hard a skill would be.

Sure, but this doesn't help anything because the DM can decide any challenge is very easy to nearly impossible with little or no guidance from the books.

Also a player's modified roll is actually up to +17 due to expertise there are some cases that can bump that up further. A Rogue can never roll below 10 on trained checks and can even take 20 on a check and a Bard can buff up his skill check with up to 2d12. At the higher level a Rogue can never roll below 27 on an expert roll, which means that Very Hard is 100% assured.

The game gives you the option to be the best at skills with two classes. If skills are of such importance then be a Bard or a Rogue (the Bard is even a full caster and can even get all the spells as well). There are options.

Also you seem to think that the DMs doing their job is a bad idea?

Yes in some rare instances you can go outside what I listed, but that's on a single check or two and at super high level like level 20. For most of the game you are going to fall in the -2 to +17 range.

You still end up with the same problem, which is the DM at any given table will set the DCs differently for the same challenge. A rusty lock can have a DC anywhere between 5-30 depending on the DM. As I said above if you know your DM and your expectation levels are the same, then this isn't a problem. If you don't and play in pickup games or events, you are just out of luck.

Shaofoo

2016-03-28, 11:15 AM

Sure, but this doesn't help anything because the DM can decide any challenge is very easy to nearly impossible with little or no guidance from the books.

the DCs exist in the PHb and that is all that matters, that a DM can go outside the suggested DCs and plant his own DCs is not a problem of the game and if it is then it is also a problem of the previous editions that can also have DMs that place their own DCs and ignore what the book says.

Like I said, it sounds like the DM doing what he is supposed to do is somehow bad.

Yes in some rare instances you can go outside what I listed, but that's on a single check or two and at super high level like level 20. For most of the game you are going to fall in the -2 to +17 range.

At level 13 a Rogue can hit DC 25 always with expertise and a maxed stat. It isn't rare, there are classes that can consistently break the bounds and hit the highest levels of checks. It isn't some hail mary, it is classes designed around hitting skill checks.

You still end up with the same problem, which is the DM at any given table will set the DCs differently for the same challenge. A rusty lock can have a DC anywhere between 5-30 depending on the DM. As I said above if you know your DM and your expectation levels are the same, then this isn't a problem. If you don't and play in pickup games or events, you are just out of luck.

This problem arises in all forms of D&D. This isn't just limited to 5e. All DMs can set the DCs to whatever they want and as a player you have no recourse except to negotiate and convince the DM or just walk away from the game.

If you think you will have a bad time with skills then pick a class that just does what you want. Monks can just do athletics and acrobatic feats without checks, spellcasters as a whole have tons of spells that just does things without the DM having any say on the manner bar rule 0 on the spot.

Not knowing what a DC is before hand is to me the same about not knowing the HP or AC of a monster, some numbers should be kept hidden to give some form of surprise and to help with the immersion. Saying a lock looks hard to break into is much more thematic than saying the lock has a DC 20 to pick.

JoeJ

2016-03-28, 11:54 AM

:smallsigh: I had hoped we could avoid the oft repeated talking points of the other skills threads and focus more on what distinguishes soliciting the DM versus a mutually administered system of adjudication, but I guess there's a lot of baggage there.

I think it largely comes down to how you approach challenges in the game world. In some games, you use the rules to figure out what your character can do in a given situation. In 5e, it works best if you first think about what you want your character to do, and then use the rules to figure out how to do it. That is, imagine that it's you standing there in the world. What looks like it might be a good idea? If you try to think first in terms of what the rules let you do, it's going to seem very "mother may I?"

Tanarii

2016-03-28, 12:09 PM

I think it largely comes down to how you approach challenges in the game world. In some games, you use the rules to figure out what your character can do in a given situation. In 5e, it works best if you first think about what you want your character to do, and then use the rules to figure out how to do it. That is, imagine that it's you standing there in the world. What looks like it might be a good idea? If you try to think first in terms of what the rules let you do, it's going to seem very "mother may I?"
Agreed. Complicated simulation rule sets are great for the rules telling you exactly what you can do, and playing the rules to play the world ... provided you have encyclopedic memory for the rules, or are willing to constantly be referring to the rules manual. Otherwise, they're generally better for theory-crafting what you *might* be able to do before play begins, but not so useful for remembering or communicating what you can actually do once play begins.

Relatively simple Abstract/Gamist rules generally excel at letting you play the world, then fitting resolution via rules as needed. Obviously complicated ones will often run into needing to refer to the rulebooks AND figure out how to fit rules to the action being taken. At that point, the strengths become a weakness. Similarly, if you play Gamist rule sets as play the rules first, the world ceases to exist and it's strengths become a weakness.

pwykersotz

2016-03-28, 12:09 PM

JoeJ

2016-03-28, 12:58 PM

Pex

2016-03-28, 01:08 PM

Pathfinder just adds another step to hide the DM fiat. In 5e, the DM decides what the DC is to pick the lock. In PF, the DC to pick a lock of a particular quality is given, but the DM still has to decide what quality any particular lock is.

As for identifying a spell being cast, obviously the difficulty has to be house ruled because it requires a house rule for you to do in the first place. It's like asking what steps are required to become a deity. A DM might make up something to allow it, but RAW there's no way.

That's part of the problem right there. There aren't defined skill uses. It's not enough to say what DC to give when something is easy or hard. There is no guideline for what makes something easy or hard. Again, what is easy for one DM is hard for another DM and impossible for a third DM. At one table identifying a spell being cast is Knowledge Arcana DC 20, at another table it's rolled with Disadvantage because I'm a wizard identifying a cleric casting a spell, at a third table I can't do it at all because it the DM says it makes Illusionists worthless.

Except you fail to mention what happens when a DM in Pathfinder changes the table and you don't know. You would still be in the dark because you don't know the DC anyway and you will still have to learn the game, I would even say that it is worse because you came with an expectation and yet that expectation is broken because it doesn't match the table but in 5e you shouldn't have an expectation coming in.

But there are many things I know the DC of in Pathfinder. They're right there in the rulebook. Sometimes it's a variable DC, and I know my chances of the variable based on my skill modifier. I don't know what level spell an enemy caster is casting. That's parcel to wanting to make the roll. I don't know the exact DC, but I do know the DC is 15 plus spell level.

It could be an opposed roll, my Perception vs opponent's Stealth. I'm not supposed to know the DC because the DC isn't set. Not every skill will have defined DCs, but that's not the same thing as no Skills should ever have defined DCs.

It is impossible to provide DCs for every single scenario imaginable for tracking. The Survival skill doesn't need to provide every single scenario imaginable. What it does do is provide examples and give DCs for them. The DM has a guideline to use to set an appropriate DC for the given scenario of the game. I as a player know how well I can track based on my skill modifier and the examples of DCs given. I know what I can do if I Take 10 or Take 20. If I Take 10 and don't find the tracking clue given Honest True there is a quarry to track, then I know my quarry is tougher than my passive instincts so I need to work harder, i.e. roll for active use of my skill or Take 20 if I'm not concerned about how long it takes.

That's all I need in skill usage. Guidelines to help a DM set the DCs to define what is easy and hard instead of having the difficulty change based on who is DM for the exact same situation which also tells me how good or not good my character is at a given task.

Tanarii

2016-03-28, 01:44 PM

That's part of the problem right there. There aren't defined skill uses. It's not enough to say what DC to give when something is easy or hard. There is no guideline for what makes something easy or hard. Again, what is easy for one DM is hard for another DM and impossible for a third DM. At one table identifying a spell being cast is Knowledge Arcana DC 20, at another table it's rolled with Disadvantage because I'm a wizard identifying a cleric casting a spell, at a third table I can't do it at all because it the DM says it makes Illusionists worthless.You should probably pick a different example, because identifying any spell being cast isn't possible in 5e without a house-rule allowing it.

Tehnar

2016-03-28, 02:30 PM

I immediately thought of the many threads we've had regarding the 5e skills being "Mother May I?" and how I've always thought that while the argument wasn't on point, it wasn't really directly refutable either. I don't run my games that way, I set a baseline of expectation regarding skills and I stick to them. My players are all on the same page and they have a solid idea of what their character can actually do in a given situation.

I think that the above quote is relevant. 5e gives a lot of flexibility within the confines of its rules to determine the type of game you want to play. Each table can define what Easy/Hard/Impossible is to them and run with it. I find this a tremendous strength of the system. It even allows my table to run entirely different campaign styles with only a quick discussion of the new values, rather than trying to codify entirely new tables.

5E's issue is not that the skill and ability system is "Mother May I" or "Magic Tea Party" or "DM fiat" all the time, but rather only about 50% of the time. The other 50% of the time it gives out purely random outputs. Which means its bad 50% of the time one way, and a different flavor of bad the rest of the time.*

*Disclaimer: Bad in the sense of what it is trying to accomplish. MTP is fine for narrative heavy games, and LOLRANDOM is fine for survival horror or slapstick kind of games. I will also add examples in italic

What is a good system them? It is a system which allows the mechanical characteristics a PC (or NPC or monster) has to have a noticeable effect at the table without DM fiat. A Great Weapon Fighter feature has a noticeable effect at the table, that even a outside observer, who knows nothing about DnD would notice that such a character is better with it.

This is not true for 5e's skill and ability system. Aside from dex/con bases skills for 17+ level rogues/bards, its is not evident who is better or worse at what ability score or skill. This is primarily because of two reasons:

1) A low modifier compared to the d20 roll. Most characters during most of their career will have less then +10 in any of their proficient skills.
2) Undefined DC's and their meaning. What does it mean to make a athletics DC 15? What does that allow you to do? (ask your DM is the answer but it should not be; at the very least you should have some examples).

So what negative effects do the above reasons cause:

a) everyone rolls on everything that doesn't have a consequence for failing. This is most noticeable for knowledge checks, but you can see it on any one try only type checks.
b) the default method for solving non combat encounters become spells. Since spells are reliable (in a way that they produce concrete effects and players can gauge the success of their characters actions, not that they provide reliable results).
c) A large portion of the game time is taken up by running various plans PC's have with the DM, to see what kind of chance for success any of the possible actions they can take has. This may or may not turn into arguments on the relation of DM vs PCs about what their character can do.
d) Performing some actions might become very hard to do if the DM doesn't really understand probability. For example if a player wants to make a series of 5 jumps, and the DM decides each of those jumps is DC 15, a character with a +8 will fail at least one of those DCs 85% of the time.

This leads to characters are not differentiated enough by their skills, and it makes for a lot of extra work for the DM.

Let me go with a example here to demonstrate all my points:

The PC's botched a ambush on a bunch of hobgoblins and are running away, back the way they came, through a ravine. In the middle of the ravine there is a 60' pit, that the PCs, since they were not rushed climbed climbed up and down before. The pit is 30' across. The hobgoblins are out of sight, but close a few rounds away. What do our PC's do? Well first its a game of 20 questions each for the DM, breaking up the excitement of the scene:

Whats the DC to jump the chasm for characters of various speeds and proficiency levels?
Whats the DC for accelerated climbing, ie how long will it take to climb down and up?
Can I reduce falling damage via a acrobatics check?
What do I need to roll to convince the hobgoblins to not kill us after we killed a bunch of their friends?
What are the rules for stealth, ie can we try to hide in that crevice/behind those bushes in broad daylight?

The flow of a exciting scene has been interrupted, and the players are bombing the DM with questions, the DM is in the biggest problem of all. There is a TPK in the making, and Im sure no sensible DM wants to purposely cause a TPK to, so these are his thoughts:

Ok, so the idiots messed up that ambush and now the hobgoblins will dice them up if they catch them.
Whats the pit width? 30', ****, there are no rules for jumping that far. What is the DC? If I make it high, then most won't make it anyway. There is no way any of them have the hp to survive the fall in the pit and subsequent pelting of hobgoblin javelins. How hard it is to jump 30' anyway...google on the phone for a bit...wow, world record that is sounds like very hard or impossible, so DC 25 or 30. Wait before I decide, let me look at those character sheets. Wow the barbarian who wrestles giants has a +9. The skillful rogue has a +8. These chumps will never make it with a DC of 25. So lets lower it, to say DC 15. Do I want to allow them to make 30' jumps with a DC of 15. Worse yet, the wizard with 8 STR and no athletics skill can make a world record jump 25% of the time. Worse yet there is a 10% chance the barbarian will fail the jump and the wizard will make it. Or maybe I should make the DC depend on the character who is undertaking the jump.

and so forth for the other questions. In the end the DM doesn't really have a solution. Any way he acts he is determining or forcing character choices. If, from the example, he chooses a low athletics DC he is basically allowing the dice to decide if they escape (the RANDOM PART), if he chooses a high DC he is fiating players don't escape (THE MOTHER MAY I PART).

It becomes even worse if the DM has to decide DC's while prepping a scene, and has to think of all the ways players can possible interact with a scene.

WARNING: I don't like responding to multiquote posts, so if anyone decides to multiquote me I will probably only respond to what I feel is your most relevant comment.

JoeJ

2016-03-28, 02:40 PM

The flow of a exciting scene has been interrupted, and the players are bombing the DM with questions, the DM is in the biggest problem of all. There is a TPK in the making, and Im sure no sensible DM wants to purposely cause a TPK to, so these are his thoughts:

Ok, so the idiots messed up that ambush and now the hobgoblins will dice them up if they catch them.
Whats the pit width? 30', ****, there are no rules for jumping that far. What is the DC? If I make it high, then most won't make it anyway. There is no way any of them have the hp to survive the fall in the pit and subsequent pelting of hobgoblin javelins. How hard it is to jump 30' anyway...google on the phone for a bit...wow, world record that is sounds like very hard or impossible, so DC 25 or 30. Wait before I decide, let me look at those character sheets. Wow the barbarian who wrestles giants has a +9. The skillful rogue has a +8. These chumps will never make it with a DC of 25. So lets lower it, to say DC 15. Do I want to allow them to make 30' jumps with a DC of 15. Worse yet, the wizard with 8 STR and no athletics skill can make a world record jump 25% of the time. Worse yet there is a 10% chance the barbarian will fail the jump and the wizard will make it. Or maybe I should make the DC depend on the character who is undertaking the jump.

Alternatively, the DM could just RTFM and discover that there is no DC. Characters can long jump 1' for each point of Strength with a running start of at least 10'.

Dimcair

2016-03-28, 02:41 PM

"The hallway ahead looks darker."
"Wait, why does it look dark?"
"You don't know."
"I check out the walls and floor, prodding ahead with the pole."
"You notice that the walls and floor appear to have dark stains on them."
"What kind of stains, I rub my finger along them."
"You see that the walls are covered in soot."
"I look closer on the tops and bottoms of the walls ahead."
"In the darkness you see several vents."
"We go the other way."

Maybe this is a bad example, but this doesn't read like I'd want to spend my precious DnD time on it.

And seriously, the player had to say he looks closer at the tops and bottoms of the walls ahead to see the vents? Seriously? He had to describe the DM where he is looking so he gives a description of the freaking hallway?That goes back to what another person posted about being very specific for search checks to be successful. (checking under the bed yada yada).
If this is the example we base this thread on I am strongly in favor of bypassing play.

Tanarii

2016-03-28, 02:51 PM

*Disclaimer: Bad in the sense of what it is trying to accomplish. MTP is fine for narrative heavy games, and LOLRANDOM is fine for survival horror or slapstick kind of games. D&D is slapstick. It is embedded in its very genesis. Every archetype in the game, on both Team PC and Team Monster, takes the piss out of 50s, 60s and early 70s high fantasy and science fantasy. That's the entire point.

You can adapt it to other genres and concepts other than slapstick, taking the piss out of fantasy, dungeon & wilderness & urban adventures (with wargaming rules roots). But if you're going to adapt the game, you have to expect to make changes to the rules along the way.

Tehnar

2016-03-28, 03:00 PM

Alternatively, the DM could just RTFM and discover that there is no DC. Characters can long jump 1' for each point of Strength with a running start of at least 10'.

Its a 30' jump. I doubt any character has a STR score of 30. To paraphrase you, RTF post.

NewDM

2016-03-28, 03:08 PM

If I can expand on my post above with an example, imagine that a PC is exploring the Underdark and they come upon a chasm blocking the path. The character can't teleport or fly, so what are they going to do? They'll probably look both directions to see if there's a narrow spot where they might be able to jump. They'll examine the sides of the chasm to judge how hard it would be to climb. They'll look for a crack that they could hammer a piton into. If they can't see the bottom, they might drop a pebble or something in to figure out how deep it is. They'll look for projections on the other side that a grappling hook could grab on to. They'll look up to see what the ceiling looks like. Etc.

Now what's the player thinking about all this? If they have a rules first approach, they're probably thinking that they have to play 20 questions with the DM in order to figure out which rules apply here. With a world first approach, the player is thinking that they're exploring the environment to see what possibilities it offers. They're engaged with the description, all the while trying to figure out how to use the environment to their advantage.

The first player is probably getting annoyed because they just want to know what to roll so they can get on to the more fun parts of the game. To the second player, this is one of the fun parts of the game. (Although I'm not trying to imply that there are two entirely separate kinds of people here. The same player can take both approaches at different times.)

Either player is still going to have to roll something at some point and every different DM is going to have a different idea of how hard it is to cross the chasm. For one DM it might be easy to jump, grappling hook, or climb across it for another it might be hard. The idea is the DMG doesn't give an example DC table that says jumping across a 20 ft. chasm has a DC of 18, grappling across has a DC of 16, and climbing down then back up will have a DC of 15.

Both players get annoyed at that point because they either built their character to excel at at least one of those approaches or they didn't, and they don't know if they have a reasonable chance of success or whether they are about to assuredly fall to their deaths.

the DCs exist in the PHb and that is all that matters, that a DM can go outside the suggested DCs and plant his own DCs is not a problem of the game and if it is then it is also a problem of the previous editions that can also have DMs that place their own DCs and ignore what the book says.

Like I said, it sounds like the DM doing what he is supposed to do is somehow bad.

First, the DM isn't going outside the suggested DCs, he's deciding which DC is appropriate. Which of the in book DCs to use. Easy, Moderate, or Hard?

Second, in my opinion, the DMs job is to narrate events and decide how intelligent creatures in his world act and react to what the players do. His job is not to fiddle with rules. There is the occasional ruling that goes far outside the rules, but it shouldn't be a common every session occurrence.

At level 13 a Rogue can hit DC 25 always with expertise and a maxed stat. It isn't rare, there are classes that can consistently break the bounds and hit the highest levels of checks. It isn't some hail mary, it is classes designed around hitting skill checks.

Maybe I missed something but max proficiency bonus is +6 which when doubled is +12, max ability score is 20 which gives +5 for a grand total of +17, which is a far cry from getting 25 by rolling a 1 on 1d20. Help me out what am I missing that gives rogues the ability to always hit DC 25 with expertise? They might do it a lot in the few skills they have maxed out, but it isn't even close to 'always'. In fact its closer to 65%, which still has a healthy dose of failure in it. Hitting a 30 would be 40% of the time.

This problem arises in all forms of D&D. This isn't just limited to 5e. All DMs can set the DCs to whatever they want and as a player you have no recourse except to negotiate and convince the DM or just walk away from the game.

Actually, in 2E and 4E this problem doesn't arise because there are charts that tell you what kind of DCs ranges your players are supposed to be facing at any given level. So the DM knows that his DCs are too high or too low. In 5E due to bounded accuracy everything is on the table, and there are no expectations that the DM will keep things possible or within your characters abilities.

If you think you will have a bad time with skills then pick a class that just does what you want. Monks can just do athletics and acrobatic feats without checks, spellcasters as a whole have tons of spells that just does things without the DM having any say on the manner bar rule 0 on the spot.

Not knowing what a DC is before hand is to me the same about not knowing the HP or AC of a monster, some numbers should be kept hidden to give some form of surprise and to help with the immersion. Saying a lock looks hard to break into is much more thematic than saying the lock has a DC 20 to pick.

I'd rather the entire game work, than having to tip-toe through minefields. As I've said before if you and your DM are on the same wavelength you probably won't even notice a problem, but for people that play with strangers or play in many games, it becomes a big problem, especially when you've built your character around doing something and the DM just flat out tells you 'not gonna happen' by choosing the hard and very hard DCs when you attempt those things you are supposed to be good at.

JoeJ

2016-03-28, 03:09 PM

Its a 30' jump. I doubt any character has a STR score of 30.

If they're playing by the rules, then they absolutely don't, which means they can't make it. That was simple, wasn't it? No agonizing over DCs, no looking things up online, no peeking at character sheets. The answer is right there in the rules.

Xetheral

2016-03-28, 03:10 PM

You should probably pick a different example, because identifying any spell being cast isn't possible in 5e without a house-rule allowing it.

Your claim isn't universally accepted. Indeed, as the many threads on the topic indicate, it's highly controversial. Many reasonable posters argue that becuase the skill system is so open-ended, permitting skills to be used to identify spells being being cast is no more a house-rule than permitting any other unlisted use of a skill.

Tanarii

2016-03-28, 03:16 PM

Actually, in 2E and 4E this problem doesn't arise because there are charts that tell you what kind of DCs ranges your players are supposed to be facing at any given level. So the DM knows that his DCs are too high or too low.wait wait, you're trying to claim what about 2e? 2e had NWP, not skills with target DCs. I mean, I suppose you have a point about the player knowing the target number in 2e, it was = modified ability score. But the game was totally fiat as to what the NWP actually covered.

In 5E due to bounded accuracy everything is on the table, and there are no expectations that the DM will keep things possible or within your characters abilities.that sentence is entirely a self-contradiction. "In 5e, since everyone has a chance to accomplish normal checks, there are no expectations that the DM will keep things possible for everyone to accomplish normal checks." That's what you just said.

Your claim isn't universally accepted. Indeed, as the many threads on the topic indicate, it's highly controversial. Many reasonable posters argue that becuase the skill system is so open-ended, permitting skills to be used to identify spells being being cast is no more a house-rule than permitting any other unlisted use of a skill.Well, those people arguing that are flat out wrong.

Shaofoo

2016-03-28, 03:19 PM

But there are many things I know the DC of in Pathfinder. They're right there in the rulebook. Sometimes it's a variable DC, and I know my chances of the variable based on my skill modifier. I don't know what level spell an enemy caster is casting. That's parcel to wanting to make the roll. I don't know the exact DC, but I do know the DC is 15 plus spell level.

It could be an opposed roll, my Perception vs opponent's Stealth. I'm not supposed to know the DC because the DC isn't set. Not every skill will have defined DCs, but that's not the same thing as no Skills should ever have defined DCs.

It is impossible to provide DCs for every single scenario imaginable for tracking. The Survival skill doesn't need to provide every single scenario imaginable. What it does do is provide examples and give DCs for them. The DM has a guideline to use to set an appropriate DC for the given scenario of the game. I as a player know how well I can track based on my skill modifier and the examples of DCs given. I know what I can do if I Take 10 or Take 20. If I Take 10 and don't find the tracking clue given Honest True there is a quarry to track, then I know my quarry is tougher than my passive instincts so I need to work harder, i.e. roll for active use of my skill or Take 20 if I'm not concerned about how long it takes.

That's all I need in skill usage. Guidelines to help a DM set the DCs to define what is easy and hard instead of having the difficulty change based on who is DM for the exact same situation which also tells me how good or not good my character is at a given task.

You are ignoring my counterpoint and not providing anything new. I have refuted your exact point and you have failed to clarify.

The fact that a table can say the DC is 15 + spell level is useless when the DM can easily say the DC is 100. What recourse do you have as a player other than either accepting it, negotiating with the DM or leaving. A guideline is useless when the DM can ignore the guidelines and do as he wishes because it is his world. I find in D&D most people only bother with skills that they invested in and are good at, if you are good at tracking I am not sure why would you be so hesitant to track, you do it and then check the results. I mean would you hesitate if you had training in Medicine and be hesitant to treat diseases because you might mess up? It sounds like you don't want to do anything unless you can either guarantee success or you know it will be a failure, which makes me wonder why are you playing a game where dice determines outcomes.

Like I said this is sounding like you need to know the exact minutae of the game and the moment you realized that Goblin #2 didn't have 10 HP but more then you break into a cold sweat. You want to know every single detail of the game like you would read a strategy guide for a video game, you wish to study the entire world so as to make the best possible decisions. Tables help you get there even when they are false.

NewDM

2016-03-28, 03:24 PM

wait wait, you're trying to claim what about 2e? 2e had NWP, not skills with target DCs. I mean, I suppose you have a point about the player knowing the target number in 2e, it was = modified ability score. But the game was totally fiat as to what the NWP actually covered.

I don't have access to my 2E books anymore but I remember pages and pages of charts for every little thing the players might try as well as DCs (they were called something else) littered throughout the text. You quickly got a pretty decent idea of what to set target numbers to. It was chocked full of examples.

that sentence is entirely a self-contradiction. "In 5e, since everyone has a chance to accomplish normal checks, there are no expectations that the DM will keep things possible for everyone to accomplish normal checks." That's what you just said.

No, that's not what I said. That's what you took away from what I said. Let me rephrase it: There is no expectation that the DM will present challenges that players can succeed at a reasonable amount of the time. At the same time anything that highly skilled players can reasonable succeed at most of the time will be doable by players that are not skilled at all. The only way the DM can challenge highly skilled players is to set very hard or nearly impossible DCs which those skilled players will fail most of the time.

Xetheral

2016-03-28, 03:25 PM

Your claim isn't universally accepted. Indeed, as the many threads on the topic indicate, it's highly controversial. Many reasonable posters argue that becuase the skill system is so open-ended, permitting skills to be used to identify spells being being cast is no more a house-rule than permitting any other unlisted use of a skill.Well, those people arguing that are flat out wrong.

You are welcome to your opinion, but because there is no consensus on the question it seems inappropriate to me to rebuke another poster for disagreeing with you on a still-open question, particularly in a thread where discussion of that disagreement would be off-topic.

Shaofoo

2016-03-28, 03:29 PM

First, the DM isn't going outside the suggested DCs, he's deciding which DC is appropriate. Which of the in book DCs to use. Easy, Moderate, or Hard?

Second, in my opinion, the DMs job is to narrate events and decide how intelligent creatures in his world act and react to what the players do. His job is not to fiddle with rules. There is the occasional ruling that goes far outside the rules, but it shouldn't be a common every session occurrence.

He can fiddle with the rules as he sees fit in the game. His job is to fiddle with the rules if it helps with the narrative.

Maybe I missed something but max proficiency bonus is +6 which when doubled is +12, max ability score is 20 which gives +5 for a grand total of +17, which is a far cry from getting 25 by rolling a 1 on 1d20. Help me out what am I missing that gives rogues the ability to always hit DC 25 with expertise? They might do it a lot in the few skills they have maxed out, but it isn't even close to 'always'. In fact its closer to 65%, which still has a healthy dose of failure in it. Hitting a 30 would be 40% of the time.

Reliable Talent - A roll of a 1-9 on a trained check is treated as a 10. Note this is ALL trained talent not just expertise but with expertise it lets him hit DC 25 100% of the time, for non expertise checks it lets them hit DC 20 100% of the time. Next time maybe you should actually look at the classes, you'd be surprised at what you'd find (including a Rogue taking 20 on a check which means that nearly impossible check and beyond he will hit 100% of the time at least once guaranteed). You want to deal with skills, Rogue is your answer.

Actually, in 2E and 4E this problem doesn't arise because there are charts that tell you what kind of DCs ranges your players are supposed to be facing at any given level. So the DM knows that his DCs are too high or too low. In 5E due to bounded accuracy everything is on the table, and there are no expectations that the DM will keep things possible or within your characters abilities.

A DM should know what is possible for players at all times, he should know how high a DC to set if it is within expectations of the group to make or not. Unless you are saying that DMs are pulling random DCs.

I'd rather the entire game work, than having to tip-toe through minefields. As I've said before if you and your DM are on the same wavelength you probably won't even notice a problem, but for people that play with strangers or play in many games, it becomes a big problem, especially when you've built your character around doing something and the DM just flat out tells you 'not gonna happen' by choosing the hard and very hard DCs when you attempt those things you are supposed to be good at.

It sounds like playing with strangers would still be a problem even if DC checks are homogenized cause it seems that you'll just find something else to complain. The DM might not like your chaarcter because you choose a race he doesn't like or he hates wizards or whatever infinitesimal reason a DM can suddenly hate you and cause you trouble because you wanted your character. If you want to be sure then make sure the DM looks at your character sheet and gives you the okay before you proceed. If you try to sneak by the DM and just plop your character then any grief would be on you because you tried to establish yourself without knowing how the group works, if the DM agrees with you and then causes you grief then the DM is messing with you and I would recommend leaving and never associating with him.

This isn't a game problem this is a person problem. If reason and understanding are what is needed for this problem to not appear then the game is not at fault, it is unreasonable people who are. If random strangers are making me uncomfortable then I leave and don't return, I don't have to stay and take abuse if I don't want to.

pwykersotz

2016-03-28, 03:30 PM

What is a good system them? It is a system which allows the mechanical characteristics a PC (or NPC or monster) has to have a noticeable effect at the table without DM fiat.

...

and so forth for the other questions. In the end the DM doesn't really have a solution. Any way he acts he is determining or forcing character choices. If, from the example, he chooses a low athletics DC he is basically allowing the dice to decide if they escape (the RANDOM PART), if he chooses a high DC he is fiating players don't escape (THE MOTHER MAY I PART).

It becomes even worse if the DM has to decide DC's while prepping a scene, and has to think of all the ways players can possible interact with a scene.

I read your full post and I snipped these because I think they are the biggest disagreements that I have with what you posted. Most of the rest kind of logically follows from them.

I don't think that your definition of a good skill system is solid. I would define a good skill system as one that allows a suitable variation of actions to be performed within the scope of the game for which it is made. As an addition, I would say that the method of adjudication in the skill system should be simple, streamlined, and intuitive - as little complexity as possible with as much depth as possible.

And with your example, I confess I have an entirely different perspective. I don't base DC's off of whether I want characters to survive or not, I base them off of the shared world we've constructed. That DC isn't changing based on how much I want or don't want the characters to survive. And I don't preload DC's for things like that. Why would you? That would be tedious and unnecessary. After all, you don't know whether the player is going to run at a wall and launch off of it, use a grappling hook, or cast levitate, so wait until you know the circumstances to decide explicitly. And I'm also in the habit of telling players the DC I decide upon, so that they can gauge the world around them. A player crying "I want to climb the wall!" after I describe it as wet and slippery with few visible handholds would be told "Okay, it will be a DC 18 if you want to make the attempt. This lets them decide if they really want to take the risk.

All of this kind of fits into what JoeJ was saying, I think.

I appreciate the post very much, btw. This is exactly the discussion I was hoping to have.

NewDM

2016-03-28, 03:31 PM

You are ignoring my counterpoint and not providing anything new. I have refuted your exact point and you have failed to clarify.

The fact that a table can say the DC is 15 + spell level is useless when the DM can easily say the DC is 100. What recourse do you have as a player other than either accepting it, negotiating with the DM or leaving. A guideline is useless when the DM can ignore the guidelines and do as he wishes because it is his world. I find in D&D most people only bother with skills that they invested in and are good at, if you are good at tracking I am not sure why would you be so hesitant to track, you do it and then check the results. I mean would you hesitate if you had training in Medicine and be hesitant to treat diseases because you might mess up? It sounds like you don't want to do anything unless you can either guarantee success or you know it will be a failure, which makes me wonder why are you playing a game where dice determines outcomes.

The DM in 5e can do that. In other editions there was enough info or outright rules that would give a specific DC. Which is the whole point of this thread, if I recall correctly.

The main deciding factor for me is that the developers of D&D are supposedly professionals. I'd rather have them balancing the game than me while I have 10 seconds to come up with an answer while trying to juggle probability math in my head, and remembering the tactics of every monster in the adventure, or whatever else fills my head.

To me its not contest. Let the developers balance it. I should only rarely have to make a call like that, otherwise DMing becomes a chore. I'd much rather describe the story and explain how the NPCs of the world are acting or reacting.

Like I said this is sounding like you need to know the exact minutiae of the game and the moment you realized that Goblin #2 didn't have 10 HP but more then you break into a cold sweat. You want to know every single detail of the game like you would read a strategy guide for a video game, you wish to study the entire world so as to make the best possible decisions. Tables help you get there even when they are false.

I think that's being harsh. Others and I don't need to know the minutiae of the game, but we do need some kind of broad expectations, just like an experienced rogue character would have a broad idea of whether picking that lock over there is going to be hard or easy. Its the gap between player knowledge and character knowledge.

JoeJ

2016-03-28, 03:34 PM

Either player is still going to have to roll something at some point and every different DM is going to have a different idea of how hard it is to cross the chasm. For one DM it might be easy to jump, grappling hook, or climb across it for another it might be hard. The idea is the DMG doesn't give an example DC table that says jumping across a 20 ft. chasm has a DC of 18, grappling across has a DC of 16, and climbing down then back up will have a DC of 15.

Yep. Just like every tabletop RPG ever*. Somebody has to decide how hard the task is, and that's going to be different from one table to the next. Or from one chasm to the next at the same table.

Think about what you're saying from an in-world perspective. How hard is it to climb down a cliff and then back up a different cliff? You can't answer that because every cliff is different. The rules tell you the DC of a task with a certain difficulty, which is all that's needed.

Now be the DM for a moment and imagine a cliff. See it in your mind. Would that cliff that you're imaging be easy, medium, or hard to climb? If you don't know, then no book can help you because it's your cliff. You created it. Nobody else in the universe knows how steep it is, or how rough, or how crumbly, or whatever other traits you gave it. Any DC you make up for climbing that cliff is correct, by definition, although the DMG recommends (it doesn't require) that most DCs should be between 10 and 20.

Both players get annoyed at that point because they either built their character to excel at at least one of those approaches or they didn't, and they don't know if they have a reasonable chance of success or whether they are about to assuredly fall to their deaths.

Except that they do know. That's the whole point of exploring the environment; so you can determine whether or not you have the skill to do what you were thinking of doing before you commit to doing it. If the DM says it looks like it would a hard climb, then you can count on the DC being pretty close to 20. If they say it looks nearly impossible, then it's probably close to 30. If they say it's moderately easy (or moderately hard), figure about 15.

* possibly not literally every RPG. There might be a game I haven't heard of in which nobody determines how difficult anything is.

Shaofoo

2016-03-28, 03:40 PM

The DM in 5e can do that. In other editions there was enough info or outright rules that would give a specific DC. Which is the whole point of this thread, if I recall correctly.

The main deciding factor for me is that the developers of D&D are supposedly professionals. I'd rather have them balancing the game than me while I have 10 seconds to come up with an answer while trying to juggle probability math in my head, and remembering the tactics of every monster in the adventure, or whatever else fills my head.

To me its not contest. Let the developers balance it. I should only rarely have to make a call like that, otherwise DMing becomes a chore. I'd much rather describe the story and explain how the NPCs of the world are acting or reacting.

Then very easy, don't deal with skill checks. Characters do what they say they do and you can live on with your dream of focusing on narrative without dealing with pesky skill checks. Most classes don't deal with skill checks or do so tangentially. If skill checks are such a huge bother then just don't deal with them.

I mean most people don't seem to have a problem with skill checks but if you feel that skill checks are getting in the way then either eliminate them or go to another system that you might enjoy more, like PF. Like I said before 5e ain't an universal fantasy system.

I think that's being harsh. Others and I don't need to know the minutiae of the game, but we do need some kind of broad expectations, just like an experienced rogue character would have a broad idea of whether picking that lock over there is going to be hard or easy. Its the gap between player knowledge and character knowledge.

The fact that he claims that he feels good that there are tables in PF and there aren't in 5e while in both games the DM can set the DC no negotiations strikes me of a person that can't do anything unless he knows for sure he knows everything around it even if the information he gathered is false. If the Rogue is good at picking locks and spent his entire expertise on douing so why would he be afraid to pick locks just because he doesn't know his success? If I am the lock picker I would go and pick the lock regardless if it is easy or hard because that is what I do. A fighter isn't going to have analysis paralysis just because the monster might be immune to his attacks so why should skills be treated any different.

NewDM

2016-03-28, 03:44 PM

He can fiddle with the rules as he sees fit in the game. His job is to fiddle with the rules if it helps with the narrative.

That's the thing though, I find that the narrative is helped by solid reliable rules. This gives the players an expectation of what will happen and what won't. Its even better if they come to the table knowing those expectations and not having to play 20 questions with me to figure them out.

Reliable Talent - A roll of a 1-9 on a trained check is treated as a 10. Note this is ALL trained talent not just expertise but with expertise it lets him hit DC 25 100% of the time, for non expertise checks it lets them hit DC 20 100% of the time. Next time maybe you should actually look at the classes, you'd be surprised at what you'd find (including a Rogue taking 20 on a check which means that nearly impossible check and beyond he will hit 100% of the time at least once guaranteed). You want to deal with skills, Rogue is your answer.

Nice. Well if you want to bypass the skill system altogether. Its one of the problems I have with skill monkey classes like rogue and bard. They remove the need for other characters to even attempt skill checks. Though its the natural response from the developers to try to keep up with the casters reliable spells.

A DM should know what is possible for players at all times, he should know how high a DC to set if it is within expectations of the group to make or not. Unless you are saying that DMs are pulling random DCs.

Yes, he should, but unfortunately in 5e the DM doesn't because there is a lack of examples. The rules are basically "Do you think that would be very easy, easy, moderate, hard, very hard, or nearly impossible?" and the disconnect is when the player and DM have different ideas of what is easy and what is hard.

What I'm saying is the DM's expectations of what a DC should be do not agree with what a players expectations of what a DC should be and neither coincide with reality or a balanced game. This is the problem of 5e skill system. It works great if the expectations of the player and DM align, but it does not work if the expectations are different.

It sounds like playing with strangers would still be a problem even if DC checks are homogenized cause it seems that you'll just find something else to complain. The DM might not like your chaarcter because you choose a race he doesn't like or he hates wizards or whatever infinitesimal reason a DM can suddenly hate you and cause you trouble because you wanted your character. If you want to be sure then make sure the DM looks at your character sheet and gives you the okay before you proceed. If you try to sneak by the DM and just plop your character then any grief would be on you because you tried to establish yourself without knowing how the group works, if the DM agrees with you and then causes you grief then the DM is messing with you and I would recommend leaving and never associating with him.

This isn't a game problem this is a person problem. If reason and understanding are what is needed for this problem to not appear then the game is not at fault, it is unreasonable people who are. If random strangers are making me uncomfortable then I leave and don't return, I don't have to stay and take abuse if I don't want to.

And this is where you mix insults with assumptions. I actually play a lot of pick up games over the internet. In fact I started one game about 4-5 weeks ago and have been getting along fine with complete strangers. I also ran 2 different groups through a one shot adventure and they all came back later and asked me to run a full campaign, so I'm pretty sure they enjoyed it.

Even so, I still ran into the problem of different expectations of what a character is capable of between the DM and players in both cases.

Tanarii

2016-03-28, 03:44 PM

You are welcome to your opinion, but because there is no consensus on the question it seems inappropriate to me to rebuke another poster for disagreeing with you on a still-open question, particularly in a thread where discussion of that disagreement would be off-topic.
<Snipped my off topic response as way off-topic. And pretty rude.>

Okay, fair enough. I'll drop it.

No, that's not what I said. That's what you took away from what I said. Let me rephrase it: There is no expectation that the DM will present challenges that players can succeed at a reasonable amount of the time. At the same time anything that highly skilled players can reasonable succeed at most of the time will be doable by players that are not skilled at all. The only way the DM can challenge highly skilled players is to set very hard or nearly impossible DCs which those skilled players will fail most of the time.
Yes there is. There is an expectation that most DCs will fall into the range of Easy (DC 10) to Hard (DC 20). (Edit: Reference DMG page 238)

NewDM

2016-03-28, 03:57 PM

Yep. Just like every tabletop RPG ever. Somebody has to decide how hard the task is, and that's going to be different from one table to the next. Or from one chasm to the next at the same table.

Think about what you're saying from an in-world perspective. How hard is it to climb down a cliff and then back up a different cliff? You can't answer that because every cliff is different. The rules tell you the DC of a task with a certain difficulty, which is all that's needed.

Now be the DM for a moment and imagine a cliff. See it in your mind. Would that cliff that you're imaging be easy, medium, or hard to climb? If you don't know, then no book can help you because it's your cliff. You created it. Nobody else in the universe knows how steep it is, or how rough, or how crumbly, or whatever other traits you gave it. Any DC you make up for climbing that cliff is correct, by definition, although the DMG recommends (it doesn't require) that most DCs should be between 10 and 20.

Except that they do know. That's the whole point of exploring the environment; so you can determine whether or not you have the skill to do what you were thinking of doing before you commit to doing it. If the DM says it looks like it would a hard climb, then you can count on the DC being pretty close to 20. If they say it looks nearly impossible, then it's probably close to 30. If they say it's moderately easy (or moderately hard), figure about 15.

That's not what I was talking about. The player can know if the DM sets the DC to hard, but what happens when they get to the next table with a similar (or identical) character with the same obstacle? That new DM can say its nearly impossible or easy. That's what the discussion is about, not whether a character can explore/play 20 questions with the DM to find out which category the DC is in, that's pretty much a given. Some DMs will make you play 20 questions and others will just flat out tell you Hard or DC 25. That part is a play style choice.

The main pitfall is the DM doesn't know when they are bypassing a characters strong points unless they know the characters inside and out as well as having a pretty good idea of the probability math involved. This is what a lot of people are complaining about.

Then very easy, don't deal with skill checks. Characters do what they say they do and you can live on with your dream of focusing on narrative without dealing with pesky skill checks. Most classes don't deal with skill checks or do so tangentially. If skill checks are such a huge bother then just don't deal with them.

Actually you are supposed to run most obstacles like that. You are only supposed to roll if there is a chance of failure. A rogue climbing up a rope ladder should not have to roll a climb check. A drunken dwarf fighter in full plate carrying an unconscious ally has to roll and probably has disadvantage to boot.

I also enjoy how the success or failure of skill checks affect the narrative. Say the rogue can't pick that lock. The fighter steps up and starts slamming their warhammer into the door. It alerts the entire dungeon, but they get through the door. Their quick stealthy in and out mission just turned into a battle fest. What I don't like is when the rogue player thinks they can open the lock without rolling or they take one look at it and give up because some other DM said it was impossible.

I mean most people don't seem to have a problem with skill checks but if you feel that skill checks are getting in the way then either eliminate them or go to another system that you might enjoy more, like PF. Like I said before 5e ain't an universal fantasy system.

The fact that he claims that he feels good that there are tables in PF and there aren't in 5e while in both games the DM can set the DC no negotiations strikes me of a person that can't do anything unless he knows for sure he knows everything around it even if the information he gathered is false. If the Rogue is good at picking locks and spent his entire expertise on douing so why would he be afraid to pick locks just because he doesn't know his success? If I am the lock picker I would go and pick the lock regardless if it is easy or hard because that is what I do. A fighter isn't going to have analysis paralysis just because the monster might be immune to his attacks so why should skills be treated any different.

5e is one of the largest most supported and active games out at the moment. When was the last time you tried and succeeded to find a F.A.T.A.L. game? Telling us to go play something else is not a solution. I personally like about 70% of 5E, but not the skill system.

Well I don't know about someone else, I only know about myself so I'll just stay quiet on that.

As to the rogue. Its possible the player has an expectation that they can't open the lock and thus don't try. Maybe their last DM with the same lock description told them they had no chance to open it? This is the problem.

Tehnar

2016-03-28, 04:01 PM

I read your full post and I snipped these because I think they are the biggest disagreements that I have with what you posted. Most of the rest kind of logically follows from them.

I don't think that your definition of a good skill system is solid. I would define a good skill system as one that allows a suitable variation of actions to be performed within the scope of the game for which it is made. As an addition, I would say that the method of adjudication in the skill system should be simple, streamlined, and intuitive - as little complexity as possible with as much depth as possible.

And with your example, I confess I have an entirely different perspective. I don't base DC's off of whether I want characters to survive or not, I base them off of the shared world we've constructed. That DC isn't changing based on how much I want or don't want the characters to survive. And I don't preload DC's for things like that. Why would you? That would be tedious and unnecessary. After all, you don't know whether the player is going to run at a wall and launch off of it, use a grappling hook, or cast levitate, so wait until you know the circumstances to decide explicitly. And I'm also in the habit of telling players the DC I decide upon, so that they can gauge the world around them. A player crying "I want to climb the wall!" after I describe it as wet and slippery with few visible handholds would be told "Okay, it will be a DC 18 if you want to make the attempt. This lets them decide if they really want to take the risk.

All of this kind of fits into what JoeJ was saying, I think.

I appreciate the post very much, btw. This is exactly the discussion I was hoping to have.

I dont think our definitions of a good skill system clash at all, both should be satisfied for a system to be considered good.

I am not sure why you disagree with my definition? All I am saying is that it should be readily apperant that a character invested in a skill even if you dont know what he rolled and cant see his character sheet. Saying my character is great at arcana should mean something at the table.

Regarding the example, correct me if I am wrong, but doesnt it say in the PHB that a character can jump farther then 1' per str score with a strenght (athletics) check? The entire example was based on that assumption.

Assuming my example was correct mechanically, the point of the example is not why a DM is setting a DC but the difficulties in that process, and how those difgiculties could have been more easily solved by having actual skill descriptions and tables of difficulty for most common stuff adventurers will get into, like long jump distance.

If there was a published DC for making a 30' jump, then no thought process is needed, no work is needed and players wont even disrupt playwith such questions.

JoeJ

2016-03-28, 04:02 PM

That's not what I was talking about. The player can know if the DM sets the DC to hard, but what happens when they get to the next table with a similar (or identical) character with the same obstacle? That new DM can say its nearly impossible or easy. That's what the discussion is about, not whether a character can explore/play 20 questions with the DM to find out which category the DC is in, that's pretty much a given. Some DMs will make you play 20 questions and others will just flat out tell you Hard or DC 25. That part is a play style choice.

How can they encounter the same obstacle at a different table? Unless you mean both tables are playing the same published adventure? But if that's the case, the DC should be set by the author of the adventure.

Shaofoo

2016-03-28, 04:02 PM

That's the thing though, I find that the narrative is helped by solid reliable rules. This gives the players an expectation of what will happen and what won't. Its even better if they come to the table knowing those expectations and not having to play 20 questions with me to figure them out.

The book has solid reliable rules. If the DM wants to change them I would hope he will say what rules are changed so you don't have to play 20 questions. I assume that all DMs will lay out the groundwork before a game, I never played a game where the DM didn't go over certain things before the game, heck we even generated characters in front of the DM and told them everything about them as part of this preplanning. Maybe for you your group just says come over and then play the game without any introduction.

Nice. Well if you want to bypass the skill system altogether. Its one of the problems I have with skill monkey classes like rogue and bard. They remove the need for other characters to even attempt skill checks. Though its the natural response from the developers to try to keep up with the casters reliable spells.

So then the problem is that there is no problem? You want to deal with skills in the best possible way then there it is, some classes just does things without even taking into account skill checks. It just seems that now you are lamenting that there is a solution when before you were lamenting that there is no way to guarantee a check.

Yes, he should, but unfortunately in 5e the DM doesn't because there is a lack of examples. The rules are basically "Do you think that would be very easy, easy, moderate, hard, very hard, or nearly impossible?" and the disconnect is when the player and DM have different ideas of what is easy and what is hard.

What I'm saying is the DM's expectations of what a DC should be do not agree with what a players expectations of what a DC should be and neither coincide with reality or a balanced game. This is the problem of 5e skill system. It works great if the expectations of the player and DM align, but it does not work if the expectations are different.

That isn't a problem, DM vs player expectations are not a problem. If the player has a problem with expectations then he talks with the DM or leaves. See the main crux is that the player has no say in what the DC is, he either attempts it or doesn't or even quits the game. If you want help for the DM then sure but the player should have no expectations. If skills are too much analysis paralysis then he can play the other classes that don't deal with skill checks or has abilities that lets them do stuff without skill checks.

Like I said, if understanding and civility are the ways to prevent a problem then it isn't a problem in general because I expect civility and understanding to be the norm.

And this is where you mix insults with assumptions. I actually play a lot of pick up games over the internet. In fact I started one game about 4-5 weeks ago and have been getting along fine with complete strangers. I also ran 2 different groups through a one shot adventure and they all came back later and asked me to run a full campaign, so I'm pretty sure they enjoyed it.

Even so, I still ran into the problem of different expectations of what a character is capable of between the DM and players in both cases.

You gave me a vision that somehow when you play with strangers it will cause grief because your styles will clash. You presented different expectations as a game stopping problem. I have played with strangers and I did have different expectations but I learned to deal with it and embrace the differing expectations.

I didn't mean any insults and sorry if I insulted you in some way but I can't see your stance as saying "We should make everything equal so that there is no chance to butt heads no matter how minor it is"

Helping DMs figure out DCs is okay, helping players figure out DCs is not.

NewDM

2016-03-28, 04:02 PM

Yes there is. There is an expectation that most DCs will fall into the range of Easy (DC 10) to Hard (DC 20). (Edit: Reference DMG page 238)

Yes, the expectation is 10-20 DC, but there is no expectation of whether a character with a modified roll of -2 has a chance to succeed at the check because the DM can choose easy, moderate, hard. It could also be that the DM chooses that check to be outside of the expected range for any reason. A character with a +11 can still fail that DC 20 check about 40% of the time.

The last thing you want to hear as a DM at a game is "Well, the rogue can do it automatically, and the wizard has a spell for that, so I'm not even going to try."

Shaofoo

2016-03-28, 04:05 PM

5e is one of the largest most supported and active games out at the moment. When was the last time you tried and succeeded to find a F.A.T.A.L. game? Telling us to go play something else is not a solution. I personally like about 70% of 5E, but not the skill system.

I don't know if you are kidding but if you are honestly wanting to run the game that must not be named then I really don't think I would want to know. I am sorry but I don't think I can deal with you, even as a joke this is too far. I honestly don't know what caused you to say such a system, you could've easily said GURPS or White Wolf or nWoD.

NewDM

2016-03-28, 04:05 PM

How can they encounter the same obstacle at a different table? Unless you mean both tables are playing the same published adventure? But if that's the case, the DC should be set by the author of the adventure.

DM 1: "You see a large rusty lock of dwarven design latched onto the chest." DM 1: DC 20
DM 2: "You see a dwarven lock latched onto the door. it is very rusted." DM 2: DC 5

That's about as clear as I can get.

JoeJ

2016-03-28, 04:14 PM

DM 1: "You see a large rusty lock of dwarven design latched onto the chest." DM 1: DC 20
DM 2: "You see a dwarven lock latched onto the door. it is very rusted." DM 2: DC 5

That's about as clear as I can get.

Okay. Two different locks, two different DCs. That doesn't seem like a problem to me. The second lock is obviously either an inferior design to the first, or in worse condition, or both. In both cases, as soon as the PC starts working on it they should get an idea of how tough it's going to be.

Demonslayer666

2016-03-28, 04:16 PM

Wow, great thread.

My thoughts as a DM: it largely depends on the player. I have players in my group that prefer to ask if they can, and others that dictate what they do and get mad when I tell them to roll (heh). Some of my players are rules lawyers, and like to try to use the rules to control what happens. Others hate the rules and just want a good story. It's a curious balancing act.

The Skill DC guidelines in 5th edition (or lack thereof) make it really hard to assign fair and consistent DCs. 5th wants us to make DC 10 easy...well, shouldn't easy stuff be automatic? Anything under DC 21 has the entire party rolling like madmen. "We can all track!, we can all identify arcane writing!" And if it's not stressful or in a time crunch, that's automatic as well because they just keep rolling. Heck, it's nearly automatic when they all roll anyway as someone is bound to roll well. Just seems rather silly. At least trained-only skills limited the dice hitting the table in a thunderous herd. Skill DCs seem almost pointless in 5th unless they are above 20, then the players whine about bounded accuracy. "This isn't Pathfinder you know!" Everything except a perception check for starting combat feels unnecessary.

Subjective vs. defined, I'll take defined any day. At least it's something to reference.

pwykersotz

2016-03-28, 04:41 PM

I dont think our definitions of a good skill system clash at all, both should be satisfied for a system to be considered good.

I am not sure why you disagree with my definition? All I am saying is that it should be readily apperant that a character invested in a skill even if you dont know what he rolled and cant see his character sheet. Saying my character is great at arcana should mean something at the table.

Regarding the example, correct me if I am wrong, but doesnt it say in the PHB that a character can jump farther then 1' per str score with a strenght (athletics) check? The entire example was based on that assumption.

Assuming my example was correct mechanically, the point of the example is not why a DM is setting a DC but the difficulties in that process, and how those difgiculties could have been more easily solved by having actual skill descriptions and tables of difficulty for most common stuff adventurers will get into, like long jump distance.

If there was a published DC for making a 30' jump, then no thought process is needed, no work is needed and players wont even disrupt playwith such questions.

It's the "DM Fiat" part that I disagree with, which I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) is a dig at not having hard-coded DC's, or at least a few examples of hard DC's that can be used for extrapolation. I view hard-coded DC's as bad for the game after playing an excessive amount of 3.5, which as I said upthread leads to the game being played by the rules at the sacrifice of play in my experience.

I also don't agree with defining a character based on single game attributes. Modeling "the best jumper" or "the best arcanist" isn't a function of the system nearly as much as in 3.5. That's not to say that I don't think that high modifiers matter or shouldn't be called out. Someone with +11 in Athletics is crazy good and should be recognized as such in game and out. That they aren't better than the RNG is perhaps lamentable in certain ways, they could always roll that 2 when the frail sorcerer rolls a 19, but the consequences of static modifiers outpacing RNG are clear in other editions. That same chasm you mention would absolutely not be passable by the low strength, non-proficient character. Having a wide RNG actually opens options up in that way.

And yes, I believe your example was correct mechanically. But having codified tables for things like that have (in my experience) the opposite effect you describe. Looking up and memorizing lots of minutia is a complex and time-consuming task. Again in 3.5, I spent a lot of table time looking up and calculating exactly what a given DC would be. But in this edition I simply know the DC because of the table agreement on what DC's mean conceptually, and I can therefore apply them quickly and without argument in a practical way.

All this is a longwinded way of coming back to my original point. 20 questions and Mother May I are unfair characterizations because the discussion has to occur about once before play, at the same time you're already hearing the details of the world your about to integrate with. I've had game experiences that I've loved and ones I've hated, but I've never had a game experience where I wasn't able to peg what the DM would allow overall, because the act of playing the game reveals them quite well.

In writing this, I'm pegging what I think is a differentiation in style with a lot of posters here. In the character creation minigame, I don't stake anything on being "the best" versus the GM's world. I simply maximize what I can do with the tools provided and let the world tell me how I'm doing as I play.

Xetheral

2016-03-28, 05:11 PM

Tanarii

2016-03-28, 05:17 PM

My thoughts as a DM: it largely depends on the player. I have players in my group that prefer to ask if they can, and others that dictate what they do and get mad when I tell them to roll (heh). Some of my players are rules lawyers, and like to try to use the rules to control what happens. Others hate the rules and just want a good story. It's a curious balancing act.Okay, that's very well put. I think almost all groups will experience varied player expectations and preferences.

5th wants us to make DC 10 easy...well, shouldn't easy stuff be automatic?Technically no, that's Very Easy (DC 5). DMG Page 238 again. They even tell you not to bother with the check most of the time in that case.

Anything under DC 21 has the entire party rolling like madmen. "We can all track!, we can all identify arcane writing!" And if it's not stressful or in a time crunch, that's automatic as well because they just keep rolling. Heck, it's nearly automatic when they all roll anyway as someone is bound to roll well. Just seems rather silly. At least trained-only skills limited the dice hitting the table in a thunderous herd. Skill DCs seem almost pointless in 5th unless they are above 20, then the players whine about bounded accuracy. "This isn't Pathfinder you know!" Everything except a perception check for starting combat feels unnecessary.If an action is under DC 20, and there is unlimited time, why are you calling for a roll? If there is no consequence for failure, why are you calling for a roll? Of course multiple people will try to do something if there is no chance of failure, and they can all potentially do it. There's no tension in such a situation. It doesn't deserve a roll in the first place.

Majorly IMO. :) I'm reading between the lines of what it says on DMG Page 237 on deciding when to roll, with a dash of referring (again) back to AngryDM's how to adjudicate actions like a mother****ing boss! http://angrydm.com/2013/04/adjudicate-actions-like-a-boss/ (I'm seriously tempted to link that in my sig, I thing it's that on point. :smallwink: )

Subjective vs. defined, I'll take defined any day. At least it's something to reference.I used to prefer defined. Until I realized how much more complicated it made things during play. The more you have to look up the 'defined' rules during the game, the more you lose the players attention. Make a ruling within the bounds of the rules quickly, move on. I'll take explicitly DM subjective, so long as it has clearly defined bounds and suggestions on how to use those bounds, over explicitly defined, any day. It was all the hate for Skill Challenges in 4e, and the incredibly insightful counterpoints, that helped me sort out my feeling on that front. Because I used to LOVE explicitly defined, complex, simulation rules ... they made for great reading! But far less great playing.

Incidentally, it's what every designer since Gygax has realized, as they slowly moved away from the unnecessary complexity of 1e and tried to codify single and simpler systems. And even he, a war-gamer used to complex and defined rules, as well as an actuary used to complex charts and tables, made most of those complicated 1e rules tables and charts just for publishing. He didn't use a lot of them in his own games. Even 2e --> 3e was sort of a simplification, although you could call it centralization to a single resolution mechanic instead. Also, obviously before supplements for those editions made things complicated again.

Psyren

2016-03-28, 05:26 PM

This is a play style difference. Some players/DMs like rolling for everything, others like describing what they are doing in minute detail and trying to guess what the DM had in mind. A third group does both, where they describe in detail what their characters do and then roll to see if it succeeds. Just a play style choice.

As a brief tangent, my preference is definitely for that third one. You get the benefits of rolling (impartiality and excitement) but the players describing their actions in detail gives you a basis for circumstance bonuses (or, I guess advantage in this system?) if they described trying something particularly clever, novel or amusing prior to picking up the dice.

I also don't agree with defining a character based on single game attributes. Modeling "the best jumper" or "the best arcanist" isn't a function of the system nearly as much as in 3.5. That's not to say that I don't think that high modifiers matter or shouldn't be called out. Someone with +11 in Athletics is crazy good and should be recognized as such in game and out. That they aren't better than the RNG is perhaps lamentable in certain ways, they could always roll that 2 when the frail sorcerer rolls a 19, but the consequences of static modifiers outpacing RNG are clear in other editions. That same chasm you mention would absolutely not be passable by the low strength, non-proficient character. Having a wide RNG actually opens options up in that way.

I for one see this as a bug rather than a feature. From a verisimilitude standpoint, there SHOULD be some chasms that you need to be an olympic athlete (or at least, able to emulate one via magic) to get across, and more importantly, the system should help you clearly delineate which those are. In 5e, I know that I can hop across a puddle or leap the train tracks, but I can't jump to the moon from my backyard - I'm totally fine with those, but in the middle gets pretty gray.

And yes, I believe your example was correct mechanically. But having codified tables for things like that have (in my experience) the opposite effect you describe. Looking up and memorizing lots of minutia is a complex and time-consuming task. Again in 3.5, I spent a lot of table time looking up and calculating exactly what a given DC would be. But in this edition I simply know the DC because of the table agreement on what DC's mean conceptually, and I can therefore apply them quickly and without argument in a practical way.

Maybe it's because I have an aptitude for it, but I happen to love the minutiae and don't have a problem recalling those rules at all. I've gotten a reputation in my groups for being able to both recall and research lesser-used rules very quickly. And between SRDs and apps and Google and PcGen/Herolab and platforms like roll20, we're in the best generation for rules-heavy games since... well, ever, in my entire lifetime. And once we get actual AIs doing our DMing for us, it's going to get even more awesome.

Tanarii

2016-03-28, 05:33 PM

As a brief tangent, my preference is definitely for that third one. You get the benefits of rolling (impartiality and excitement) but the players describing their actions in detail gives you a basis for circumstance bonuses (or, I guess advantage in this system?) if they described trying something particularly clever, novel or amusing prior to picking up the dice.Not only that, it appears to be the assumed way you're supposed to do things in 5e. It's explicit in the case of social interaction. Talk out the social encounter, check to see results at the end. DMG 244-245.

pwykersotz

2016-03-28, 05:33 PM

Good stuff

This is perhaps one of the most instructive and unbiased examples I've yet seen. I'll be considering it. :smallsmile:

I for one see this as a bug rather than a feature. From a verisimilitude standpoint, there SHOULD be some chasms that you need to be an olympic athlete (or at least, able to emulate one via magic) to get across, and more importantly, the system should help you clearly delineate which those are. In 5e, I know that I can hop across a puddle or leap the train tracks, but I can't jump to the moon from my backyard - I'm totally fine with those, but in the middle gets pretty gray.

Maybe it's because I have an aptitude for it, but I happen to love the minutiae and don't have a problem recalling those rules at all. I've gotten a reputation in my groups for being able to both recall and research lesser-used rules very quickly. And between SRDs and apps and Google and PcGen/Herolab and platforms like roll20, we're in the best generation for rules-heavy games since... well, ever, in my entire lifetime. And once we get actual AIs doing our DMing for us, it's going to get even more awesome.

For the first bit, I agree. That's why I support DM's coming up with the various tweaks we've seen so far. Requiring proficiency to attempt, having auto-failure or auto-success at different stat levels, things like that. But I feel that's up to a table to decide and roll with. Having the system hard-coded to one option over another would be a mistake in my mind because it excludes different types of campaigns. It would also make it more portable though, which apparently is a bigger deal than I thought for a lot of people here.

And as for the skill with minutia, that's pretty awesome. You're right of course, rules heavy systems are easier than they were in the past, especially with electronic help. I still love and play 3.5, and I make enormous use of my laptop and tablet at the table. And yes, I would love to see an AI run a game. :smallbiggrin:

Pex

2016-03-28, 06:57 PM

You are ignoring my counterpoint and not providing anything new. I have refuted your exact point and you have failed to clarify.

The fact that a table can say the DC is 15 + spell level is useless when the DM can easily say the DC is 100. What recourse do you have as a player other than either accepting it, negotiating with the DM or leaving. A guideline is useless when the DM can ignore the guidelines and do as he wishes because it is his world. I find in D&D most people only bother with skills that they invested in and are good at, if you are good at tracking I am not sure why would you be so hesitant to track, you do it and then check the results. I mean would you hesitate if you had training in Medicine and be hesitant to treat diseases because you might mess up? It sounds like you don't want to do anything unless you can either guarantee success or you know it will be a failure, which makes me wonder why are you playing a game where dice determines outcomes.

Like I said this is sounding like you need to know the exact minutae of the game and the moment you realized that Goblin #2 didn't have 10 HP but more then you break into a cold sweat. You want to know every single detail of the game like you would read a strategy guide for a video game, you wish to study the entire world so as to make the best possible decisions. Tables help you get there even when they are false.

Then there's no point to ever buying any roleplaying game whatsoever as the DM can just make anything up whenever he wants. Everyone sits around the table and just says what they do, ask "DM May I", and the DM says yes or no. Is the game Amber something like that? (Serious, not sarcastic question.)

When you buy a roleplaying game system it is expected you will use the actual rules written. There will always be house rules because that's just how people are. When discussing how the game works it is futile to expect to take into consideration every possible house rule imaginable. It's been said before. A DM does not need to be told he can do what he wants. He can already do what he wants. Your entire premise is irrelevant.

Shaofoo

2016-03-28, 07:24 PM

Then there's no point to ever buying any roleplaying game whatsoever as the DM can just make anything up whenever he wants. Everyone sits around the table and just says what they do, ask "DM May I", and the DM says yes or no. Is the game Amber something like that? (Serious, not sarcastic question.)

When you buy a roleplaying game system it is expected you will use the actual rules written. There will always be house rules because that's just how people are. When discussing how the game works it is futile to expect to take into consideration every possible house rule imaginable. It's been said before. A DM does not need to be told he can do what he wants. He can already do what he wants. Your entire premise is irrelevant.

You are blowing this out of proportion. You are exaggerating just to bring your point across.

There is a lot more to the game than skill checks.

Your only complaint is about skill checks. If the only thing that matters to you about the game is skill checks then I really can't empathize with you because this game is so much more than skill checks. Yes the skill check system is small when in comparison to other games but I find it both sufficient enough that in play I can easily just call a number in my head and roll with it. I don't need to spend minutes agonizing over a check, I tend to just say a number and roll with it, the game does give context as to the numbers so you won't see me give you DC 50 or even DC 25 all that common.

I use the rules as written, I use the rules as written by the game about skill checks and everything else. That you don't like it is none of my concern when I am satisfied, of course I do make compromises which I think is a huge thing when accepting anything. It seems that you have no compromise for anything that isn't 100% player centric. I can't really empathize with someone who can't be happy if not every single thing is to their tastes.

So if the premise that the rules as written works for me (and I mean ALL the rules, not trying to get hung up on the skill checks) is irrelevant then I think you should probably stop saying what I should enjoy or consider. You don't have to like 5e but I would really appreciate it if you don't disregard my point just because you don't agree with it because you made your tastes the universal stick by which everything is measured and anyone not in key with said tastes is to be disregarded.

There are rules in 5e about skill checks, you may not like it but you can't disregard that it doesn't exist. It isn't "Do whatever you want" there are guidelines and explanations as to what skill does what. If you wish to have a more robust system either make it on your own or go play another system that caters to your tastes or even play something else entirely that doesn't have to do with TTRPGs.

JoeJ

2016-03-28, 09:23 PM

To answer several people, having tables of default DCs for various tasks is itself a huge problem because simply by existing, those tables imply that there are generic cliffs to climb and generic locks to pick and generic rivers to swim, etc. That doesn't describe the world I live in, so having it describe a fantasy world interferes with my suspension of disbelief. Looking up the default difficulty of something, along with the inevitable modifiers, is fine in a wargame, but i find it breaks the immersion when it's done in an RPG.

Pex

2016-03-28, 10:03 PM

You are blowing this out of proportion. You are exaggerating just to bring your point across.

I'm exaggerating? You're the one assuming what types of games I play, how I play, and talking about DC 100 skill checks just because the DM can.

I'm very happy for you the 5E Skill System works for you. It doesn't work for me, and I gave my reasons why. If you don't like that, tough feces.

We're done here.

Shaofoo

2016-03-29, 02:15 AM

I'm exaggerating? You're the one assuming what types of games I play, how I play, and talking about DC 100 skill checks just because the DM can.

I'm very happy for you the 5E Skill System works for you. It doesn't work for me, and I gave my reasons why. If you don't like that, tough feces.

We're done here.

I tried to understand you but you failed to clarify and this happens every time. You always seem to be hung up over this part of the game and now you seem to even fail to understand my arguments by being hung up over an arbitrary number that I just decide to put. I do think that you are trying to misinform yourself if the most that you could take out of my argument was "DC 100". And I don't even begin to understand where do I say what types of games you play and how you play, more like how you see other DMs since it does seem that your opinion of them is less than favorable.

You would be pleased that I don't care that you like the skill checks or even 5e in general or even D&D in general or even TTRPG in general. But unlike you I can respect that and not belittle you over it. I do wonder why you would play in a game that both has a person in control when it seems that you hate that part of the game but whatever, you are free to play that which you hate and complain over the internet.

But you are definitely right, we are done here, you have consistently failed to explain yourself and you seem to not want to so and also get hung up on irrelevant parts of my argument like you get hung up on random parts of the game. I do think any further discussion is pointless.

Xetheral

2016-03-29, 02:31 AM

This is perhaps one of the most instructive and unbiased examples I've yet seen. I'll be considering it. :smallsmile:

Thanks! I look forward to reading your thoughts.

Zalabim

2016-03-29, 05:54 AM

WARNING: I don't like responding to multiquote posts, so if anyone decides to multiquote me I will probably only respond to what I feel is your most relevant comment.

The most important thing I have to say to this example is that this strawman should visit a library before handing me any sour cherries.

All characters can have a chance to succeed at most tasks. Capability at a challenge doesn't require building a character supremely dedicated to tackling that challenge. A certain limit on the range of modifiers within a party are necessary to reach that goal. How the party handles the ravine would be an interesting part of a chase scene. There's no lack of advice on how to adjudicate this. At the very least, the party probably climbed the ravine at a normal (30') or slow (20') pace before and they could be taking a fast (40') or in-combat dashing (50'-60') pace now.

If there was a published DC for making a 30' jump, then no thought process is needed, no work is needed and players wont even disrupt playwith such questions.

Pathfinder has a published DC for a 30' jump. It's DC 30 acrobatics (dex) if you have a running start, clear level ground, and aren't jumping to a higher elevation, etc. In other words, it's impossible for any of the characters to jump the ravine.

Consider the following scenario, played in the first adventure of a new 4th level game where players and DM are experienced, but haven't played with each other before.

The characters are trying to move through a dungeon of unknown layout both as quickly as possible and while attracting minimum attention from the dungeon's denizens. They approach a room that the DM describes as having two exits other than the one they entered from: there is a sturdy wooden door locked with an unexceptional-looking padlock as well as an opening at the top of a 20' ledge of worked stone.

Attempting to pick a lock is normally an action, or a Bonus Action if you have Fast Hands. Climbing costs an additional foot of movement for each foot traveled, so the ledge can be climbed in one round. If there's a reason it's really hard to climb the ledge, then failing the DC isn't an automatic fall or damage, but falling significantly short of the DC may have that possibility or require a secondary roll to avoid falling. That's what the DMG and modules suggest. By contrast, PF expects most locks to only open by taking 20 and a quick search pointed me to some salt (http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2011/12/on-skill-deconstruction-climb.html) regarding most climb rules.

5E's skill system isn't perfect, but it's a marked improvement over a system where simple tasks are routinely nearly impossible for experts and everyone else should just sit on the sidelines. It's more useful to have a guide to what's actually hard or not than it is to just have a table of situations and DCs with no relation to the party's skills and no suggestion for when to use them.

pwykersotz

2016-03-29, 11:31 AM

Consider the following scenario, played in the first adventure of a new 4th level game where players and DM are experienced, but haven't played with each other before.

The characters are trying to move through a dungeon of unknown layout both as quickly as possible and while attracting minimum attention from the dungeon's denizens. They approach a room that the DM describes as having two exits other than the one they entered from: there is a sturdy wooden door locked with an unexceptional-looking padlock as well as an opening at the top of a 20' ledge of worked stone.

Here's how the conversation might progress in a system like 5e where for most skills there is no included map of difficulties to in-game descriptions:

[Party Wizard]: "I can use magic to open the padlock, but it will cause lots of noise. [Party Rogue], can you open it?"

Player of Party Rogue (OOC): "[DM], how difficult does my character think it would be to open that lock? My character has expertise with thieves tools."

DM (OOC): "Your character thinks it would be hard."

[Party Rogue] (knowing that a hard check is DC 20, and that their character's +7 bonus means they have to roll a 13 or higher): "I'd have a good shot, but I wouldn't wager any money on it."

[Party Fighter] (eyeing the wall beneath the ledge, and knowing from the rules that a character successful at climbing it would require two rounds of climbing): "[Party Rogue], how long would it take you to try?"

Player of Party Rogue (OOC): "[DM], how long will it take my character to try to open the lock using his thieves tools? If I fail, am I allowed to try again?"

DM (OOC): "It will take a couple minutes to try. You're welcome to try again, but since each try uses up valuable time, you'll have to roll for each attempt."

[Party Rogue] (doing some mental math): "A couple minutes to give it a shot. 10 minutes and I can almost certainly get us through."

[Party Fighter]: "Climbing is a lot faster, let's do that."

[Party Wizard] (eyeing her 8 strength and lack of athletics proficiency): "I'm not so sure..."

Player of Party Wizard (OOC): "[DM], how hard does my character think it will be to climb the wall? She's not proficient. And do we roll just once to climb the wall, or twice since it's two rounds of climbing? And does failure mean we fall and take damage, or just have to try again?"

DM (OOC): "It's probably average difficulty, and in this case I'm only going to require one successful check. If you fail you'll take 1d6 falling damage, and have to try again, using up more time."

[Party Wizard] (seeing a 25% success chance and only 20 hp on her sheet): "...I don't think I can climb the wall on my own at all. [Party Fighter], think you can climb up and lower a rope?"

[Party Fighter]: "Sure, let's go."

All of the OOC interaction with the DM falls into the "Mother May I" category, because it's information that the players need in order to have their characters make informed choices, but it isn't provided by the rulebook. At a different table, the same in-game description with the same characters and players might well have resulted in the party deciding on a entirely different course of action, simply because different OOC answers would lead to different IC judgments. Of course, as the players and the DM become more familiar with each other, the number of "Mother May I" questions will decrease considerably, so long as the DM keeps good enough notes (or has good enough instincts) that the ruling are consistent.

By contrast, if 5e provided a default way to translate in-game descriptions into DCs, none of the questions for the DM would have been required, at the (considerable) cost of requiring the players to either consult the rulebooks or have quite a bit of system mastery. The same players/characters with a different DM would have made the same choices when presented with the same description. (If the DCs end up not matching the defaults, the only "Mother May I" question required of the DM is to ask whether the character is surprised by how difficult the task is in order to find out whether the DM is departing from the rulebook (the character would not be surprised) or whether there is some unseen factor influencing the results (the character would be surprised and thus inclined to investigate).)

When I see Mother May I used, it's typically a pejorative. Your example doesn't imply that, so that's a major change from what I was railing against right there. In fact, I find your example to be a great way to run a game (obviously that's very subjective) rather than constantly referencing tables in books. The only thing it doesn't assume is that before the game the players and DM had a conversation before the campaign about what constitutes the various checks. For example, if the DM had worked with the players to tell them (as I have done in my own campaign) that no lock on its own ever has a DC above 20 and that higher DC's indicate some supernatural force or ultra-technological machination opposing them, then they would be able to assume a great deal about the rest of the dungeon and possibly the value of breaking down the door just based on the fact that it looks Hard.

I think your second paragraph says it best though. There is a considerable cost to having to consult the rules or attain system mastery. And here's where my perspective differs from some. I love attaining system mastery. I love knowing the rules and intricate interactions. That's why I'm here on these forums. But my players, even the one who brought me into D&D 7 years ago who has played way more systems than I have such as World of Darkness, Paranoia, Mage the Ascension, 2e, 3e, 3.5, 4e, and now 5e have significantly less desire for it than I do. That the one player is widely experienced has nothing to do with his desire (lack of) to memorize pages of rules. And for all the arguments I hear from others about this game not being portable from table to table, I tend to think that it's less the game and more the player. I think the sorts of people who visit GiantITP are the sorts who love and rely on their system mastery and are vexed when it doesn't produce uniform results, because then what's the point of all the time they've sunk into it? For me it is it's own reward, I have fun parsing the rules and that's good enough for me. But I can be a...unique person.

So if we define Mother May I as a pejorative to mean "Everything is based on the whims of the DM!" then I fully disagree with the term. I do not use whimsy to adjudicate and I do not auto-magically scale or reduce DC's to mess with players. But if we define it as you have done to mean "Acquiring information that is not in the rulebooks through interaction with the DM or world", then I have no problem with the term, and I would consider it useful and instructive when someone used it to define 5e and their preferences of gameplay rather than just them bashing the system for the possibility that a DM could run it in an awful way.

Telok

2016-03-29, 12:50 PM

Xetheral

2016-03-29, 02:01 PM

Attempting to pick a lock is normally an action, or a Bonus Action if you have Fast Hands. Climbing costs an additional foot of movement for each foot traveled, so the ledge can be climbed in one round. If there's a reason it's really hard to climb the ledge, then failing the DC isn't an automatic fall or damage, but falling significantly short of the DC may have that possibility or require a secondary roll to avoid falling. That's what the DMG and modules suggest.

The climbing rules you mention are in the PHB and referenced in my example (although half-speed climbing means a 20' ledge takes two rounds to climb, not one), but I'm not familiar with any 5e rules for the others. Do you have citations on where I can find those rules? I'd be very interested to read them.

5E's skill system isn't perfect, but it's a marked improvement over a system where simple tasks are routinely nearly impossible for experts and everyone else should just sit on the sidelines. It's more useful to have a guide to what's actually hard or not than it is to just have a table of situations and DCs with no relation to the party's skills and no suggestion for when to use them.

I'd would argue that 5e doesn't provide a guide to "what's actually hard or not": the system tells you what "hard" means mechanically, but doesn't tell you what in-game descriptions correspond to "hard". Also, your assumptions of how previous systems worked are not universally shared. For players and DMs who did not encounter the problems you describe, 5e may not be an improvement.

When I see Mother May I used, it's typically a pejorative. Your example doesn't imply that, so that's a major change from what I was railing against right there. In fact, I find your example to be a great way to run a game (obviously that's very subjective) rather than constantly referencing tables in books. The only thing it doesn't assume is that before the game the players and DM had a conversation before the campaign about what constitutes the various checks. For example, if the DM had worked with the players to tell them (as I have done in my own campaign) that no lock on its own ever has a DC above 20 and that higher DC's indicate some supernatural force or ultra-technological machination opposing them, then they would be able to assume a great deal about the rest of the dungeon and possibly the value of breaking down the door just based on the fact that it looks Hard.

I think your second paragraph says it best though. There is a considerable cost to having to consult the rules or attain system mastery. And here's where my perspective differs from some. I love attaining system mastery. I love knowing the rules and intricate interactions. That's why I'm here on these forums. But my players, even the one who brought me into D&D 7 years ago who has played way more systems than I have such as World of Darkness, Paranoia, Mage the Ascension, 2e, 3e, 3.5, 4e, and now 5e have significantly less desire for it than I do. That the one player is widely experienced has nothing to do with his desire (lack of) to memorize pages of rules. And for all the arguments I hear from others about this game not being portable from table to table, I tend to think that it's less the game and more the player. I think the sorts of people who visit GiantITP are the sorts who love and rely on their system mastery and are vexed when it doesn't produce uniform results, because then what's the point of all the time they've sunk into it? For me it is it's own reward, I have fun parsing the rules and that's good enough for me. But I can be a...unique person.

So if we define Mother May I as a pejorative to mean "Everything is based on the whims of the DM!" then I fully disagree with the term. I do not use whimsy to adjudicate and I do not auto-magically scale or reduce DC's to mess with players. But if we define it as you have done to mean "Acquiring information that is not in the rulebooks through interaction with the DM or world", then I have no problem with the term, and I would consider it useful and instructive when someone used it to define 5e and their preferences of gameplay rather than just them bashing the system for the possibility that a DM could run it in an awful way.

Thanks for the detailed reply!

I tried hard to write an example that was even-handed, but reading your response I fear I might have done too well and not adequately illustrated the drawbacks I see in 5e's approach. :smallsmile: Indeed, while I obviously can't speak for anyone else, my impression is that posters who use "Mother May I" as a pejorative are frequently/usually defining it in the same way I did in my example even while simultaneously using it to, as you put it, "bash the system". If I'm right, they view the costs of the example's interactions with the DM as comparable to (or far higher than) the "considerable costs" of the alternative that resonate much more strongly with you. In other words, I disagree with you that in it's usual usage "Mother May I" as a pejorative refers to DM's being wildly arbitrary.

Of course, I've no reason to assume that my interpretation of how the term is "usually" used is any better than yours, but I offer it for reference. In a similar vein, I'll try to explain why I see the costs of 5e's approach as illustrated in the example as comparable to costs of the alternative.

As a DM, I can appreciate both approaches for different reasons, and view the tradeoff as relatively even. (For space reasons, though, I'm not going to do a full comparison of both, and instead focus on the drawbacks of the example and the benefits of the alternative since it's that combination that's relevant to my explanation.) I very much dislike it as a DM when players feel the need to ask me what their characters think, in any context, because when they do so it feels as if I've failed to create an immersive environment where the character has sufficient information so that the player can decide on their own how their character reacts to the situation. So when a player feels the need to ask "how hard does my character think it would be to do <x>", I reflexively wince. (I'd be inclined to chalk up the negative reaction entirely to my bias formed in previous editions, except for the fact that I hate it even more as a player, as I describe below.) By contrast, if they instead ask to investigate <x> to get a more detailed in-game description, I'm thrilled, because it means the characters are engaging with the game world. In the alternative approach, asking for more detailed IC information is sufficient in many cases to answer the question of how hard the task would be, without requiring them to ask me OOC questions about their character's opinion of the difficulty.

An additional benefit of the alternative approach outside the scope of my example comes when trying to set the DC when the players consider trying something that the DM obviously didn't consider in advance. Let's say the players in the above example instead consider trying to make their own exit, rather than take one of the ones provided. I didn't think of it when writing the example, but a 20' ledge of worked stone is an awful lot of masonry work for no apparent purpose, so the characters might reasonably wonder if there is anything behind it. In a system like 5e, if the players inquire how difficult it would be to bash through (if it turns out to be a shell) both the decision of how thick the masonry is and the decision of what DC to set are completely up to me. If I set a high DC the players have no way of knowing if I set the DC first and then picked a suitable description for thickness (which would appear rightly or wrongly as a mild form of railroading) or if I first decided how thick the wall should be and then decided a high DC was reasonable. By contrast, in the alternative approach, I can be visibly seen to consider how thick the wall should be (even if I don't share the answer) before consulting the rulebook to look up the DC. It doesn't appear to be railroading, even if I have sufficient system mastery (or acting skills) that I did set the DC first.

From the player's perspective, I loathe having to ask the DM what my character thinks of the game world. Given the way I approach roleplaying, needing to do so wrecks immersion for me. It's a brief interruption, and I can recover quickly enough, but it directly detracts from my enjoyment. I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out why it bothers me so much, and I think it's because an integral part of my character's identity is knowing how it is capable of interacting with the game world. I also need to know how my character can interact with the world in order to write a backstory that's an accurate representation of the character's abilities. To pull from the example above, how would the Party Rogue have described the locks the character has picked in his backstory without any information of how the DM is going to interpret lockpicking DCs? It's an awful feeling to write a cool backstory and then get to a new table and discover that had the situations in the backstory been encountered at the table, the character never would have managed to accomplish what was written, or only could have done so with implausible luck. Again I can't speak for anyone else, but I think it's sentiments like these that gave rise to the "Mother May I" characterization in the first place... the flexible system of 5e means that the player is dependent on the DM to know what their character can accomplish, and that may be distasteful even if the DM does a fantastic job.

The final point I want to address was your mention of discussing things prior to the start of the game as a way to avoid the pitfalls of the example. I only agree to a point: once you start providing skill-specific DC information, such as "no lock on its own ever has a DC above 20" you start inching closer to having defined DCs... you're just providing them in your campaign documentation rather than in the rulebook. So the more specifically you discuss things at the beginning, the closer you move towards a compromise between the two alternatives, and that's great--the sweet spot for many players is probably somewhere in-between. Unfortunately, adding some portion of the "missing" specificity back in via campaign documentation can be a lot of work, and carries the same cost in political capital that all house rules (and table-specific rulings) do.

JoeJ

2016-03-29, 02:59 PM

Tehnar

2016-03-29, 03:35 PM

It's the "DM Fiat" part that I disagree with, which I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) is a dig at not having hard-coded DC's, or at least a few examples of hard DC's that can be used for extrapolation. I view hard-coded DC's as bad for the game after playing an excessive amount of 3.5, which as I said upthread leads to the game being played by the rules at the sacrifice of play in my experience.

I also don't agree with defining a character based on single game attributes. Modeling "the best jumper" or "the best arcanist" isn't a function of the system nearly as much as in 3.5. That's not to say that I don't think that high modifiers matter or shouldn't be called out. Someone with +11 in Athletics is crazy good and should be recognized as such in game and out. That they aren't better than the RNG is perhaps lamentable in certain ways, they could always roll that 2 when the frail sorcerer rolls a 19, but the consequences of static modifiers outpacing RNG are clear in other editions. That same chasm you mention would absolutely not be passable by the low strength, non-proficient character. Having a wide RNG actually opens options up in that way.

And yes, I believe your example was correct mechanically. But having codified tables for things like that have (in my experience) the opposite effect you describe. Looking up and memorizing lots of minutia is a complex and time-consuming task. Again in 3.5, I spent a lot of table time looking up and calculating exactly what a given DC would be. But in this edition I simply know the DC because of the table agreement on what DC's mean conceptually, and I can therefore apply them quickly and without argument in a practical way.

All this is a longwinded way of coming back to my original point. 20 questions and Mother May I are unfair characterizations because the discussion has to occur about once before play, at the same time you're already hearing the details of the world your about to integrate with. I've had game experiences that I've loved and ones I've hated, but I've never had a game experience where I wasn't able to peg what the DM would allow overall, because the act of playing the game reveals them quite well.

In writing this, I'm pegging what I think is a differentiation in style with a lot of posters here. In the character creation minigame, I don't stake anything on being "the best" versus the GM's world. I simply maximize what I can do with the tools provided and let the world tell me how I'm doing as I play.

Its not about being the best, but being able to know what your character can do without explicit DM approval. Having +11 in athletics means nothing without some context. If you have to have the DM provide context for you then you could just write good at athletics on your character sheet and not have mechanics at all. And the answer to the question "How good at athletics?" the answer is "Depends on the DM".

Its great that you explained the possible DCs for your playstyle to your players, but in doing so you created half a skill system yourself. You probably had to write some of it down for easy reference later, and in doing so you have some sort of tables or just descriptive text describing each skill. I mean its pretty hard to remember what you told your players how forgery works 6 months ago, when its 1 AM, after a long workweek and after a few beers. Its interesting for me that you decry the usage of tables, but the way you describe how things at your table work, I see no way for your system works without some sort of memorization aid.

Its also interesting that you are against tables and calculating DCs when most classes have access to spells, which are heavily codified. Why does a magic missile spell work the same, every time with different DMs, at any time of day, and after however much beer you had and you have to calculate how many missiles you have depending on the spell level, but its difficult to remember jump distance = check result in ft.

Pretty much anytime the player has to ask the DM: "How hard does my character think it is to do X?", it creates a breakpoint in the system. The RP just stops there, and the DM has to make a ruling. No one is asking how a magic missile works, why should anyone ask how far their character can jump? Why do you have a 100+ pages taken up by heavily codified spells, and yet you balk at having a few tables of examples for skill use.

The most important thing I have to say to this example is that this strawman should visit a library before handing me any sour cherries.

All characters can have a chance to succeed at most tasks. Capability at a challenge doesn't require building a character supremely dedicated to tackling that challenge. A certain limit on the range of modifiers within a party are necessary to reach that goal. How the party handles the ravine would be an interesting part of a chase scene. There's no lack of advice on how to adjudicate this. At the very least, the party probably climbed the ravine at a normal (30') or slow (20') pace before and they could be taking a fast (40') or in-combat dashing (50'-60') pace now.

Pathfinder has a published DC for a 30' jump. It's DC 30 acrobatics (dex) if you have a running start, clear level ground, and aren't jumping to a higher elevation, etc. In other words, it's impossible for any of the characters to jump the ravine.

I don't really understand your first paragraph, and since you quoted my request instead of the example, Ill explain my request better.

Multiquoting a single post usually leads to arguing over minutiae, and become hard for other posters to read, at least in my opinion. Especially once the original posters responds to a multiquote post with his own multiquote post (and perhaps to another poster, also in multiquote). One or two multiquotes are possibly fine, but having 10+ multiquotes of a single post probably is not. I call this multiquote wars, and find them very hard to follow.

I did not mean to prevent anyone from multiquoting if they want to, I was just saying I will respond without multiquotes.

Now, digression aside, to your comments:

Everyone having a chance to succeed on a challenge means that no one really stands out. This is the LOLRANDOM part in my original post I was talking about. If the dice decides everything, then putting resources in a particular skill is meaningless, at least as a mechanical expression. The point of the example is exactly how much handholding a DM is supposed to do when playing 5e.

It does not really matter if some other system has a DC for jumping 30' that might be impossible (though reliably hitting a DC 30 check in pathfinder is not hard by mid levels), but that there is a known DC (or at least a approximation of what that DC might be) and that players can make a choice without going another round of 20 questions with the DM.

Shaofoo

2016-03-29, 04:02 PM

I've just had a novice GM give up on 5e this week because he couldn't use it effectively. The DMG first told him to avoid senseless filler fights that didn't drive the story or only existed to drain resources. Then something like 40 pages later it told him the party needed six to eight fights a day, plus the module he was tring to use put a heavy emphasis on random encounters just to drain party resources.

I don't get this logic, why would he be worried about the placement of encounters in a module even if it was random. If he is using a module and is a novice I think he was biting off way too much, if he is going to start messing with a module then I think he should've had some experience under his belt.

Also the book later says that if combat isn't going to be a day to day thing to change the rest and recovery rate of the game. Make long rest last a week and make the long rest only recover hit dice instead of HP.

But he was having issues with the skill system too. The very first session saw the issue with how clear and concise the stealth 'rules' are. Then because he expected a complete and working skill set he had trouble with DCs. He didn't faithfully record all his rulings so DCs changed between sessions when he couldn't remember exactly what he ruled last week. And, well, he's a technology guy. DCs for engineering and mechanics were all 10 to 15, animal handling and persuasion DCs were almost always 20 or higher.

Unfortunatley this is a fault of the GM that isn't consistent. I have agreed that more information for helping the GM wouldn't have gone unwanted but if he can't keep his own notes in order then that isn't the fault of the game.

Also he has delved into the Guy at the Gym fallacy unfortunately.

At the end he complained about the DMG's advice, not having enough guidelines for what skills should and should not do, and not knowing where he should set DCs so that trained people could succeed more often than the untrained (some of us had high/low rolling streaks).

Quite frankly, he should've looked in the PHB if he wanted advice as to what skills did and didn't do. The DM should read that book in addition to the other ones.

And to be honest he could've looked at the skill checks that the game expects you to do and then look at the skill check bonuses from the players and then extrapolate from there if you really want to get down to the nitty gritty of the math.

So this is probably my last 5e post for a good long while, the group has gone back to 3.houserules D&D for now. From my perspective the combat system is solid but the skills system of 5e is terribly underdeveloped and not newbie friendly.

Well I am glad that you have found another game that you all can enjoy. Mistakes were made but it is better to be with a system that you can all sit down with. 5e is not an universal system or even an universal fantasy system.

Vogonjeltz

2016-03-29, 04:53 PM

All of the OOC interaction with the DM falls into the "Mother May I" category, because it's information that the players need in order to have their characters make informed choices, but it isn't provided by the rulebook. At a different table, the same in-game description with the same characters and players might well have resulted in the party deciding on a entirely different course of action, simply because different OOC answers would lead to different IC judgments. Of course, as the players and the DM become more familiar with each other, the number of "Mother May I" questions will decrease considerably, so long as the DM keeps good enough notes (or has good enough instincts) that the ruling are consistent.

By contrast, if 5e provided a default way to translate in-game descriptions into DCs, none of the questions for the DM would have been required, at the (considerable) cost of requiring the players to either consult the rulebooks or have quite a bit of system mastery. The same players/characters with a different DM would have made the same choices when presented with the same description. (If the DCs end up not matching the defaults, the only "Mother May I" question required of the DM is to ask whether the character is surprised by how difficult the task is in order to find out whether the DM is departing from the rulebook (the character would not be surprised) or whether there is some unseen factor influencing the results (the character would be surprised and thus inclined to investigate).)

I've yet to hear someone literally describe a task as: Very Easy, Easy, Medium, Hard, Very Hard, Nearly Impossible at a game. Instead it's more asking what the terrain/things look like and then acting based on that.

As in: Is it an old rusty lock? Is it well maintained and clean? Have I never seen a lock of this manufacture before? Is this the simple locks that I practiced on to train for my proficiency in lockpicking? etc...

But I liked your vignette of character interaction (although I certainly balked at the idea that an unexceptional padlock might qualify as Hard, that's got Easy written all over it).

Tanarii

2016-03-29, 05:07 PM

So this is probably my last 5e post for a good long while, the group has gone back to 3.houserules D&D for now. From my perspective the combat system is solid but the skills system of 5e is terribly underdeveloped and not newbie friendly.Anyone who comes from 3e to 5e is going to run into the problem of "not enough info for skills". It's a given. It was the same coming from 3e to 4e. Because 3e puts you in this mindset DCs are specific values set for some specific listed thing. As if the rules for the game are a physics engine for the in-game reality.

I've yet to hear someone literally describe a task as: Very Easy, Easy, Medium, Hard, Very Hard, Nearly Impossible at a game.
The few times I've had a DM not do that, I've immediately asked that he start. Assuming it's something that my PC could reasonable judge the difficulty of in advance of course. So far none have objected. IMO that's critical to playing 5e, and implicit to the rules. Without it, you're basically tossing the ability of the players to judge actions in advance out the window.

The DM should be doing that automatically, without waiting for players to ask for the info, whenever he's making a description.

pwykersotz

2016-03-30, 02:10 AM

Thanks for the detailed reply!

I tried hard to write an example that was even-handed, but reading your response I fear I might have done too well and not adequately illustrated the drawbacks I see in 5e's approach. :smallsmile: Indeed, while I obviously can't speak for anyone else, my impression is that posters who use "Mother May I" as a pejorative are frequently/usually defining it in the same way I did in my example even while simultaneously using it to, as you put it, "bash the system". If I'm right, they view the costs of the example's interactions with the DM as comparable to (or far higher than) the "considerable costs" of the alternative that resonate much more strongly with you. In other words, I disagree with you that in it's usual usage "Mother May I" as a pejorative refers to DM's being wildly arbitrary.

Of course, I've no reason to assume that my interpretation of how the term is "usually" used is any better than yours, but I offer it for reference. In a similar vein, I'll try to explain why I see the costs of 5e's approach as illustrated in the example as comparable to costs of the alternative.

As a DM, I can appreciate both approaches for different reasons, and view the tradeoff as relatively even. (For space reasons, though, I'm not going to do a full comparison of both, and instead focus on the drawbacks of the example and the benefits of the alternative since it's that combination that's relevant to my explanation.) I very much dislike it as a DM when players feel the need to ask me what their characters think, in any context, because when they do so it feels as if I've failed to create an immersive environment where the character has sufficient information so that the player can decide on their own how their character reacts to the situation. So when a player feels the need to ask "how hard does my character think it would be to do <x>", I reflexively wince. (I'd be inclined to chalk up the negative reaction entirely to my bias formed in previous editions, except for the fact that I hate it even more as a player, as I describe below.) By contrast, if they instead ask to investigate <x> to get a more detailed in-game description, I'm thrilled, because it means the characters are engaging with the game world. In the alternative approach, asking for more detailed IC information is sufficient in many cases to answer the question of how hard the task would be, without requiring them to ask me OOC questions about their character's opinion of the difficulty.

An additional benefit of the alternative approach outside the scope of my example comes when trying to set the DC when the players consider trying something that the DM obviously didn't consider in advance. Let's say the players in the above example instead consider trying to make their own exit, rather than take one of the ones provided. I didn't think of it when writing the example, but a 20' ledge of worked stone is an awful lot of masonry work for no apparent purpose, so the characters might reasonably wonder if there is anything behind it. In a system like 5e, if the players inquire how difficult it would be to bash through (if it turns out to be a shell) both the decision of how thick the masonry is and the decision of what DC to set are completely up to me. If I set a high DC the players have no way of knowing if I set the DC first and then picked a suitable description for thickness (which would appear rightly or wrongly as a mild form of railroading) or if I first decided how thick the wall should be and then decided a high DC was reasonable. By contrast, in the alternative approach, I can be visibly seen to consider how thick the wall should be (even if I don't share the answer) before consulting the rulebook to look up the DC. It doesn't appear to be railroading, even if I have sufficient system mastery (or acting skills) that I did set the DC first.

From the player's perspective, I loathe having to ask the DM what my character thinks of the game world. Given the way I approach roleplaying, needing to do so wrecks immersion for me. It's a brief interruption, and I can recover quickly enough, but it directly detracts from my enjoyment. I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out why it bothers me so much, and I think it's because an integral part of my character's identity is knowing how it is capable of interacting with the game world. I also need to know how my character can interact with the world in order to write a backstory that's an accurate representation of the character's abilities. To pull from the example above, how would the Party Rogue have described the locks the character has picked in his backstory without any information of how the DM is going to interpret lockpicking DCs? It's an awful feeling to write a cool backstory and then get to a new table and discover that had the situations in the backstory been encountered at the table, the character never would have managed to accomplish what was written, or only could have done so with implausible luck. Again I can't speak for anyone else, but I think it's sentiments like these that gave rise to the "Mother May I" characterization in the first place... the flexible system of 5e means that the player is dependent on the DM to know what their character can accomplish, and that may be distasteful even if the DM does a fantastic job.

The final point I want to address was your mention of discussing things prior to the start of the game as a way to avoid the pitfalls of the example. I only agree to a point: once you start providing skill-specific DC information, such as "no lock on its own ever has a DC above 20" you start inching closer to having defined DCs... you're just providing them in your campaign documentation rather than in the rulebook. So the more specifically you discuss things at the beginning, the closer you move towards a compromise between the two alternatives, and that's great--the sweet spot for many players is probably somewhere in-between. Unfortunately, adding some portion of the "missing" specificity back in via campaign documentation can be a lot of work, and carries the same cost in political capital that all house rules (and table-specific rulings) do.

I thought there was going to be more to it. :smallsmile:

Since it's not your argument, I will abandon my association of Mother May I with being arbitrary as I reply to you. I'm going to have to make a few extrapolations from what you say, so please correct me if I'm wrong. I'll also reference 3.5 heavily, as that's my main other source of experience. Oh, and insert "in my opinion" all over this. I'll just state things plainly to save words, but I don't mean my points to be a bludgeon.

To start with your last point first, that is precisely what I find valuable about this edition. The ability to let the individual table or campaign dictate the way in which DC's are run. It can have overhead, true, but I find it more instructive to pick two or three particular skills and give a couple examples, letting the rest be extrapolated. The lock example was one, and I also like the example of a DC 30 Athletics check letting you climb the underside of a floating glacier in Pandemonium with demon archers firing at you from all sides. This entire time I've never been against there being extra information to inform choice. I especially like Grod's ideas (I think it was Grod) about adding more advice for what tier of play you might be going for and how skills might change to reflect that. I'm just against a hard DC, because hard DC's heavily define the world based on the game system.

On the flip side, one of the reasons I like hard-coded DC's in certain games is the sense of concrete power I have with them. When that DC 120 Escape Artist check allows you to slip through a wall of force, that is freaking awesome. It's basically like getting another class power. In fact, Iaijutsu Focus was pretty much just another form of what the Paladin has as Smite. Survival lets you accurately know the weather. These skills are awesome for essentially what amounts to control. You roll the die, you get the number, you get the result. Bam, solid. The DM might impose modifiers, but you then know that there is something interfering with your ability to perform beyond you. In a vacuum, you know your performance and can approach the world in that way. In the same way, this is why I like static modifiers scaling beyond RNG. It provides certainty, a character with whom you know the score.

The thing for me is that I have something that I value far more than that solidity. I value playability. I value a game where I can make the rules react to my world or my DM's world and express their uniqueness, rather than shoving all the creativity into the same box over and over again. (That might sound dismissive of robust, rules-heavy systems, it is not meant to be.) I value the speed at which decisions can be reached. Your examples in the initial post didn't flag me as being a problem, because I was filtering them as being more or less in character. Those questions still need to be asked (or described by the GM at some point) no matter how you slice it. But they can easily be disguised through poetic shorthand. An old and rusty lock versus a sturdy looking burnished steel lock conjure very different images.

But for every hard coded value, time must be taken to ponder how it informs the world around the player. If it isn't helpful, it should be changed. But in a system where these values are hard coded, the system uses those values. Feats, class abilities, and many more aspects play off of the expected norms and can cause fallout at really weird times if changed. Also, I've met very few people around the table who know or care what the HP and AC of stone masonry* is. Yet the information is there. I ran City of the Spider Queen just before 5e came out, and sure enough, it had all that info. I was compelled to use it for the sake of being consistent and true to the world, especially when my players blew a hole in a stone bridge. But it broke the energy of the table in exactly the way you describe above as I had to look up the information. Recoverable, but annoying.

That experience is not unique. As Psyren said upthread, electronic tools and an eye for minutia are very handy for running rules-heavy systems, but it's still a ton of stuff to know and pay attention to. However in 5e I can make a call based on the table's shared expectations. That part is key. In your Rogue example, you mentioned disappointment when a table ran things in such a way where the background was rendered obsolete. I would argue that the failing is on the DM right there. If a DM allows a character, I would say it is then up to the DM to work with the player to iron out any wrinkles. You might argue (rightfully so) that this is a lot of extra time and effort. But I see it as minimal compared to the time and effort needed to reference the enormous amount of data that skill checks and their interactions allow in 3.5.

*And speaking of masonry, I'm confused by something in your "breaking through" example. Why would the players inquire how hard it is to bash through the stone as they suspect it would be a shell? I can understand them asking how hard it would be to break through a given amount of solid rock, but breaking through a surface of unknown thickness is one of those things they should have to try in order to find out by doing, isn't it? Or am I misreading the situation? Also, I'm not seeing how your delayed reaction when considering the DC or preparedness with throwing one out would be a factor. I have this happen all the time, my players try to encounter a situation in a way I did not expect. Suddenly, even though yes there is a room behind that wall, I have to figure out the DC to use to break through as opposed to them pulling that switch on the far wall. My delay isn't an indicator of either a railroad or lack thereof, it's just a factoid that may not have been in my thoughts at the moment. But maybe I'm just not figuring out what you meant.

I hope I haven't been talking past you in my reply. I spent over an hour thinking about this post and my mind went over a lot of information that has come from other posters as well. I think I deleted more words than I wrote because I found myself replying to a point you didn't raise. :smalltongue:

Its not about being the best, but being able to know what your character can do without explicit DM approval. Having +11 in athletics means nothing without some context. If you have to have the DM provide context for you then you could just write good at athletics on your character sheet and not have mechanics at all. And the answer to the question "How good at athletics?" the answer is "Depends on the DM".

Its great that you explained the possible DCs for your playstyle to your players, but in doing so you created half a skill system yourself. You probably had to write some of it down for easy reference later, and in doing so you have some sort of tables or just descriptive text describing each skill. I mean its pretty hard to remember what you told your players how forgery works 6 months ago, when its 1 AM, after a long workweek and after a few beers. Its interesting for me that you decry the usage of tables, but the way you describe how things at your table work, I see no way for your system works without some sort of memorization aid.

Its also interesting that you are against tables and calculating DCs when most classes have access to spells, which are heavily codified. Why does a magic missile spell work the same, every time with different DMs, at any time of day, and after however much beer you had and you have to calculate how many missiles you have depending on the spell level, but its difficult to remember jump distance = check result in ft.

Pretty much anytime the player has to ask the DM: "How hard does my character think it is to do X?", it creates a breakpoint in the system. The RP just stops there, and the DM has to make a ruling. No one is asking how a magic missile works, why should anyone ask how far their character can jump? Why do you have a 100+ pages taken up by heavily codified spells, and yet you balk at having a few tables of examples for skill use.

In point of fact, I kind of hate codified spells of the sort we have. I find them stifling and finicky. I would love a more free and open magic system. But D&D is the system for my table, and it's an acceptable tax. But still a tax.

Shaofoo

2016-03-30, 07:53 AM

In point of fact, I kind of hate codified spells of the sort we have. I find them stifling and finicky. I would love a more free and open magic system. But D&D is the system for my table, and it's an acceptable tax. But still a tax.

Actually some people have found alternate uses for spells or have tried to give spells a new twist that strays from the codified use. It is possible to try and be creative using spells and some spells do welcome you to be creative (nearly all illusion spells for starters but that is codified). Of course in order to be creative you will have to ask the DM and since you are trying to use an action that the rules don't have a ruling for then the DM will have to put the ruling.

Of course being creative with actions and spells I feel that it is contingent on fostering good will, you must try to make sure that you don't want to break the game or do something funny past the DM. This is what I think will hang some people up because they see the DM as an adversary to defeat not as a friend to pal around, they aren't going to ask the DM what they can do so they rely on the rules to help them be as DM independent as possible. Of course if you are like a recent guy that was trying to shove fists down the throats of people and freeze the blood in the heart while violating the actual rules of targeting and the word of the spell, a guy like that that is looking for the quickest and cheapest way to press the IWIN button will probably be on the DM's bad side and will probably not be allowed to do much because he will try to be as disruptive as possible if he does something.

There is some give and take here, the DM might allow you to bend the rules for you to do stuff but as a player you must also take care not to overstep what is expected that you will do.

Tehnar

2016-03-30, 02:14 PM

In point of fact, I kind of hate codified spells of the sort we have. I find them stifling and finicky. I would love a more free and open magic system. But D&D is the system for my table, and it's an acceptable tax. But still a tax.

Still 100+ pages of codified spells is better then 10-20 pages of codified skills? Maybe not even that much.

But lets say you get your wish, and have a open magic system described as detailed as 5e's skill system. What would be left of the rules then? It doesn't look to me like you would have much of a system left. Why would you pay WotC any money for nothing?

Anyone can make things up. Its not a hallmark of any system that it lets you make things up.

I gave you a example of where the DM had to think long and hard about the rulings he makes to keep a scene barely going forward. I invite you, or anyone else reading this thread, to offer a counter example of where using Mother May I to deal with 5e skills, made a scene or encounter better.

Shaofoo

2016-03-30, 02:53 PM

pwykersotz

2016-03-30, 03:35 PM

Still 100+ pages of codified spells is better then 10-20 pages of codified skills? Maybe not even that much.

But lets say you get your wish, and have a open magic system described as detailed as 5e's skill system. What would be left of the rules then? It doesn't look to me like you would have much of a system left. Why would you pay WotC any money for nothing?

Anyone can make things up. Its not a hallmark of any system that it lets you make things up.

I gave you a example of where the DM had to think long and hard about the rulings he makes to keep a scene barely going forward. I invite you, or anyone else reading this thread, to offer a counter example of where using Mother May I to deal with 5e skills, made a scene or encounter better.

I'm not making the same value judgements you are. I'm celebrating what has gone my way, not lamenting the things I dislike. 5e skills are a step in the right direction for me. 5e magic is too. That they are not perfect isn't something I'm inclined to worry about. I just enjoy what benefits there are.

And with your regard to making things up, well, that's precisely what all these games are about. You just make things up within a framework provided by the rules. But framework informs that imagination. Dungeon World and Microscope are very light games compared to D&D, I offer them as examples.

Regarding your examples, I thought I had explained in my reply that what you considered difficult to navigate, I viewed as quick and easy choices. This is because we are approaching the game from different perspectives. I don't view a single one of the questions you raised as necessary, because my players don't play that way. It's not about trying to use the 5e system to replicate the effect of a hard-coded DC in the thick of things, which is what your examples lead to. The player informs the narrative by their actions, not by rolling a die. They choose based on their natural talents and listening to descriptions what the path of least resistance is rather than asking for every possible DC. Besides, several of the things you mention are contests. There are no DC's. Asking for a DC to override agency of the actors on the stage is exactly the problem I have with 3.5. The game is servicing the rules in those cases, not the other way around.

Sorry for the garbled thoughts, I'm in a rush at the moment to prep for my game tonight. :smallsmile:

Tanarii

2016-03-30, 03:54 PM

I gave you a example of where the DM had to think long and hard about the rulings he makes to keep a scene barely going forward. I invite you, or anyone else reading this thread, to offer a counter example of where using Mother May I to deal with 5e skills, made a scene or encounter better.Your example assumed a passive DM. One that the players had to go to with each and every thing they wanted to investigate and know the check result for.

It's possible for DMs to be an active voice, and describe how difficult various things look while describing what they are. Especially for something like a chasm to pass or a wall to scale or a lock to pick or a disabling a trap that was just found.

You have some danger of the DM steering the direction of player activity that way, because they aren't going to be able to cover all the possible player actions and many players will focus on the DM suggested options. But a passive DM is mother-may-I no matter what system you're playing with. It's 20 questions to guess what the hell the DM wants from you to proceed.

Zalabim

2016-03-30, 05:34 PM

Still posting while tired, but I hope this clears up any questions and assumptions I've made.

The climbing rules you mention are in the PHB and referenced in my example (although half-speed climbing means a 20' ledge takes two rounds to climb, not one), but I'm not familiar with any 5e rules for the others. Do you have citations on where I can find those rules? I'd be very interested to read them.

I'd would argue that 5e doesn't provide a guide to "what's actually hard or not": the system tells you what "hard" means mechanically, but doesn't tell you what in-game descriptions correspond to "hard". Also, your assumptions of how previous systems worked are not universally shared. For players and DMs who did not encounter the problems you describe, 5e may not be an improvement.

The examples for the results of failing a check are mostly from directly reading published modules and applying the advice on when to call for a check and how to use the result (Failures are talked about on PG 242 of the DMG). Then fast hands says it lets you try to pick a lock or disarm a trap as a bonus action. Nothing ever says to take longer than an action to try to pick a lock, and if someone tried to kick the door open, it certainly wouldn't take a minute for each attempt.

It takes 40' of movement to climb a 20' wall, which can be accomplished in 1/10 of a minute of fast-paced travel, or one round if anyone uses the Dash action. If the wall takes a check to climb up, it'd be reasonable for a character at the top or bottom to be able to help the wizard make it up. He'd be able to succeed with a passive check, and be unlikely to fail if he still had to roll, though it'd slow down the other character's progress to help him up. For a longer climb, ropes are absolutely an appropriate response.

The description of the room often doesn't tell you the DC of a challenge. Is worked stone DC 10, 20, 25, 30, or impossible in Pathfinder? Is it wet, slimy, dusty, or clean and dry? Does an unexceptional lock mean simple 20, average 25, or good 30? Or something in between? So the DC of a task typically has to be arbitrated anyway, and there's no advice for what DC to use mechanically. The GM is left to figure it out some other way.

Everyone having a chance to succeed on a challenge means that no one really stands out. This is the LOLRANDOM part in my original post I was talking about. If the dice decides everything, then putting resources in a particular skill is meaningless, at least as a mechanical expression. The point of the example is exactly how much handholding a DM is supposed to do when playing 5e.

It does not really matter if some other system has a DC for jumping 30' that might be impossible (though reliably hitting a DC 30 check in pathfinder is not hard by mid levels), but that there is a known DC (or at least a approximation of what that DC might be) and that players can make a choice without going another round of 20 questions with the DM.

Everyone can attempt to hit an orc with a longsword, but a Paladin is appreciably better at it than a wizard, even an elf wizard. There's no shortage of mechanical differentiation between characters for skills. In fact, it's stretched to its absolute limit by expertise with Point Buy or Standard Array stats, and certain class abilities can still break that threshold. Abilities like Guidance, Reliable Talent, Glibness, Pass Without Trace, and Bardic Inspiration. Otherwise, the worst of the worst has a -1 (deception, for example) and the best of the best has +17 (insight, for example), so if there's a contest, there's a 1/400 chance for the stars to align and the worst first to roll a 19 (20-1) and the best second to roll an 18 (1+17).

Allowing everyone to participate was a goal. You can disagree with that goal but don't call it LOLRANDOM or decry the meaningless of effort. That kind of inflammatory hyperbole is unwarranted.

Of course there's still some things you can't do without some specialization and/or teamwork. You can't use thieves' tools without proficiency, for example.

Any party that's running from hobgoblins is probably not able to make a DC 30 jump with a single character. Even a party that's masters of the universe still probably can't make a DC 30 Jump with every character (preferring to fly instead), because skills don't improve unless you invest in them in PF. Aside from that, the distance makes it 30 (or 26-29 with a DC 20 reflex save), but the ground conditions can add up to +15 to the DC, depending on clutter, slope, and slickness. I know the initial description of the ravine didn't clarify any of those features. As above, there's still some arbitration necessary to decide on a final DC for the task.

Pex

2016-03-30, 06:34 PM

The description of the room often doesn't tell you the DC of a challenge. Is worked stone DC 10, 20, 25, 30, or impossible in Pathfinder? Is it wet, slimy, dusty, or clean and dry? Does an unexceptional lock mean simple 20, average 25, or good 30? Or something in between? So the DC of a task typically has to be arbitrated anyway, and there's no advice for what DC to use mechanically. The GM is left to figure it out some other way.

Three possibilities.

DC 15 - Any surface with adequate natural handholds and footholds (natural and artificial) such as a very rough natural rock surface.

DC 20 - An uneven surface with narrow handholds and footholds, such as a typical wall in a dungeon.

DC 25 - A rough surface, such as a natural rock wall or a brick wall.

"Worked stone" says effort was made on the wall. It's a room, so not worked in particular for climbing. A typical wall in a dungeon. DC is 20.

Is the wall wet? +5 DC if surface is slippery. Total DC is 25. Player wants to use the corners as leverage. DC -5 for a total of 20.

Player's climb modifier is, for example purposes, +11. Character can Take 10 and climb the slippery walls at the corner. If he needs or wants to climb in the middle, base effort of Take 10 fails because DC is 25. He doesn't fall flat on his face because he failed by less than 5. He just fails to get a good grip on the wall. He has to make a sincere effort and roll. Can't Take 20 because a roll of 1 causes him to fall due to failing DC by 13.

What's the DC for a slippery wall of worked stone in 5E? Does climbing at the corner give Advantage or just the ability to try it in the first place and the corner is flavor text? Depends on who is DM and his interpretation of difficulty.

Xetheral

2016-03-30, 07:13 PM

I've yet to hear someone literally describe a task as: Very Easy, Easy, Medium, Hard, Very Hard, Nearly Impossible at a game. Instead it's more asking what the terrain/things look like and then acting based on that.

As in: Is it an old rusty lock? Is it well maintained and clean? Have I never seen a lock of this manufacture before? Is this the simple locks that I practiced on to train for my proficiency in lockpicking? etc...

But I liked your vignette of character interaction (although I certainly balked at the idea that an unexceptional padlock might qualify as Hard, that's got Easy written all over it).

Glad you liked it! My preference is indeed towards describing things in game-world terms rather than using the mechanically-defined difficulty levels. However, as our differing opinions on the DC of an unexceptional padlock show, in 5e game-world descriptions aren't sufficient to give players a good idea of the DC. (Although, if the DM is consistent, over a longer time than described in my example the players will learn that DM's style, reducing the need for describing difficulties in mechanical terms.)

----------

I thought there was going to be more to it. :smallsmile:

...[good stuff]...

I hope I haven't been talking past you in my reply. I spent over an hour thinking about this post and my mind went over a lot of information that has come from other posters as well. I think I deleted more words than I wrote because I found myself replying to a point you didn't raise. :smalltongue:

I'm flattered that you felt my post was worth spending that much time replying to. :) I enjoyed reading it, and even the parts that weren't directly a response to me were informative and insightful.

In particular I've realized while reading your post that if a DM sets DC 30 at fantastically-high levels, as in your Pandemonium example, that makes it a little easier for players to know what DCs the DM is likely to set for mundane tasks simply due to a compressed difficulty range. If instead DC 30 is set around Olympic-level tasks, the spread for such "mundane" uses (and thus the uncertainty) is much larger. It may explain at least a portion of our different takes on the magnitude of the problem that uncertainty creates.

It's also possible you run a higher-energy game than I do, where an interruption to check a rulebook is far more problematic. I'm much more concerned about breaking immersion conceptually than from pacing, probably because I'm viewing immersion more as a mindset than as being "caught up in the moment", but both are valid uses of the term.

Ultimately, I think we mostly agree. Our differing playstyles just result in us making different value judgments, and I happen to think that "Mother May I" is a valid way to refer to what I consider are the downsides of the 5e approach. Given that you and others interpret the phrase to refer to a much more arbitrary approach than I have in mind, however, I now know to be careful when using that descriptor, and maybe it's worth avoiding completely.

On a side note, the breaking-through-the-masonry example probably hinges too much on my own idiosyncrasies as a DM to be a good illustration. I personally view DMing as a form of interactive performance art wherein managing how I'm seen by the players to reach my rulings is just as important a tool in managing the experience at the table as the substance of those ruling itself. Accordingly, I spend a lot of time (over?)thinking about appearances.

The point I was trying to make is that there is a pronounced natural tendency for DMs to set the DC for unanticipated player actions higher than the preplanned alternatives. The good reason to do so is that chances are the unanticipated player actions are a little crazier than the obvious ones the DM considered, and will thus tend to be more improbable. The bad reason to do so is to try to keep the players from moving off the rails. Unfortunately, in my experience, the latter happens frequently enough to taint the former, to the point that as a player, if the DC for a creative idea is set high enough to produce a disappointingly low chance of success, it will feel like railroading even if in that particular example it was set high for good reasons. In such a case, the ability to visibly consult the rulebook gives the appearance of impartiality, even if I decide to disregard what it says. (Note that while my DMing style is about as far from "impartial referee" as one can get, this is a situation where the appearance of impartiality is a valuable tool for making sure the players have fun.)

Here's how such a conversation might go at my table in 3.5 where the rulebook is available as an impartial source. I've spoilered it for length and because I'm sure not everyone will be interested. :smallsmile: (Note that I don't expect a reply to this part. It's somewhat off-topic, and I offer it merely for extra illustration.)

[Party Wizard]: "You know, it seems odd that someone would build a 20' high wall to support that ledge up there."

Player of Party Wizard (OOC): [DM], may I roll Knowledge (Architecture and Engineering) to see what my character can deduce about the wall?

At this point, I as the DM have some fast thinking to do. The player's exactly right--it IS weird that the wall would be worked stone, but I'd just picked it when planning because I wanted a certain climb DC. I'd not planned on having the wall be a shell, but this is EXACTLY the sort of interaction with my game world I want to reward, so as of right now, it is indeed a shell, and that means there needs to be something interesting behind it. But I can't let on that the game world is changing in response to the players without hurting the illusion of verisimilitude....

DM (OOC): "Sure, go ahead."

Player rolls moderately well.

DM (OOC): "With only a quick inspection you're not entirely sure, but it definitely appears that this wall is not structural, and it does indeed seem odd that someone would go to the trouble to build it to create a ledge under that opening up there. Extending the opening a few feet into the room doesn't serve an obvious purpose, but even if there was some reason to do so it would have been easier to build a balcony into the wall than to build a 20' wall underneath to provide support."

Player of Party Wizard (OOC): "I relate that to the party."

[Party Wizard]: "[Party Fighter], I believe you have the sledge hammer?"

[Party Fighter]: "Right!"

Player of Party Fighter (OOC): "I get out the sledge hammer. [DM], do you want me to roll something here? How are we going to handle this?"

DM (OOC): "Huh. I don't have that written down in my notes, it didn't occur to me that you might go through the wall." (Smiling.) "Let's see, the wall would be..." (silence) "... thick. Hold on while I check the rulebook."

I know perfectly well that 3.5 would handle this as destroying an object, but I nevertheless spend 30 seconds flipping through the rulebook while I'm frantically trying to decide what makes sense to put behind the wall. I settle on an old disused passage blocked up in order to serve as hidden escape route from further down the dungeon. The wall therefore also now has a secret door barred from the other side.

DM (OOC): "Ugh. The system wants me to handle this with attack and damage rolls, but that's rather inelegant. Let's just do a strength check with a +5 bonus from the sledge hammer. I'll describe the results of a couple quick swings and then you can decide if you want to spend the time to try to get through it. It will, of course, make a fair amount of noise, but still less than a Knock spell. Sound good?"

In my head, I set the DC at 20, high enough that they won't succeed on a low or moderate roll so that they aren't encouraged to try to smash through every obstacle they meet. But since failure will just mean it will take longer to go through the wall, after a low roll the players can still decide to devote the time to smashing through it they're particularly attached to their clever idea.

Player of Party Fighter (OOC): "Sounds perfect." (Nods around the table.)

Player rolls exceptionally high.

DM (OOC): "Wow. Ok. Your first swing impacts the wall, but rather than cracked stone and a cloud of masonry dust, there is instead a loud metallic snap and an entire section of the wall swings inward on unseen hinges. Beyond lies a dusty tunnel, and you see a broken iron bar rolling away from the door."

There are grins around the table.

[Party Fighter]: (Nodding with satisfaction.) "Right. Lets move."

In the end, the players gain a significant time advantage and are thrilled that they "outsmarted" me and in the future are incentivized to pay attention to the minutiae of descriptions. Meanwhile, I got a more-immersive session for free, courtesy of my players noticing a logical oversight in my room description. The excuse of checking the rulebook bought me time to make the improvised content logical enough that I was able to get away with the last-minute substitution in dungeon design. Had the fighter rolled moderately well on the strength check and still apparently failed the check, my choice of a high DC was less likely to appear as railroading since I was both willing to check the rulebook and also had stated that result controlled how long the task would take, rather than a failure preventing getting through the wall outright. The extra minute it took to handle the mechanical aspect seems a small price to pay for the ability to use it as a tool (and in this case, that extra time was exactly what I needed the book to provide anyway).

This was a really long-winded way of saying that I like having the rulebook around because I find it useful as a prop, even when I decide not to follow what it says. In 5e so far I've been able to check the rulebook anyway, because none of us have it memorized, but later on I expect I'll have to improvise faster, or find some other method to decrease the apparent arbitrariness of the DC, perhaps by not letting on that the players' move was unexpected and spend the time flipping through my notes. (The latter would be unfortunate, since in my experience players LOVE hearing that they've come up with a solution the DM didn't plan for.)

----------

The description of the room often doesn't tell you the DC of a challenge. Is worked stone DC 10, 20, 25, 30, or impossible in Pathfinder? Is it wet, slimy, dusty, or clean and dry? Does an unexceptional lock mean simple 20, average 25, or good 30? Or something in between? So the DC of a task typically has to be arbitrated anyway, and there's no advice for what DC to use mechanically. The GM is left to figure it out some other way.

We agree entirely on this part. As for the rest of your post, I see no reason to assume published modules are good sources for rules, particularly since I don't read them. :smallsmile: I don't see anything on DMG 242 that says that failing a climbing check can't result in a fall, nor does Fast Hands suggest that characters who lack the feature are able to pick a lock in a single action. Basically, while we agree that the DCs are entirely up to the DM, I would argue that interpretation of how long a check takes and the consequences for failure are just as DM-dependent. What you appear to see as rules concrete enough to invalidate the example I offered, I interpret quite differently. The fact that we disagree reinforces the overall point about DM-dependence that can lead some to use the "Mother May I" description (but see above in this post for why I now think that term should be used with care).

JoeJ

2016-03-31, 12:26 AM

Three possibilities.

DC 15 - Any surface with adequate natural handholds and footholds (natural and artificial) such as a very rough natural rock surface.

DC 20 - An uneven surface with narrow handholds and footholds, such as a typical wall in a dungeon.

DC 25 - A rough surface, such as a natural rock wall or a brick wall.

"Worked stone" says effort was made on the wall. It's a room, so not worked in particular for climbing. A typical wall in a dungeon. DC is 20.

Is the wall wet? +5 DC if surface is slippery. Total DC is 25. Player wants to use the corners as leverage. DC -5 for a total of 20.

Player's climb modifier is, for example purposes, +11. Character can Take 10 and climb the slippery walls at the corner. If he needs or wants to climb in the middle, base effort of Take 10 fails because DC is 25. He doesn't fall flat on his face because he failed by less than 5. He just fails to get a good grip on the wall. He has to make a sincere effort and roll. Can't Take 20 because a roll of 1 causes him to fall due to failing DC by 13.

What's the DC for a slippery wall of worked stone in 5E? Does climbing at the corner give Advantage or just the ability to try it in the first place and the corner is flavor text? Depends on who is DM and his interpretation of difficulty.

This is one of the ways that I think 5e is so much better than 3.PF. In my younger days I did a lot of rock climbing, and the idea of having a default difficulty for a "typical" rough surface or smooth surface or whatever is absurd. There are no typical surfaces; every situation is unique.

And for all the extra numbers and detail, it doesn't reduce the amount of DM fiat in the slightest. In 5e the DM picks an arbitrary number for the DC. In 3.PF the DM picks an arbitrary type of wall and looks up a number. Or rather, looks up a bunch of numbers and adds them together. But there's no more of the consistency you seem to want. It still depends on who is DM and how they choose to describe the wall.

Shaofoo

2016-03-31, 03:29 AM

What's the DC for a slippery wall of worked stone in 5E? Does climbing at the corner give Advantage or just the ability to try it in the first place and the corner is flavor text? Depends on who is DM and his interpretation of difficulty.

And again you are assuming that the Pathfinder DM won't change the DCs around for his own reasons. If you want to say Pathfinder has more stuff than 5e cause of tables then fine but if this is to prove that DMs can't change DCs and must abide by the table then I don't know what to say except nope.

Tables are a security blanket, they only bring a false sense of security.

Also Advantage is never brought up on skill checks unless the DM specifically says so or you use inspiration, Advantage is not granted by the books. By the previous example working with slippery stone is hard (DC 20) and doing so in a corner lowers it to normal (DC 15) but of course you don't want to hear that at all.

Tanarii

2016-03-31, 04:13 AM

Psyren

2016-03-31, 09:15 AM

This is one of the ways that I think 5e is so much better than 3.PF. In my younger days I did a lot of rock climbing, and the idea of having a default difficulty for a "typical" rough surface or smooth surface or whatever is absurd. There are no typical surfaces; every situation is unique.

Every river is unique too, should we get rid of Swim guidelines? You seem to be arguing against all abstraction in games, which is a nonsensical position. "Typical" in this context doesn't mean "every rough edifice is exactly the same" - it means "Unless the GM wants to make this specific wall special in some way, here is a rough guideline you can throw out if the player wants to climb."

Put another way, DC 15 doesn't mean "all DC 15 walls are exactly the same." It means "All Climbers with at least a +5 skill modifier (including equipment etc.) and taking 10 - i.e. in no particular hurry or stress - can scale these walls, despite them being visually distinct from one another." When you rock-climbed, I'm willing to bet there were a variety of walls you were capable of scaling despite them all being visually distinct from one another - it wasn't just the same single wall every time, was it?

And for all the extra numbers and detail, it doesn't reduce the amount of DM fiat in the slightest. In 5e the DM picks an arbitrary number for the DC. In 3.PF the DM picks an arbitrary type of wall and looks up a number. Or rather, looks up a bunch of numbers and adds them together. But there's no more of the consistency you seem to want. It still depends on who is DM and how they choose to describe the wall.

But the latter is much easier to wrap your head around because it's visual rather than numeric. What kinds of walls would a halfling thorp have? How about the underground Dwarven city? What kinds of walls would there be in the seedy alleys near the human prison? What about the smooth, pearlescent towers in the Mage Quarter? How about the Old Town district that was gutted by fire a decade ago and never resettled, which just so happens to butt up against Noble's Row? By starting from the visuals like that, you help a GM who doesn't really know what numbers to assign, and breathe life into the world as a whole.

NewDM

2016-03-31, 09:31 AM

It's the "DM Fiat" part that I disagree with, which I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) is a dig at not having hard-coded DC's, or at least a few examples of hard DC's that can be used for extrapolation. I view hard-coded DC's as bad for the game after playing an excessive amount of 3.5, which as I said upthread leads to the game being played by the rules at the sacrifice of play in my experience.

DM Fiat, is the idea that different DMs will rule differently in the same situations. It also means that they may not rule correctly (or at least fairly or realistically).

For example: There is a 30' chasm the party is trying to jump over.
DM1: DC 15 I could probably jump that on a good day.
DM2: DC 20 That might be a little hard for people that aren't athletes.
DM3: looks up the world record for long jumps DC 30, the world record long jump is just short of 30'.

This is DM fiat. If all DMs were perfect and always right, then DM fiat wouldn't be a problem, unfortunately DMs are human and are prone to mistakes (yes, you can prone a DM in this edition).

Consider the following scenario, played in the first adventure of a new 4th level game where players and DM are experienced, but haven't played with each other before.

The characters are trying to move through a dungeon of unknown layout both as quickly as possible and while attracting minimum attention from the dungeon's denizens. They approach a room that the DM describes as having two exits other than the one they entered from: there is a sturdy wooden door locked with an unexceptional-looking padlock as well as an opening at the top of a 20' ledge of worked stone.

Here's how the conversation might progress in a system like 5e where for most skills there is no included map of difficulties to in-game descriptions:

[Party Wizard]: "I can use magic to open the padlock, but it will cause lots of noise. [Party Rogue], can you open it?"

Player of Party Rogue (OOC): "[DM], how difficult does my character think it would be to open that lock? My character has expertise with thieves tools."

DM (OOC): "Your character thinks it would be hard."

[Party Rogue] (knowing that a hard check is DC 20, and that their character's +7 bonus means they have to roll a 13 or higher): "I'd have a good shot, but I wouldn't wager any money on it."

[Party Fighter] (eyeing the wall beneath the ledge, and knowing from the rules that a character successful at climbing it would require two rounds of climbing): "[Party Rogue], how long would it take you to try?"

Player of Party Rogue (OOC): "[DM], how long will it take my character to try to open the lock using his thieves tools? If I fail, am I allowed to try again?"

DM (OOC): "It will take a couple minutes to try. You're welcome to try again, but since each try uses up valuable time, you'll have to roll for each attempt."

[Party Rogue] (doing some mental math): "A couple minutes to give it a shot. 10 minutes and I can almost certainly get us through."

[Party Fighter]: "Climbing is a lot faster, let's do that."

[Party Wizard] (eyeing her 8 strength and lack of athletics proficiency): "I'm not so sure..."

Player of Party Wizard (OOC): "[DM], how hard does my character think it will be to climb the wall? She's not proficient. And do we roll just once to climb the wall, or twice since it's two rounds of climbing? And does failure mean we fall and take damage, or just have to try again?"

DM (OOC): "It's probably average difficulty, and in this case I'm only going to require one successful check. If you fail you'll take 1d6 falling damage, and have to try again, using up more time."

[Party Wizard] (seeing a 25% success chance and only 20 hp on her sheet): "...I don't think I can climb the wall on my own at all. [Party Fighter], think you can climb up and lower a rope?"

[Party Fighter]: "Sure, let's go."

All of the OOC interaction with the DM falls into the "Mother May I" category, because it's information that the players need in order to have their characters make informed choices, but it isn't provided by the rulebook. At a different table, the same in-game description with the same characters and players might well have resulted in the party deciding on a entirely different course of action, simply because different OOC answers would lead to different IC judgments. Of course, as the players and the DM become more familiar with each other, the number of "Mother May I" questions will decrease considerably, so long as the DM keeps good enough notes (or has good enough instincts) that the ruling are consistent.

By contrast, if 5e provided a default way to translate in-game descriptions into DCs, none of the questions for the DM would have been required, at the (considerable) cost of requiring the players to either consult the rulebooks or have quite a bit of system mastery. The same players/characters with a different DM would have made the same choices when presented with the same description. (If the DCs end up not matching the defaults, the only "Mother May I" question required of the DM is to ask whether the character is surprised by how difficult the task is in order to find out whether the DM is departing from the rulebook (the character would not be surprised) or whether there is some unseen factor influencing the results (the character would be surprised and thus inclined to investigate).)

See in the 4E skill system, the players would know that the DM shouldn't throw things at them that they don't have a chance at overcoming and would go ahead and attempt the door. In 5e they have no clue. If the DM decides to answer what difficulty it is they must do some mental probability math to determine how long it'll take to open the door.

I really wished they would have refined the skill challenge mechanic. They could have had a chart that shows the percent chance of failure when adding multiple checks. then said use as many checks as makes sense, but be aware you are squaring the difficulty each time you add a check. X number of checks equal Y amount of XP, or whatever.

It sounds like he misread the DMG. It says on p. 85 to avoid making fights tiresome, but that's in an entire section about how to use random encounters properly. The 6-8 encounters/day is a myth that has been repeated so often on the internet that many people automatically accept it as given. Mathematically, the recommended XP per adventuring days equals a range of from 3-16 encounters, not 6-8.

That said, however, if your group prefers a different game, then that's definitely what you should play. There's no game that can fit everyone's preferences.

DMG page 84, "The Adventuring Day" clearly says 6-8 encounters per day adjusting up or down for easy or hard encounters.

JoeJ

2016-03-31, 09:50 AM

DMG page 84, "The Adventuring Day" clearly says 6-8 encounters per day adjusting up or down for easy or hard encounters.

Read the whole section. It says "can handle" not "should have." It's giving an example where all the encounters are medium or hard, not a recommendation that they should be. The paragraph goes on to say that they can handle more encounters if some are easy and fewer if some are deadly.

The actual recommendation is two paragraphs further on, where it tells you to use the Adventuring Day XP table. The range of 3-16 comes from dividing the values in this table with the corresponding values in the XP Threshold table. (Apart from internet discussions, there's no reason for a DM to actually do that division, though. Just add up the XP from the encounters you're thinking of actually using.)

NewDM

2016-03-31, 10:22 AM

Anyone who comes from 3e to 5e is going to run into the problem of "not enough info for skills". It's a given. It was the same coming from 3e to 4e. Because 3e puts you in this mindset DCs are specific values set for some specific listed thing. As if the rules for the game are a physics engine for the in-game reality.

The few times I've had a DM not do that, I've immediately asked that he start. Assuming it's something that my PC could reasonable judge the difficulty of in advance of course. So far none have objected. IMO that's critical to playing 5e, and implicit to the rules. Without it, you're basically tossing the ability of the players to judge actions in advance out the window.

The DM should be doing that automatically, without waiting for players to ask for the info, whenever he's making a description.

Unfortunately, the DMG doesn't tell DMs to do that. I'm with the AngryGM on this. The DMG should tell DMs how to run their game right. (http://www.madadventurers.com/angry-rants-creating-gms/). Unfortunately it doesn't.

Still 100+ pages of codified spells is better then 10-20 pages of codified skills? Maybe not even that much.

But lets say you get your wish, and have a open magic system described as detailed as 5e's skill system. What would be left of the rules then? It doesn't look to me like you would have much of a system left. Why would you pay WotC any money for nothing?

Anyone can make things up. Its not a hallmark of any system that it lets you make things up.

I gave you a example of where the DM had to think long and hard about the rulings he makes to keep a scene barely going forward. I invite you, or anyone else reading this thread, to offer a counter example of where using Mother May I to deal with 5e skills, made a scene or encounter better.

The problem here is that the 5e skill system works in groups that know each other well. It does not work in groups that do not know each other well. Its really as simple as that.

Read the whole section. It says "can handle" not "should have." It's giving an example where all the encounters are medium or hard, not a recommendation that they should be. The paragraph goes on to say that they can handle more encounters if some are easy and fewer if some are deadly.

The actual recommendation is two paragraphs further on, where it tells you to use the Adventuring Day XP table. The range of 3-16 comes from dividing the values in this table with the corresponding values in the XP Threshold table. (Apart from internet discussions, there's no reason for a DM to actually do that division, though. Just add up the XP from the encounters you're thinking of actually using.)

Unless you want to TPK the party, you generally want to give them things they "can handle". Both of those sections work together. You want to create 6-8 encounters that use the adventuring day xp table. You can deviate with more easy encounter or less hard encounters, but if you go outside the 6-8 range you are risking a TPK.

Some DMs they don't care. If the players get into more than 6-8 fights per day, then they deserve to die. Others like keeping their players alive, regardless. Most fall within the range of not putting the players in enough danger to die, unless they do something stupid like charge a camp of 100-200 dragon worshipers and try to rescue a half-elf monk.

JoeJ

2016-03-31, 10:33 AM

Unless you want to TPK the party, you generally want to give them things they "can handle". Both of those sections work together. You want to create 6-8 encounters that use the adventuring day xp table. You can deviate with more easy encounter or less hard encounters, but if you go outside the 6-8 range you are risking a TPK.

<sigh> It's an example. Saying that a group can handle A is not saying that it can't handle B. Nowhere does it tell you to create 6-8 encounters/day using the table. That would make the table pointless; you don't need it if you're going to stay within that narrow a range.

Giving a group 6-8 medium to hard encounters is one way to reach the XP/day. It is not the only way. It is also not the recommended way because there is no recommended way. Again, an example is not the same thing as a recommendation.

Pex

2016-03-31, 12:10 PM

This is one of the ways that I think 5e is so much better than 3.PF. In my younger days I did a lot of rock climbing, and the idea of having a default difficulty for a "typical" rough surface or smooth surface or whatever is absurd. There are no typical surfaces; every situation is unique.

And for all the extra numbers and detail, it doesn't reduce the amount of DM fiat in the slightest. In 5e the DM picks an arbitrary number for the DC. In 3.PF the DM picks an arbitrary type of wall and looks up a number. Or rather, looks up a bunch of numbers and adds them together. But there's no more of the consistency you seem to want. It still depends on who is DM and how they choose to describe the wall.

PCs are doing stuff better than Olympians and professionals by level 5 or so. It's a game, not real life.

The point of the tables are guidelines. It's not so necessary for the DM to concern himself with minutiae of details since the tables do that for him. A 5E DM could say this wall climb is DC 15, this other one is DC 18, that one is DC 20 despite them all being a wall of worked stone because they're technically different walls. The adding of Advantage (corner) or Disadvantage (slippery) is arbitrary on DM whim as the game discussed in general of game play about whether to apply such a roll modifier based on player ideas and/or environment conditions. That inconsistency is the "Mother May I". Of course it's impossible to have a table describe every possible wall imaginable, but it's not necessary. They give a brief outline of an example description a DM can use to set a DC so the DM doesn't have to be a real life engineer to figure out wall construction. Same for the player so he knows how well or not his character can climb walls in general.

mgshamster

2016-03-31, 12:31 PM

Read the whole section. It says "can handle" not "should have." It's giving an example where all the encounters are medium or hard, not a recommendation that they should be. The paragraph goes on to say that they can handle more encounters if some are easy and fewer if some are deadly.

The actual recommendation is two paragraphs further on, where it tells you to use the Adventuring Day XP table. The range of 3-16 comes from dividing the values in this table with the corresponding values in the XP Threshold table. (Apart from internet discussions, there's no reason for a DM to actually do that division, though. Just add up the XP from the encounters you're thinking of actually using.)

Huh. I've been parroting that line for a while now. Thanks for showing I was wrong and giving the correct information. Guess that's what I get for not fully analyzing the section myself.

Mr.Moron

2016-03-31, 12:36 PM

Every river is unique too, should we get rid of Swim guidelines? You seem to be arguing against all abstraction in games, which is a nonsensical position. "Typical" in this context doesn't mean "every rough edifice is exactly the same" - it means "Unless the GM wants to make this specific wall special in some way, here is a rough guideline you can throw out if the player wants to climb."

In general. Yes. Broadly speaking what I like most in games is some broad measuring stick for what stats mean and some small guidelines on what difficulties mean. I don't really tend to enjoy getting bogged down in the minutiae of this thing X is so hard, but maybe it'll it change or whatever. I'm happiest when systems look something like this

Skill Level:
0 - Incompetent: Inept. Performs exceptionally poorly, even simple or easy tasks can present a challenge.
5 - Raw. Untrained or Untalented. Can perform easy or simple tasks reliably in most circumstances, and more difficult ones with extra effort or luck.
10 - Advanced. Training or Exceptional talent. Easy and simple tasks are trivial in most circumstances and can still be done reliable under pressure. Difficult tasks are can be done reliably in most circumstances.
15 - Exceptional: Among the best of the best. All tasks but the most complex are trivial, and even difficult tasks can be done reliable when under pressure.

Challenge Level:
0 - Trivial: Something that only truly inept could screw up in most circumstances, others only under pressure or in extreme circumstances.
5 - Simple: Something anyone can do with some effort. Easy for those with training or experience and trivial for experts
10 - Moderate: Difficult or impossible do without training or talent. Advanced training or talent can make these tasks quite easy, except when under pressure.
15 - Hard: Only possible with training or special talent. Challenging even for those with a good deal of training or talent, especially under pressure.
20 - Insane: Very hard, even with training or talent. Only the most exceptional individuals can do these reliably and even then they're never trivial under pressure.

Swimming

This skill is used for swimming. Staying afloat or paddling is trivial, and most manoeuvring is a simple task. Moving water, poor visibility, and weather can all make this more challenging. At the most extreme rapids, unusual liquids and supernatural conditions can make swimming a monumental task.

Once systems start to get more detailed than that I start to feel a bit weighed down, at least for a pure RPG experience. Tastes vary obviously but I like where 5e is at by default. You get some rough descriptions of what difficulties are, some descriptions of the skills and even a few NPCs to check relative strengths against.

JoeJ

2016-03-31, 12:53 PM

PCs are doing stuff better than Olympians and professionals by level 5 or so. It's a game, not real life.

The point of the tables are guidelines. It's not so necessary for the DM to concern himself with minutiae of details since the tables do that for him. A 5E DM could say this wall climb is DC 15, this other one is DC 18, that one is DC 20 despite them all being a wall of worked stone because they're technically different walls. The adding of Advantage (corner) or Disadvantage (slippery) is arbitrary on DM whim as the game discussed in general of game play about whether to apply such a roll modifier based on player ideas and/or environment conditions.

Exactly! That's what makes 5e so much better IMO. The DM is free to simply set the DC to whatever they think it should be in that specific situation without having to look anything up.

That inconsistency is the "Mother May I". Of course it's impossible to have a table describe every possible wall imaginable, but it's not necessary. They give a brief outline of an example description a DM can use to set a DC so the DM doesn't have to be a real life engineer to figure out wall construction.

You've got it backwards. In 3.5, the DM has to play engineer and figure out how the wall is constructed so they can look up in a table what the base DC is, then figure out all the modifiers that apply. In 5e the DM just decides straight out how hard they want the climb to be and they're done.

Same for the player so he knows how well or not his character can climb walls in general.

There's no such thing as climbing walls in general. That's purely a game concept in 3.5 that doesn't make sense from either a simulation or a narrative POV. In real life I look at the specific wall I'm thinking of climbing (find out from the DM what the difficulty is), compare it in my mind to walls I've climbed in the past (look at the bonus on my character sheet), and decide on that basis whether or not I should attempt to climb this one.

I think you're still working under the assumption that there is a "correct" DC that the DM is supposed to figure out, but that's not the case. It's a wall the DM made up, so there isn't one right answer. No DC is more correct than any other.

Tanarii

2016-03-31, 12:55 PM

Unfortunately, the DMG doesn't tell DMs to do that. I'm with the AngryGM on this. The DMG should tell DMs how to run their game right. (http://www.madadventurers.com/angry-rants-creating-gms/). Unfortunately it doesn't.lol I love reading his rants. :)

I agree, it's fairly important to communicate approximate difficulty that character's can reasonably judge and it's left out. I can think of several reasons why. The most likely is the designers assumed that in-game, characters generally can't judge accurately their chance of success in the majority of cases, beyond "target DCs are usually in the range of 10 to 20".

Personally I'm okay with the DM's judgement on what my character can accurately judge the difficulty on and what he can't, so long as he actually takes the time to consider it and supply some info when it is possible to make that judgement, based on information my character knows. Because IRL the only realistic way to know how good you are at a specific situation is that you've encountered it before. And even then, you might be able to make only a very rough judgement, or get it very wrong.

Tehnar

2016-03-31, 04:23 PM

I'm not making the same value judgements you are. I'm celebrating what has gone my way, not lamenting the things I dislike. 5e skills are a step in the right direction for me. 5e magic is too. That they are not perfect isn't something I'm inclined to worry about. I just enjoy what benefits there are.

And with your regard to making things up, well, that's precisely what all these games are about. You just make things up within a framework provided by the rules. But framework informs that imagination. Dungeon World and Microscope are very light games compared to D&D, I offer them as examples.

Regarding your examples, I thought I had explained in my reply that what you considered difficult to navigate, I viewed as quick and easy choices. This is because we are approaching the game from different perspectives. I don't view a single one of the questions you raised as necessary, because my players don't play that way. It's not about trying to use the 5e system to replicate the effect of a hard-coded DC in the thick of things, which is what your examples lead to. The player informs the narrative by their actions, not by rolling a die. They choose based on their natural talents and listening to descriptions what the path of least resistance is rather than asking for every possible DC. Besides, several of the things you mention are contests. There are no DC's. Asking for a DC to override agency of the actors on the stage is exactly the problem I have with 3.5. The game is servicing the rules in those cases, not the other way around.

Sorry for the garbled thoughts, I'm in a rush at the moment to prep for my game tonight. :smallsmile:

The players are asking the DM for possible actions because they don't know what kind of success rates will their actions have. They just want to make a informed decision since the very lives of their characters are at stake.

Its good if a character that writes good at athletics on the character sheet (by being proficient in athletics and having a high strength) that actually corresponds to mechanics playing out that he is good at athletics.

Your example assumed a passive DM. One that the players had to go to with each and every thing they wanted to investigate and know the check result for.

It's possible for DMs to be an active voice, and describe how difficult various things look while describing what they are. Especially for something like a chasm to pass or a wall to scale or a lock to pick or a disabling a trap that was just found.

You have some danger of the DM steering the direction of player activity that way, because they aren't going to be able to cover all the possible player actions and many players will focus on the DM suggested options. But a passive DM is mother-may-I no matter what system you're playing with. It's 20 questions to guess what the hell the DM wants from you to proceed.

I do not want to steer the direction of player activity at all as a DM. I want defined DC's (for lack of a better term) because they make DM easier, not harder.

If common adventurer actions have defined DCs then I as a DM are free to set a scene without worrying how the players will interact with it. There are rules already for that, so I don't have to concern myself with the implications of a 30' wide pit, either during the prep time or taking time apart during session to determine if some of the PCs can make the jump.

I can use this extra time during prep to come up with more personalities for the NPCs, determine what tactics they will use, flesh out the world more. During session, while the players are considering what their characters are trying to do, I can catch a breather, or describe the sounds a raging horde of hobgoblins is making as it descends on them instead of answering questions "what does my character think he can do".

Also I do not need DCs to be very precise, I just need a defined scope of a task. For example, with a DC 20 athletics check you can jump twice your normal jump distance, break a iron door or climb at full speed and similar tasks.

Everyone can attempt to hit an orc with a longsword, but a Paladin is appreciably better at it than a wizard, even an elf wizard. There's no shortage of mechanical differentiation between characters for skills. In fact, it's stretched to its absolute limit by expertise with Point Buy or Standard Array stats, and certain class abilities can still break that threshold. Abilities like Guidance, Reliable Talent, Glibness, Pass Without Trace, and Bardic Inspiration. Otherwise, the worst of the worst has a -1 (deception, for example) and the best of the best has +17 (insight, for example), so if there's a contest, there's a 1/400 chance for the stars to align and the worst first to roll a 19 (20-1) and the best second to roll an 18 (1+17).

Allowing everyone to participate was a goal. You can disagree with that goal but don't call it LOLRANDOM or decry the meaningless of effort. That kind of inflammatory hyperbole is unwarranted.

Of course there's still some things you can't do without some specialization and/or teamwork. You can't use thieves' tools without proficiency, for example.

That the best possible level 20 skill modifier against the worst possible one at character creation still allows you to lose 1/400 of the time speaks volumes of the mechanical differentiation between character skills. When during most of the character careers the difference will be smaller then 10, and often as little 4 to 6 the system truly is LOLRANDOM. You are deceiving yourself if you think otherwise, and that is mathematically proveable.

Combat is not LOLRANDOM or DM fiat, because unlike skills you have:

Multiple rolls are required to resolve a combat; a small difference in modifiers for a single roll can mean a large difference for the end result.
Effects of rolls are defined.

Because of the above two reasons you can actually say that a fighter is better at combat then a wizard, and a elven wizard is better at attacking with a longsword then a human wizard. Modifiers that matter and defined consequences of actions.

Getting a roll of 25 when attacking a monster usually means you hit the monster. Rolling a 5 and 6 on greatsword damage means you did more damage. Having advantage on rolls to hit is a substantial bonus.

Rolling a 25 on your athletics check means "ask the DM what it means". Having advantage on a athletics check means "you statistically roll higher on your athletics check, but ask the DM what that means".

NewDM

2016-03-31, 04:40 PM

<sigh> It's an example. Saying that a group can handle A is not saying that it can't handle B. Nowhere does it tell you to create 6-8 encounters/day using the table. That would make the table pointless; you don't need it if you're going to stay within that narrow a range.

Giving a group 6-8 medium to hard encounters is one way to reach the XP/day. It is not the only way. It is also not the recommended way because there is no recommended way. Again, an example is not the same thing as a recommendation.

No where does it indicate that 6-8 is an example. Remember in 5E the fluff text is actually rules text.

You can actually use both guidelines. Or you can ignore the 6-8 encounters rule and have a few TPKs or cake walks. They do however work together, kind of like XP and CR work together to create an encounter. Not only do you want to keep the XP below a certain amount you also want to keep all creatures CR below the parties level. In the same way you want to keep to your daily xp budget as well as providing approximately 6-8 moderate encounters.

Exactly! That's what makes 5e so much better IMO. The DM is free to simply set the DC to whatever they think it should be in that specific situation without having to look anything up.

You've got it backwards. In 3.5, the DM has to play engineer and figure out how the wall is constructed so they can look up in a table what the base DC is, then figure out all the modifiers that apply. In 5e the DM just decides straight out how hard they want the climb to be and they're done.

There's no such thing as climbing walls in general. That's purely a game concept in 3.5 that doesn't make sense from either a simulation or a narrative POV. In real life I look at the specific wall I'm thinking of climbing (find out from the DM what the difficulty is), compare it in my mind to walls I've climbed in the past (look at the bonus on my character sheet), and decide on that basis whether or not I should attempt to climb this one.

I think you're still working under the assumption that there is a "correct" DC that the DM is supposed to figure out, but that's not the case. It's a wall the DM made up, so there isn't one right answer. No DC is more correct than any other.

The problem is that climbing a wall in real life requires hundreds of tiny skills that work together so the athletics skill and the climb check are also abstractions. Just like certain walls are grouped together as abstractions and have the same DC.

The "correct" DC is the one that the players have a chance to accomplish while at the same time challenging them, while simultaneously seeming to be believable to both the players and the DM, all while being fun. If the challenge is not possible for the players to succeed at, they shouldn't be rolling at all as per RAW. If the players are not challenged, then they shouldn't be rolling either, they should automatically succeed. It must be believable to both parties because if it is not, it breaks them out of the game and ruins their suspension of disbelief. It must be fun because what is the point if its not.

What this means is that groups that have the same expectations will not have a problem with 5E's skill system. Groups that do not (such as pickup groups and events with strangers) will have a problem as they are constantly knocked out of their suspension of disbelief.

Shaofoo

2016-03-31, 05:02 PM

PCs are doing stuff better than Olympians and professionals by level 5 or so. It's a game, not real life.

The point of the tables are guidelines. It's not so necessary for the DM to concern himself with minutiae of details since the tables do that for him. A 5E DM could say this wall climb is DC 15, this other one is DC 18, that one is DC 20 despite them all being a wall of worked stone because they're technically different walls. The adding of Advantage (corner) or Disadvantage (slippery) is arbitrary on DM whim as the game discussed in general of game play about whether to apply such a roll modifier based on player ideas and/or environment conditions. That inconsistency is the "Mother May I". Of course it's impossible to have a table describe every possible wall imaginable, but it's not necessary. They give a brief outline of an example description a DM can use to set a DC so the DM doesn't have to be a real life engineer to figure out wall construction. Same for the player so he knows how well or not his character can climb walls in general.

And this is bad, why?

I am having a hard time trying to think of a reason why is having DMs choose their own DCs (within reason that is set by the book so they shouldn't be pulling DC 50) is somehow bad. If you want consistency then stick with one DM and learn his ways. The fact that you still fail to mention how is this not a problem in PF and 3.x that also has DMs set their DCs as well, 3.x can be just as inconsistent as in 5e, only difference is that you had a table to help you better visualize (if the DM didn't just throw the table away because he can).

It might be a problem if you value consistency but I don't see a problem having to ask DMs for clarification.

Rolling a 25 on your athletics check means "ask the DM what it means". Having advantage on a athletics check means "you statistically roll higher on your athletics check, but ask the DM what that means".

You know, I never ever had someone first roll a check and then ask what it means.

Usually there is a situation and then we say we do X and then roll the relevant skill and depending on the roll we pass or fail and the consequences occur.

I never had anyone suddenly go "I roll Athletics... 25! so what happens?" Usually is "Okay so I'll try to really focus on my jump... 25, do I make it?" or "I'll try to swim through this rapids... 25, is that good enough?". People might say I roll X skill but then they say the reason why they are using the skill. Never is a skill rolled without reason.

Most of the time when there is a roll then there is a pass and fail condition already applied, we don't roll dice unless there is a purpose.

JoeJ

2016-03-31, 05:15 PM

No where does it indicate that 6-8 is an example. Remember in 5E the fluff text is actually rules text.

You can actually use both guidelines. Or you can ignore the 6-8 encounters rule and have a few TPKs or cake walks. They do however work together, kind of like XP and CR work together to create an encounter. Not only do you want to keep the XP below a certain amount you also want to keep all creatures CR below the parties level. In the same way you want to keep to your daily xp budget as well as providing approximately 6-8 moderate encounters.

I've explained the best I can. Having more or fewer than 6-8 encounters does not suddenly create a TPK as long as you stay within the Adventuring Day XP and the XP Thresholds guidelines. But play however you want.

The "correct" DC is the one that the players have a chance to accomplish while at the same time challenging them, while simultaneously seeming to be believable to both the players and the DM, all while being fun. If the challenge is not possible for the players to succeed at, they shouldn't be rolling at all as per RAW. If the players are not challenged, then they shouldn't be rolling either, they should automatically succeed. It must be believable to both parties because if it is not, it breaks them out of the game and ruins their suspension of disbelief. It must be fun because what is the point if its not.

Which is exactly what you get in 5e. Bounded accuracy means that as long as you follow the rules for setting DC numbers, as given in both the PHB and DMG, you're not going to have a problem. In fact, if all you do is make up a number between 10 and 20 every time the players are faced with something that you feel shouldn't be automatic, the game works just fine. It really is just that easy.

Kurald Galain

2016-03-31, 05:38 PM

PCs are doing stuff better than Olympians and professionals by level 5 or so. It's a game, not real life.

Not by the rules, though; a level 5 PC is only 5% better than a level 1 PC. The only PCs that can reliably do "stuff better than Olympians" are top-level rogues and bards.

Pex

2016-03-31, 05:47 PM

In 5e the DM just decides straight out how hard they want the climb to be and they're done.

That's the "Mother May I?". It doesn't matter how my character is skilled at climbing walls. I can or can't based on the DM's whim at the moment and who is DM given the same character statistics for the purpose of climbing playing with a different DM.

In Pathfinder, I know a typical dungeon wall has DC 20 to climb. Based on my climb modifier I know how easy or hard it is to do for my character session to session, DM to DM. Given +11 to climb, my character knows how to climb walls. He can climb most walls easily (Take 10). The DM doesn't have to decide anything if this or that wall needs a roll or not. If I Take 10 and still fail to climb the wall, I know that wall is special provided I didn't know it was before the attempt, i.e. I didn't know it was slippery. Yes, the DM arbitrarily made that wall a higher than DC 20 climb, but there's a reason for it and not because of a whim or who the DM is. I do agree a jerk DM ruins everything regardless of skill system, so I'm presuming a non-jerk DM.

Not by the rules, though; a level 5 PC is only 5% better than a level 1 PC. The only PCs that can reliably do "stuff better than Olympians" are top-level rogues and bards.

I meant in Pathfinder, but I agree with your assessment which is a whole other problem I have with the 5E Skill System I just hadn't addressed.

Shaofoo

2016-03-31, 05:59 PM

That's the "Mother May I?". It doesn't matter how my character is skilled at climbing walls. I can or can't based on the DM's whim at the moment and who is DM given the same character statistics for the purpose of climbing playing with a different DM.

In Pathfinder, I know a typical dungeon wall has DC 20 to climb. Based on my climb modifier I know how easy or hard it is to do for my character session to session, DM to DM. Given +11 to climb, my character knows how to climb walls. He can climb most walls easily (Take 10). The DM doesn't have to decide anything if this or that wall needs a roll or not. If I Take 10 and still fail to climb the wall, I know that wall is special provided I didn't know it was before the attempt, i.e. I didn't know it was slippery. Yes, the DM arbitrarily made that wall a higher than DC 20 climb, but there's a reason for it and not because of a whim or who the DM is. I do agree a jerk DM ruins everything regardless of skill system, so I'm presuming a non-jerk DM.

A DM in 5e can give just as much reason for a certain DC like in PF, you are also assuming that the base DC for all walls is a DC 20 which is not true at all. Nothing in a DM's world should be taken for granted or typical unless you know the world. The walls can be perfectly smooth in every single dungeon, you can't tell what kind of dungeon any DM will bring.

A PF DM can change the DC using reasons, he can even change the base DC of the climb in general. You are just using the table as a false sense of security.

Kurald Galain

2016-03-31, 06:11 PM

A very good argument that I hadn't considered before this thread is that the lack of rules for skills slows down gameplay; it can easily bring a tense action scene to a halt as people stop to discuss or ask about rules.

I've played an RPG that didn't have rules for lava, of all things. The result was that whenever we encountered lava in an adventure module, the DM would halt the scene to explain what lava does today, and the effects ranged from an ignorable 5 damage per round to (rarely) instant death. Aside from that, sometimes it wouldn't affect movement, sometimes it would slow it by half, and sometimes it would require skill checks to get out of. Sometimes it could be removed by elemental/cold spells or skill checks, but usually not. And finally, PC elemental resistance would sometimes help, and sometimes not. You can imagine that this gets quite silly after awhile, and it slowed down gameplay every single time as we had to ask the same questions every time and get different answers.

Even without adventure modules, a DM who is consistent about these answers is effectively writing his own list of houserules (which should have been in the DMG in the first place), and a DM who is inconsistent is causing the same amount of slowdown.

If there's one thing I don't like in RPGs, it's having to interrupt an action scene to debate rules.

pwykersotz

2016-03-31, 06:18 PM

JoeJ

2016-03-31, 06:30 PM

In Pathfinder, I know a typical dungeon wall has DC 20 to climb.

I've visited castles (including castle dungeons), palaces, monasteries, pueblos, forts, historic houses, and natural caves. I have no idea which of the walls I've seen are "typical" so that's no help to me at all in setting the DC of some random wall in my dungeon. And what does DC 20 even mean? How hard would that be for me to climb?

Now if you tell me that easy, medium, and hard tasks for an average unskilled person are, respectively, DC 10, 15, and 20, I've got everything I need to set the DC for that wall.

Mr.Moron

2016-03-31, 08:16 PM

Which is funny, because I have the opposite experience. Too many rules slows down gameplay. Which is a corollary, not a counter to your point. Different playstyles and different expectations cause a different interaction with the rules.

This mirrors my experience. If a system has lots of rules generally both the players & GMs will want to use them properly. This is especially true for players where systems tend to gate character abilities & actions behind rules. However since few people on either side of the table tend to commit 100% of these to memory there is tons of slowdown, hemming and hawing, flipping of sheets, shuffling of note cards with a problem demands a solution outside the players typical tool box.

In contrast when you know for the fact the system has no concrete rules and only a general framework for resolving actions there's nothing to hem or haw over. The player tries something, you give the requirements for doing and unless your requirements are totally nonsensical or absurd they roll the dice and see how things shake out.

NewDM

2016-03-31, 09:22 PM

I've explained the best I can. Having more or fewer than 6-8 encounters does not suddenly create a TPK as long as you stay within the Adventuring Day XP and the XP Thresholds guidelines. But play however you want.

And I've read the entire chapter several times. There is literally nothing that indicates you are supposed to ignore the 6-8 encounters per day section. In fact the next paragraph that tells you to use the adventuring day xp table is formatted in exactly the same way. If 6-8 encounters is an example, then the whole book is an example and can be safely ignored.

Which is exactly what you get in 5e. Bounded accuracy means that as long as you follow the rules for setting DC numbers, as given in both the PHB and DMG, you're not going to have a problem. In fact, if all you do is make up a number between 10 and 20 every time the players are faced with something that you feel shouldn't be automatic, the game works just fine. It really is just that easy.

It in fact does work fine, for players and DMs with the same expectations. With players and DMs that have different expectations, it knocks them out of their suspension of disbelief and interrupts the fun as they discuss their differences or stew in silence if they go with the DMs lead. Either way that is a failure of the skill system for those players. I speak from experience. I've been on both sides of both experiences. I've played since early 2nd edition. I've seen a lot of things that newer players don't know about.

This mirrors my experience. If a system has lots of rules generally both the players & GMs will want to use them properly. This is especially true for players where systems tend to gate character abilities & actions behind rules. However since few people on either side of the table tend to commit 100% of these to memory there is tons of slowdown, hemming and hawing, flipping of sheets, shuffling of note cards with a problem demands a solution outside the players typical tool box.

In contrast when you know for the fact the system has no concrete rules and only a general framework for resolving actions there's nothing to hem or haw over. The player tries something, you give the requirements for doing and unless your requirements are totally nonsensical or absurd they roll the dice and see how things shake out.

Unfamiliarity with rules is a problem in any system no matter how simple. Just remember the first few times you played 5E. You were probably always flipping through the books or just making stuff up. The more you play, the more you flip through the books, the more you learn and the less you end up looking things up. Once you gain system mastery you almost never have to look something up and the game runs super smooth as long as the rules are well designed. If you have a system where something requires 20 questions with the DM, then that slows down people with system mastery.

mgshamster

2016-03-31, 09:48 PM

Mr.Moron

2016-03-31, 10:14 PM

Unfamiliarity with rules is a problem in any system no matter how simple. Just remember the first few times you played 5E. You were probably always flipping through the books or just making stuff up. The more you play, the more you flip through the books, the more you learn and the less you end up looking things up. Once you gain system mastery you almost never have to look something up and the game runs super smooth as long as the rules are well designed. If you have a system where something requires 20 questions with the DM, then that slows down people with system mastery.

This simply not the case in any meaningful fashion. While it's true one can be ignorant of simple rules the plan fact is that 300 page requires more memorization than 25, dozens of edge-cases an interactions are harder to grasp than a handful, and a general framework is easy to remain in adherence to (gain "System Mastery" of), than a system of sub systems. 5e might be simpler than 3.P & 4 but it's far from simple.

A system that say gave you some keywords about the magic you can do, some examples of magnitudes of magic effects and the numbers you need to hit to produce them but otherwise said "Whatever you can imagine" would require far less memorization and mastery than a long spell list like in D&D.

JoeJ

2016-04-01, 01:46 AM

And I've read the entire chapter several times. There is literally nothing that indicates you are supposed to ignore the 6-8 encounters per day section. In fact the next paragraph that tells you to use the adventuring day xp table is formatted in exactly the same way. If 6-8 encounters is an example, then the whole book is an example and can be safely ignored.

Since I never once claimed that anything should be ignored, I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

MeeposFire

2016-04-01, 02:26 AM

Not by the rules, though; a level 5 PC is only 5% better than a level 1 PC. The only PCs that can reliably do "stuff better than Olympians" are top-level rogues and bards.

Not exactly all the time. One interesting potential wrinkle in this set up is that since the DM sets the difficulty without a set defined table for many actions you can choose to change difficulties as you progress in the game to get the feel you want including making characters into "better than Olympic " athletes" or less than that at a given level.

For example at 1st level a certain action could be considered near impossible and you could set it at DC 25. At a later level you could declare that this climb, for this character or characters, is no longer an impossible climb but merely a difficult one and is now only DC 15. At higher levels this action is now very easy and give it an even smaller DC as you are now such a good climber.

This makes for a versatile system as it gives you two ways to influence the success rates to your groups liking. If you want to make super feats eventually possible allow the difficulty to change over time if you don't keep it static. Both are within the basic guidelines.

As for what each represents your prof bonus shows how your basic skill has increased (refinement of technique for instance) but your level changing the base difficulty is how your experience in doing said checks has influenced how difficult you find the challenge to be. For instance on a climb you may have been taught how to climb effectively but until you actually climb for a bit you might miss some environmental clues that can help you. As your skill bonus increases you get better at how to grip the wall, how to repel down a wall more smoothly, or how to catch yourself if you start to fall. As you gain experience (as in level in this game) you may learn to recognize dangers from past experiences and ways to counter them.

As a more direct example two level 20 characters want to climb the same wall which is in some way very unusual and therefor potentially difficult. One character has never climbed a wall like this before in his life. His experience lends him little help in climbing this type of theoretical wall. For this character the wall is difficult though he still has his prof bonus to help as even though he has little experience he does still have his refined basic skill set in climbing which helps. The other character has climbed this type of wall MANY times. For him the wall is of a lesser difficulty and he also gets to use his similar level of skill in climbing. Due to his greater familiarity with this type of wall his difficulty is lower so his chance of climbing the wall over the other character is higher despite being of equal skill in basic climbing.

IN other editions this situation would be modeled by giving some sort of bonus to the one climber and/or a penalty to the other climber. The changing of difficulty in many ways replaces this idea in 5e at least potentially. I could have chosen to give the one climber advantage or the other disadvantage but I chose not to since I could then save that if the situation changed such as if the inexperienced climber was the enhance ability spell for str.

Clearly this works better for certain types of checks more than others but it allows the DM to get what the game wants/needs without having big numbers which this edition tends to avoid.

Tehnar

2016-04-01, 04:22 AM

You know, I never ever had someone first roll a check and then ask what it means.

Usually there is a situation and then we say we do X and then roll the relevant skill and depending on the roll we pass or fail and the consequences occur.

I never had anyone suddenly go "I roll Athletics... 25! so what happens?" Usually is "Okay so I'll try to really focus on my jump... 25, do I make it?" or "I'll try to swim through this rapids... 25, is that good enough?". People might say I roll X skill but then they say the reason why they are using the skill. Never is a skill rolled without reason.

Most of the time when there is a roll then there is a pass and fail condition already applied, we don't roll dice unless there is a purpose.

So when your character has multiple options available to him (like lets say the decision to try a 30' jump or try to climb down faster then normal) what do you choose? In 5e, aside from asking the DM you have no idea if you will succeed or fail (or the probability of such), or if even success is possible. Thus play stops while players ask 20 question and the DM decides what difficulty he wants.

Zalabim

2016-04-01, 06:52 AM

Shaofoo

2016-04-01, 06:57 AM

So when your character has multiple options available to him (like lets say the decision to try a 30' jump or try to climb down faster then normal) what do you choose? In 5e, aside from asking the DM you have no idea if you will succeed or fail (or the probability of such), or if even success is possible. Thus play stops while players ask 20 question and the DM decides what difficulty he wants.

I don't know any situation where climbing down and jumping up leads to the same outcome unless it is a general running away from something. Context is key to everything. You might as well say you have multiple options (you have the option to threaten the life of a person, cheat out of the person or try to persuade the person) what do you choose?

Also you do have rules for jumping, you can long jump up to your Str Score so there is that. By the rules you can't reach 30' but you could ask the DM if it is possible to clear the leap with a check. If you know the DM is a stickler for rules then you immediately know that long jumping is impossible so your only recourse is to climb down. How hard or easy it is irrelevant because it is at least better odds than impossible if going by RAW. Unless the scale is over a smooth surface you should be able to scale even if the chance of failure is high because jumping was never an option.

This is assuming you have to do a leap or climb of faith (I am assuming you are running away). I would honestly always climb unless the climb itself is impossible due to the cliffs being one big overpass or I am carrying something in my hands that I can't just stash. If somehow both are impossible I just take the dive and tumble down to the cliffs. I'll probably take some damage and might even die but that is the situation that you gave me, I can't help a no win scenario.

I at most have to ask 2 questions to the DM but I also have an idea what I want to do first. I never go "Okay I reach the cliffs *rolls Athletics* what happens?" I go "Okay I reach the cliffs... I guess I'll climb back down *wait until the DM thinks how to resolve this, usually a couple of seconds especially if he is expecting it* Okay I'll roll Athletics"

I never had such an exaggerated outcome, even in the worst instances at most it took a minute for the DM to think of something and then we resumed play, I don't consider having to stop the game to check over things to be make or break, I consider it to be a part of the actual game where we have to reference things to make sure. It seems that any stop to check for notes or the books is just unacceptable to you. But then again you seem to be the kind to want to stop the game and try to do risk assessment before you do anything as well.

NewDM

2016-04-01, 07:05 AM

I've been GMing 5e for three months now. I was a player for two weeks before that. It's been over a month since I've had to reference the PHB for a rule during a session. In fact, only the first two sessions did we regularly open up the PHB for rules references. After that, the only time we've done it is to look up the conditions page in the back or for a player to look up the specifics of a spell.

I was the GM for our pathfinder games for roughly five years and a player for 1-2 years before that; there wasn't a single session where we didn't have to bust open the CRB/UM/UC/APG/etc or hit up the PRD for a rules reference (not including spells).

To claim that they both take some time to get used to the rules and acquire system mastery is a little like saying that both the local library and the Empire State Building are tall.

No one claimed they take the same amount of time. System mastery takes different amounts of time for different games, and different people. Most players and groups eventually reach system mastery just from playing and being familiar with the game at some point, might be 3 months, might be 3 years. My point was that once you have system mastery, stopping to play 20 questions with the DM slows the game down.

This simply not the case in any meaningful fashion. While it's true one can be ignorant of simple rules the plan fact is that 300 page requires more memorization than 25, dozens of edge-cases an interactions are harder to grasp than a handful, and a general framework is easy to remain in adherence to (gain "System Mastery" of), than a system of sub systems. 5e might be simpler than 3.P & 4 but it's far from simple.

A system that say gave you some keywords about the magic you can do, some examples of magnitudes of magic effects and the numbers you need to hit to produce them but otherwise said "Whatever you can imagine" would require far less memorization and mastery than a long spell list like in D&D.

No one made that comparison. See above.

Since I never once claimed that anything should be ignored, I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

You kept saying that 6-8 encounters was an example and the 'real' rules were below it. There is no indication that this is true in that chapter.

Not exactly all the time. One interesting potential wrinkle in this set up is that since the DM sets the difficulty without a set defined table for many actions you can choose to change difficulties as you progress in the game to get the feel you want including making characters into "better than Olympic " athletes" or less than that at a given level.

For example at 1st level a certain action could be considered near impossible and you could set it at DC 25. At a later level you could declare that this climb, for this character or characters, is no longer an impossible climb but merely a difficult one and is now only DC 15. At higher levels this action is now very easy and give it an even smaller DC as you are now such a good climber.

This makes for a versatile system as it gives you two ways to influence the success rates to your groups liking. If you want to make super feats eventually possible allow the difficulty to change over time if you don't keep it static. Both are within the basic guidelines.

As for what each represents your prof bonus shows how your basic skill has increased (refinement of technique for instance) but your level changing the base difficulty is how your experience in doing said checks has influenced how difficult you find the challenge to be. For instance on a climb you may have been taught how to climb effectively but until you actually climb for a bit you might miss some environmental clues that can help you. As your skill bonus increases you get better at how to grip the wall, how to repel down a wall more smoothly, or how to catch yourself if you start to fall. As you gain experience (as in level in this game) you may learn to recognize dangers from past experiences and ways to counter them.

As a more direct example two level 20 characters want to climb the same wall which is in some way very unusual and therefor potentially difficult. One character has never climbed a wall like this before in his life. His experience lends him little help in climbing this type of theoretical wall. For this character the wall is difficult though he still has his prof bonus to help as even though he has little experience he does still have his refined basic skill set in climbing which helps. The other character has climbed this type of wall MANY times. For him the wall is of a lesser difficulty and he also gets to use his similar level of skill in climbing. Due to his greater familiarity with this type of wall his difficulty is lower so his chance of climbing the wall over the other character is higher despite being of equal skill in basic climbing.

IN other editions this situation would be modeled by giving some sort of bonus to the one climber and/or a penalty to the other climber. The changing of difficulty in many ways replaces this idea in 5e at least potentially. I could have chosen to give the one climber advantage or the other disadvantage but I chose not to since I could then save that if the situation changed such as if the inexperienced climber was the enhance ability spell for str.

Clearly this works better for certain types of checks more than others but it allows the DM to get what the game wants/needs without having big numbers which this edition tends to avoid.

That's a nice house rule, but in 5E the DM is to determine if the action they are about to attempt is easy, moderate, or hard for everyone and they are supposed to use the same DC for everyone from the players to some random old man.

NewDM

2016-04-01, 07:19 AM

To bring this back around to the point of the thread:
Having a table is just a codified set of expectations. Setting your groups expectations defines what kind of fantasy you're running. Having the table means it only works for one kind of fantasy.

For example, one where you can fall off a knotted rope or rope ladder at level one and die because of Armor Check Penalties. Or one where Spider Climb lets you climb anything without needing any skill ranks, but you have to take off your gloves and boots. Or a different one where you can just climb up things at half speed unless there's some exceptional circumstance.

You can have a game where the Fighter kicks in the door because lockpicking takes too long, or one where the Rogue picks the lock as fast as the Fighter's noisier alternative.

In short, by setting your own expectations for your party, you decide how heroic or fantastic your game is, instead of having it decided for everyone. It's probably supposed to seem modular.

This only works if the DM and Players have the same expectation. If they don't, then it knocks them out of their verisimilitude or suspension of disbelief and ruins their fun. It might only be for a few moments, but it really can take away from the experience.

Unlike most here, I DM and play in online pickup games and at events where I'm playing with complete strangers. I run into differing expectations as a matter of course. In these cases the DM might be imagining a gritty campaign where the players are basically farmers that have picked up weapons, holy symbols, thieves' tools, and spell books and the players are imagining a mythic hero game where jumping 30' pits (world record) is what characters do for breakfast or vice versa.

I don't know any situation where climbing down and jumping up leads to the same outcome unless it is a general running away from something. Context is key to everything. You might as well say you have multiple options (you have the option to threaten the life of a person, cheat out of the person or try to persuade the person) what do you choose?

Also you do have rules for jumping, you can long jump up to your Str Score so there is that. By the rules you can't reach 30' but you could ask the DM if it is possible to clear the leap with a check. If you know the DM is a stickler for rules then you immediately know that long jumping is impossible so your only recourse is to climb down. How hard or easy it is irrelevant because it is at least better odds than impossible if going by RAW. Unless the scale is over a smooth surface you should be able to scale even if the chance of failure is high because jumping was never an option.

What if you don't know whether the DM is a stickler for the rules and you don't know whether the DM is playing a gritty or mythic game?

This is assuming you have to do a leap or climb of faith (I am assuming you are running away). I would honestly always climb unless the climb itself is impossible due to the cliffs being one big overpass or I am carrying something in my hands that I can't just stash. If somehow both are impossible I just take the dive and tumble down to the cliffs. I'll probably take some damage and might even die but that is the situation that you gave me, I can't help a no win scenario.

I at most have to ask 2 questions to the DM but I also have an idea what I want to do first. I never go "Okay I reach the cliffs *rolls Athletics* what happens?" I go "Okay I reach the cliffs... I guess I'll climb back down *wait until the DM thinks how to resolve this, usually a couple of seconds especially if he is expecting it* Okay I'll roll Athletics"

I never had such an exaggerated outcome, even in the worst instances at most it took a minute for the DM to think of something and then we resumed play, I don't consider having to stop the game to check over things to be make or break, I consider it to be a part of the actual game where we have to reference things to make sure. It seems that any stop to check for notes or the books is just unacceptable to you. But then again you seem to be the kind to want to stop the game and try to do risk assessment before you do anything as well.

See the problem is you think you can climb down. One DM might say its a near impossible check (DC 30) another might say its easy (DC 10). Your expectation is that you can climb down. The DM might have a different expectation, and that is the main problem with the 5e skill system.

mgshamster

2016-04-01, 07:28 AM

No one claimed they take the same amount of time. System mastery takes different amounts of time for different games, and different people. Most players and groups eventually reach system mastery just from playing and being familiar with the game at some point, might be 3 months, might be 3 years. My point was that once you have system mastery, stopping to play 20 questions with the DM slows the game down.

20 questions can happen in any game where the descriptions aren't good enough for the players to understand the situation.

But let's say you're right. Let's say "20 questions is 3 minutes of game time" and "Rule look-up is 5 minutes of game time."

I just made those numbers up, and I'm trying to exaggerate some things. In my experience, "20 questions" takes less than a minutes and often less than 30 seconds to convert the information required, whereas rules look-up has halted my game for up to 20 minutes. Let's also say that 5e system mastery is 3 months and PF system mastery is 3 years (you're numbers). Let's assume this happens 5 times per session. Let's also assume that there is no 20 questions in PF.

Over 5 years of 6 hour weekly game sessions, how much time are we spending on 20 questions vs rules look ups?

We have a total of 6*52*5 = 1560 hours of game time.

For 5e, we have 20 hours of system mastery, taking up 1.6 hours of game time for looking up rules and 1 hour for 20 questions. Then 77 hours of 20 questions over 5 years. Total game time over 5 years (1560 hours) of play dedicated to rules and asking 20 questions is 79.6 hours.

For PF, we have hours of rules look-ups over five years. 78 hours of rules-look ups for the first three years, then no game delay after that.

If you're playing 5e for longer than 5 years, then you're at a net loss of game time playing 20 questions over the years each session, every session.

If we use my experience for the numbers, 5e drops to 13 hours over five years (we barely spend more than 30 seconds playing 20 questions). But PF always took us at least 5 minutes for a rule look up, even after system mastery, and often took 10+ minutes. Rules look-ups took away 260 hours of gameplay over 5 years.

Tanarii

2016-04-01, 07:33 AM

Unlike most here, I DM and play in online pickup games and at events where I'm playing with complete strangers. I run into differing expectations as a matter of course.Thats not unlike most here.

What if you don't know whether the DM is a stickler for the rules and you don't know whether the DM is playing a gritty or mythic game?A DM should be setting expectations for a game, as well as getting a feel for player expectations That's part of DMing, it's in the DMG in several places covering several different aspects of expectations, and also the entire point of the OP.

Kurald Galain

2016-04-01, 07:42 AM

I just made those numbers up, and I'm trying to exaggerate some things.

Well, that makes your example not very practical, then.

mgshamster

2016-04-01, 07:47 AM

Well, that makes your example not very practical, then.

That's fair; I was trying to be fair to New GM. At the end of the post I used more realistic numbers, and it skews heavily in 5e's favor.

Shaofoo

2016-04-01, 07:55 AM

What if you don't know whether the DM is a stickler for the rules and you don't know whether the DM is playing a gritty or mythic game?

Then I ask him, could I break the rules with an Athletics check? I always ask what I want to do before I do anything. Is this such an unreasonable thing. If he will allow a longer jump with the check I will do so, if I can't then I climb down. It seems that people don't even want to ask one question to the DM.

See the problem is you think you can climb down. One DM might say its a near impossible check (DC 30) another might say its easy (DC 10). Your expectation is that you can climb down. The DM might have a different expectation, and that is the main problem with the 5e skill system.

If you were following the example basically I am being chased and the options are an impossible jump, an uncertain climb down or I get captured and die.

I don't think I can climb down, I have no choice. My expectation is that I hope to escape. You get to reveal a lot more when you look at things in the big picture and not in a sterile environment without context.

JoeJ

2016-04-01, 10:54 AM

You kept saying that 6-8 encounters was an example and the 'real' rules were below it. There is no indication that this is true in that chapter.

No indication except for the explicit instructions to use the Adventuring Day XP table, you mean?

And by what bizarre chain of twisted logic did you get from "this is one example of how you can do it," to "you're supposed to ignore this?"

What if you don't know whether the DM is a stickler for the rules and you don't know whether the DM is playing a gritty or mythic game?

Then either you and the DM failed to properly communicate expectations before playing. If you don't even know the basic premise and mood of the game, why are you playing?

NewDM

2016-04-01, 11:04 AM

20 questions can happen in any game where the descriptions aren't good enough for the players to understand the situation.

But let's say you're right. Let's say "20 questions is 3 minutes of game time" and "Rule look-up is 5 minutes of game time."

I just made those numbers up, and I'm trying to exaggerate some things. In my experience, "20 questions" takes less than a minutes and often less than 30 seconds to convert the information required, whereas rules look-up has halted my game for up to 20 minutes. Let's also say that 5e system mastery is 3 months and PF system mastery is 3 years (you're numbers). Let's assume this happens 5 times per session. Let's also assume that there is no 20 questions in PF.

Over 5 years of 6 hour weekly game sessions, how much time are we spending on 20 questions vs rules look ups?

We have a total of 6*52*5 = 1560 hours of game time.

For 5e, we have 20 hours of system mastery, taking up 1.6 hours of game time for looking up rules and 1 hour for 20 questions. Then 77 hours of 20 questions over 5 years. Total game time over 5 years (1560 hours) of play dedicated to rules and asking 20 questions is 79.6 hours.

For PF, we have hours of rules look-ups over five years. 78 hours of rules-look ups for the first three years, then no game delay after that.

If you're playing 5e for longer than 5 years, then you're at a net loss of game time playing 20 questions over the years each session, every session.

If we use my experience for the numbers, 5e drops to 13 hours over five years (we barely spend more than 30 seconds playing 20 questions). But PF always took us at least 5 minutes for a rule look up, even after system mastery, and often took 10+ minutes. Rules look-ups took away 260 hours of gameplay over 5 years.

I'd spoiler that if I knew how. Yes, my numbers were extreme examples. 3 years is for a bunch of 8 Intelligence players and DM that can barely read. In my experience (which might be exceptional) I had 3.5E memorized after less than 1 year, and I would rarely look up the rules during a session. Maybe once or twice in ten sessions. 5E, I'm relatively new to, thus my name. I've been playing 5e for about 1 month with about eight 4-7 hour sessions. I'm looking rules up about 1-2 times per session, but I've had several sessions where rules were not looked up. I can see gaining system mastery in 5E very quickly. Once that happens the only bogging down will be stopping to ask the DM questions.

Thats not unlike most here.

A DM should be setting expectations for a game, as well as getting a feel for player expectations That's part of DMing, it's in the DMG in several places covering several different aspects of expectations, and also the entire point of the OP.

Can you give some page numbers? I'm really interested in reading those things. I should try to read the PHB and DMG from cover to cover, but I'm not as young as I used to be.

Then I ask him, could I break the rules with an Athletics check? I always ask what I want to do before I do anything. Is this such an unreasonable thing. If he will allow a longer jump with the check I will do so, if I can't then I climb down. It seems that people don't even want to ask one question to the DM.

If you were following the example basically I am being chased and the options are an impossible jump, an uncertain climb down or I get captured and die.

I don't think I can climb down, I have no choice. My expectation is that I hope to escape. You get to reveal a lot more when you look at things in the big picture and not in a sterile environment without context.

Let me give you an example of play with annotations of where the fun disappears for me:

DM: "You have just finished grabbing the Orb of Infinite Undead from the Orc Shaman's clutches. You are now fleeing through the forest bleeding from multiple cuts and beginning to tire out. You can hear the orcs screams of rage and their battle cries whooping and hollering behind you. In front, you skid to a halt as you see a massive jagged chasm ripped into the earth. About 30 feet across you see the other side beckoning you to safety."
Player: "Gorgar the Brutish gets a running start and jumps across using his rippling muscles and athletic ability." (Gorgar is an 18 STR Barbarian)
(Player loses fun, DM changes from story mode to number mode)
DM: "Wait. you realize that you won't be able to jump that gulf even with a natural 20."
Player: "Do I have a chance of climbing down?"
DM: "Yes, you think it might be hard, but you can probably manage it."
Player: "Ok, Gorgar climbs down the cliff."

Opposed to a group that is on the same page or the DM and players have access to standard tables and rules that cover jumping and climbing.

DM: "You have just finished grabbing the Orb of Infinite Undead from the Orc Shaman's clutches. You are now fleeing through the forest bleeding from multiple cuts and beginning to tire out. You can hear the orcs screams of rage and their battle cries whooping and hollering behind you. In front, you skid to a halt as you see a massive jagged chasm ripped into the earth. About 30 feet across you see the other side beckoning you to safety."
Player: "Gorgar the Brutish, realizes that 30 feet is too far to jump and decides to climb down using the rough handholds of the jagged cliff face." rolls Strength (Athletics) check to see if they succeed.

In the second example there is not a break in the fun and the excitement and both player and DM are still 'in world' in their minds.

Vogonjeltz

2016-04-01, 11:07 AM

lol I love reading his rants. :)

I agree, it's fairly important to communicate approximate difficulty that character's can reasonably judge and it's left out. I can think of several reasons why. The most likely is the designers assumed that in-game, characters generally can't judge accurately their chance of success in the majority of cases, beyond "target DCs are usually in the range of 10 to 20".

Personally I'm okay with the DM's judgement on what my character can accurately judge the difficulty on and what he can't, so long as he actually takes the time to consider it and supply some info when it is possible to make that judgement, based on information my character knows. Because IRL the only realistic way to know how good you are at a specific situation is that you've encountered it before. And even then, you might be able to make only a very rough judgement, or get it very wrong.

Unfortunately the Angry DM is wrong in this case. The DMG absolutely does tell dms how to adjudicate situations, which is what running a game is, adjudication. Being a DM is about making judgment calls, not about being a fancy dictionary.

NewDM

2016-04-01, 11:15 AM

Unfortunately the Angry DM is wrong in this case. The DMG absolutely does tell dms how to adjudicate situations, which is what running a game is, adjudication. Being a DM is about making judgment calls, not about being a fancy dictionary.

Did you read the article? Because AngryGM gave several examples of questions he receives or sees all the time from new DMs that should be answered in the DMG, but aren't.

Xetheral

2016-04-01, 11:23 AM

Then I ask him, could I break the rules with an Athletics check? I always ask what I want to do before I do anything. Is this such an unreasonable thing. If he will allow a longer jump with the check I will do so, if I can't then I climb down. It seems that people don't even want to ask one question to the DM.

(Emphasis added.) Always asking your DM whether what you want to try is unreasonable qualifies as "Mother May I", and therefore your description of play would make the phrase a legitimate criticism of 5e for those who don't like that playstyle. Do you disagree?

Tanarii

2016-04-01, 11:38 AM

Can you give some page numbers? I'm really interested in reading those things. I should try to read the PHB and DMG from cover to cover, but I'm not as young as I used to be.Sure. Some of it is more implicit, other more explicit. And it starts right in the first few pages.

Page 4 & 5 Dungeon Master, and How to Use this Book, has all sorts of expectations stuff implicit in it.
Know Your Players on Page 6. That's literally about player expectations and how to engage those types of player.
Set the Stage and Involving the Players Page 26 talks about how to work with players (ie expectations) for campaigns
Play Style Page 34 - 36, Tiers of Play Pages 36-38, Flavors of Fantasy 38-41
Chapter 8 Running the Rules:
- Table Rules page 235
- The Role of Dice Page 236

The place I wish it was far more explicit talking about setting expectations is Chapter 8 Running the Using Ability Scores (pg 237 - 242). There's lots of fantastic stuff throughout that section relevant to this thread though.

mgshamster

2016-04-01, 11:51 AM

I'd spoiler that if I knew how. Yes, my numbers were extreme examples. 3 years is for a bunch of 8 Intelligence players and DM that can barely read.

Don't be insulting.

In my experience (which might be exceptional) I had 3.5E memorized after less than 1 year, and I would rarely look up the rules during a session.

Liar. I am flat out calling you on this. 3.5e had over 40 rule books; there is no way you had all those memorized in a single year. Even with the four books I listed from PF, I doubt someone could memorize everything in all four books - especially considering how convoluted some of the rules were (like grappling).

Maybe once or twice in ten sessions. 5E, I'm relatively new to, thus my name. I've been playing 5e for about 1 month with about eight 4-7 hour sessions. I'm looking rules up about 1-2 times per session, but I've had several sessions where rules were not looked up. I can see gaining system mastery in 5E very quickly. Once that happens the only bogging down will be stopping to ask the DM questions.

You say this as if asking the GM questions during the game in 3.X wasn't a thing.

Tanarii

2016-04-01, 11:55 AM

Unfortunately the Angry DM is wrong in this case. The DMG absolutely does tell dms how to adjudicate situations, which is what running a game is, adjudication. Being a DM is about making judgment calls, not about being a fancy dictionary.
I'm not in complete agreement with him on that particular article. But I still love reading his rants. :)

Vogonjeltz

2016-04-01, 02:48 PM

Did you read the article? Because AngryGM gave several examples of questions he receives or sees all the time from new DMs that should be answered in the DMG, but aren't.

No, he didn't do that in the linked article at all.

He did needlessly complicate the 3rd step of DMing (outcome and new situation), but he did not mention the DMG and lack of information in it.

MeeposFire

2016-04-01, 02:57 PM

That's a nice house rule, but in 5E the DM is to determine if the action they are about to attempt is easy, moderate, or hard for everyone and they are supposed to use the same DC for everyone from the players to some random old man.

Actually could you actually show a written rule about that because I just checked every instance about skills and that is not actually stated anywhere as far as I can see.

It says when a character wants to do something that requires an ability check the DM decides how difficult the check will be and assigns its DC based on how difficult the check is. As far as I can tell it never actually says that you then have to apply that same difficulty to everybody. I think that is a hold over from how it was done previously. The rules always seem to discuss it in reference to the one character making the ability check. So when character A wants to climb I decide a difficulty and then let him try to climb but when character B wants to go I need to assign a difficulty for him as well which may be the same but may not be due to different factors.

So as far as I can tell this is not a house rule just a more unusual way of utilizing the rules compared to how most have done it before.

Shaofoo

2016-04-01, 05:34 PM

Let me give you an example of play with annotations of where the fun disappears for me:

DM: "You have just finished grabbing the Orb of Infinite Undead from the Orc Shaman's clutches. You are now fleeing through the forest bleeding from multiple cuts and beginning to tire out. You can hear the orcs screams of rage and their battle cries whooping and hollering behind you. In front, you skid to a halt as you see a massive jagged chasm ripped into the earth. About 30 feet across you see the other side beckoning you to safety."
Player: "Gorgar the Brutish gets a running start and jumps across using his rippling muscles and athletic ability." (Gorgar is an 18 STR Barbarian)
(Player loses fun, DM changes from story mode to number mode)
DM: "Wait. you realize that you won't be able to jump that gulf even with a natural 20."

Yeah gonna stop you right there. You are automatically throwing flowery prose to misguide the situation entirely by placing a bad DM.

First the DM shows the other side beckoning him to safety only for him to basically do a Lucy and pull at the last minute by saying that he can't get to safety. Yeah that is just a bad DM right there.

Player: "Do I have a chance of climbing down?"
DM: "Yes, you think it might be hard, but you can probably manage it."
Player: "Ok, Gorgar climbs down the cliff."

So then... besides that one action where the DM tricked you where did you lose fun again cause it seems that the DM was more at fault than the game system.

Opposed to a group that is on the same page or the DM and players have access to standard tables and rules that cover jumping and climbing.

DM: "You have just finished grabbing the Orb of Infinite Undead from the Orc Shaman's clutches. You are now fleeing through the forest bleeding from multiple cuts and beginning to tire out. You can hear the orcs screams of rage and their battle cries whooping and hollering behind you. In front, you skid to a halt as you see a massive jagged chasm ripped into the earth. About 30 feet across you see the other side beckoning you to safety."
Player: "Gorgar the Brutish, realizes that 30 feet is too far to jump and decides to climb down using the rough handholds of the jagged cliff face." rolls Strength (Athletics) check to see if they succeed.

In the second example there is not a break in the fun and the excitement and both player and DM are still 'in world' in their minds.

Except you are horribly misguided.

5e does have rules for long jump. You jump as long as you have STR score. Both times Gengar Gorgar should know he can't make a 30 foot leap with his 18 STR, that is within the rules. You'd have a point if you could somehow extend the jump using an Athletics check but apparently because of the table Grognard Gorgar doesn't even think about it. Both times Torgdor Gorgar should have stopped cold and know he can't make the jump, you are saying basically that tables are better than 5e because you learned them and you haven't even bothered to learn 5e yet.

Also your second part is horribly misleading. Gargamel Gorgar was the one to say that he climbs down the cliffside using the handholds that the Dm never mentioned while in the previous case it was the DM that had to okay Grog to go down. How about this example:

Player: "Giselle Gorgar the Brutish, realizes that 30 feet is too far to jump and decides to climb down using the rough handholds of the jagged cliff face.

DM: Uhh... no you don't. You are actually standing over a sheer cliff that is quite impossible to climb down because there are no handholds. You can still climb down but that Athletics check that you roll... which I didn't even authorize... lets just say that Gibralta Gorgar will become one with the rocks if you decide to push ahead. I would've allowed a check to jump to that cliff that I was hinting at leading you to safety but hey you choose to basically leap off the cliff if that is your deal.

So basically your fun could only continue if you could lietrally do the DM's job and give you an out of your choosing.

(Emphasis added.) Always asking your DM whether what you want to try is unreasonable qualifies as "Mother May I", and therefore your description of play would make the phrase a legitimate criticism of 5e for those who don't like that playstyle. Do you disagree?

Yes, because it is the nature of the game. It just seems that this "legitimate criticism" is basically complaining a core concept of D&D. You seem to like to play a game where there are no DMs to ask anything. If you don't like "Mother May I" I can't even fathom how you even like D&D in general. Did D&D ever come with a nonDM version of the game (aside from the D&D Board Game, which I can vouch is a good system but you basically sacrifice all individuality).

It seems that people who do not want to ask DM either are playing the wrong game or are thinking of a particular case where a certain person you don't want to ask (Which isn't a game problem but a person problem, see bait and switch above for a bad DM). It is like going to a strip club willingly but yet you are squeamish looking at other naked bodies, I personally see it as pointless.

Xetheral

2016-04-01, 06:33 PM

(Emphasis added.) Always asking your DM whether what you want to try is unreasonable qualifies as "Mother May I", and therefore your description of play would make the phrase a legitimate criticism of 5e for those who don't like that playstyle. Do you disagree?Yes, because it is the nature of the game. It just seems that this "legitimate criticism" is basically complaining a core concept of D&D. You seem to like to play a game where there are no DMs to ask anything. If you don't like "Mother May I" I can't even fathom how you even like D&D in general. Did D&D ever come with a nonDM version of the game (aside from the D&D Board Game, which I can vouch is a good system but you basically sacrifice all individuality).

It seems that people who do not want to ask DM either are playing the wrong game or are thinking of a particular case where a certain person you don't want to ask (Which isn't a game problem but a person problem, see bait and switch above for a bad DM). It is like going to a strip club willingly but yet you are squeamish looking at other naked bodies, I personally see it as pointless.

There is a giant difference between asking a DM whether your character's proposed actions are unreasonable, and asking the DM for more details about the environment and then deciding for yourself whether your intended actions are unreasonable. The former is the poster child of "Mother May I", and I don't enjoy it. The latter I find to be immersive and interactive, and is exactly what I try to encourage at my table.

NewDM

2016-04-01, 06:54 PM

Don't be insulting.

I'm not. 8 is slightly below average. Like a bunch of students that get C's instead of B's. I'm not one to judge because in my youth I had a near photographic memory for books that I read if I were interested in them.

Liar. I am flat out calling you on this. 3.5e had over 40 rule books; there is no way you had all those memorized in a single year. Even with the four books I listed from PF, I doubt someone could memorize everything in all four books - especially considering how convoluted some of the rules were (like grappling).

We didn't play with the full 40+ books. Since nothing but PHB, DMG, and MM were core, the DM could allow or disallow other books at whim. In the games I played in, it was core books only with selected books allowed after the DM had read them. I think the only other book we played with was Book of Nine Swords. However I remember reading the core 3 in 2nd edition cover to cover and memorizing them. I could quote nearly every rule in the game word for word and when I couldn't, I could tell you what page it was on. 3E was similar. I rarely had to look something up.

I realize this isn't the norm. Most people have to look rules up all the time, but for people that can do what I've done, its the 20 questions that get in the way not looking up the rules.

You say this as if asking the GM questions during the game in 3.X wasn't a thing.

It wasn't for our group. Most players in my group knew the answer, very rarely did someone ask a question.

No, he didn't do that in the linked article at all.

He did needlessly complicate the 3rd step of DMing (outcome and new situation), but he did not mention the DMG and lack of information in it.

"Why don’t these games just accept that the GM is going to buy the first book. Or decide not to buy it. Sure, players will buy player supplements. But you’ve got to get them playing first. And that means you need a [...] GM. And you need to teach the GM first."

He kind of beats around the bush for a few paragraphs before saying that line there. (profanity omitted).

Actually could you actually show a written rule about that because I just checked every instance about skills and that is not actually stated anywhere as far as I can see.

It says when a character wants to do something that requires an ability check the DM decides how difficult the check will be and assigns its DC based on how difficult the check is. As far as I can tell it never actually says that you then have to apply that same difficulty to everybody. I think that is a hold over from how it was done previously. The rules always seem to discuss it in reference to the one character making the ability check. So when character A wants to climb I decide a difficulty and then let him try to climb but when character B wants to go I need to assign a difficulty for him as well which may be the same but may not be due to different factors.

So as far as I can tell this is not a house rule just a more unusual way of utilizing the rules compared to how most have done it before.

DMG page 238 "Sometimes you'll even want to change such established DCs. When you do so, think of how difficult a task is and then pick the associated DC from the Typical DCs table." It does not say "how difficult a task it is for that character"

Same Page "Most people can accomplish a DC 5 task with little chance of failure." That assumes a DC 5 task is the same for all characters as they fall into 'most people'. It goes on to say the same for all the different DCs.

239: "In other cases, you decide whether a circumstance influences a roll in one direction or another, and you grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result." This implies that you are meant to give characters advantage or disadvantage if they are especially good or bad at something, not change the DC.

There is a pretty good implication that you are meant to determine how hard something is for everyone (or rather for the average person) and then adjust it up or down with advantage/disadvantage.

Tanarii

2016-04-01, 07:02 PM

NewDM

2016-04-01, 07:11 PM

Yeah gonna stop you right there. You are automatically throwing flowery prose to misguide the situation entirely by placing a bad DM.

Not at all.

First the DM shows the other side beckoning him to safety only for him to basically do a Lucy and pull at the last minute by saying that he can't get to safety. Yeah that is just a bad DM right there.

No, he's letting the player know if they can get to the other side, they will be safe from the pursuers. He isn't pulling anything.

So then... besides that one action where the DM tricked you where did you lose fun again cause it seems that the DM was more at fault than the game system.

Where the player and DM had to discuss whether a jump was viable or not and whether climbing down was possible. It changed from descriptive action to number crunching and rules lawyering.

Except you are horribly misguided.

Please stop with the insults. They don't add to the discussion at all.

5e does have rules for long jump. You jump as long as you have STR score. Both times Gengar Gorgar should know he can't make a 30 foot leap with his 18 STR, that is within the rules. You'd have a point if you could somehow extend the jump using an Athletics check but apparently because of the table Grognard Gorgar doesn't even think about it. Both times Torgdor Gorgar should have stopped cold and know he can't make the jump, you are saying basically that tables are better than 5e because you learned them and you haven't even bothered to learn 5e yet.

Yes, 5e has rules for the long jump. Unfortunately all those tables and descriptions of what is possible is in the DMG, not the PHB. The average player isn't going to know that. In the PHB it just says "You try to jump an unusually long distance or pull off a stunt mid jump." which implies that the jump = strength in feet is without a check and you can exceed that by making an athletics check. Now maybe he would stop cold and think that he couldn't do it if the player had read the tables in the DMG, but he still would be asking if he could climb down the cliff because there are no DCs about that.

Also your second part is horribly misleading. Gargamel Gorgar was the one to say that he climbs down the cliffside using the handholds that the Dm never mentioned while in the previous case it was the DM that had to okay Grog to go down. How about this example:

Player: "Giselle Gorgar the Brutish, realizes that 30 feet is too far to jump and decides to climb down using the rough handholds of the jagged cliff face.

You missed the part in the first description that talks about a 'jagged' cliff. Jagged implies handholds, and the player knows the DM meant a climb that is possible because they either have a table that mentions 'jagged' or they know the DM well enough to know when they use that word it means there are hand holds.

DM: Uhh... no you don't. You are actually standing over a sheer cliff that is quite impossible to climb down because there are no handholds. You can still climb down but that Athletics check that you roll... which I didn't even authorize... lets just say that Gibralta Gorgar will become one with the rocks if you decide to push ahead. I would've allowed a check to jump to that cliff that I was hinting at leading you to safety but hey you choose to basically leap off the cliff if that is your deal.

If your player knows you then they wouldn't try it. They would try the jump. This is what I mean when I say different and same expectations.

So basically your fun could only continue if you could lietrally do the DM's job and give you an out of your choosing.

Yes, because it is the nature of the game. It just seems that this "legitimate criticism" is basically complaining a core concept of D&D. You seem to like to play a game where there are no DMs to ask anything. If you don't like "Mother May I" I can't even fathom how you even like D&D in general. Did D&D ever come with a nonDM version of the game (aside from the D&D Board Game, which I can vouch is a good system but you basically sacrifice all individuality).

It seems that people who do not want to ask DM either are playing the wrong game or are thinking of a particular case where a certain person you don't want to ask (Which isn't a game problem but a person problem, see bait and switch above for a bad DM). It is like going to a strip club willingly but yet you are squeamish looking at other naked bodies, I personally see it as pointless.

Many players, like myself and others in this thread, like to have a general idea of our odds. We also think that our characters would be able to know those odds themselves so its not metagaming. Its in character knowledge.
"You recognize that it is an old rusy dwarven lock made for a 1297 skeleton key and can be tricked into opening by jiggling it and then sharply pulling down while picking it." Easy Lock
"The cliff is jagged with many outcropping rocks and cracks" Moderate climb

There is a giant difference between asking a DM whether your character's proposed actions are unreasonable, and asking the DM for more details about the environment and then deciding for yourself whether your intended actions are unreasonable. The former is the poster child of "Mother May I", and I don't enjoy it. The latter I find to be immersive and interactive, and is exactly what I try to encourage at my table.

This is just a play style choice. Some characters play the dice game "I use persuasion to get them to talk". Some like to do acting "Slick the Bard says 'I see you like aged elven wine as much as I do, do you know anyone in town that might have an early 1000's vintage? I'm kind of a collector see.'" Both are role playing because the player is putting themselves in the role of the character.

Xetheral

2016-04-01, 07:16 PM

Tanarii

2016-04-01, 07:46 PM

I started with 2e, and picking NWP for a character was one of the things I got most excited about. Ironically, I think the fact that it was often so hard to use NWP in play meant that the Mother-May-I didn't come up very much, whereas in 5e abilities checks (and thus skills) are commonplace so the problem arises frequently. (On the other hand, I may just be guessing... 2e was my first RPG and it was a long enough time ago that I don't remember it very well.)

You missed my point. 5e gives you a chance for success and failure, but you have some idea of the chance of success. You know your bonus. You know almost all checks will be DC 10, DC 15 or DC 20. (Or if your DM like's in between numbers, DC 10 to DC 20). So you have a range of chance of success, with a swing of 50% across the range.

Before skills, even when NWP existed as a straight ability check (modified) to succeed, the way you did things was describe what you wanted to do, and the DM decided what happened. There was no random factor you had some insight into. It was entirely in the head of the DM.

I know some players back then used to try to play 20 questions with the DM, trying to figure out what they could and couldn't do. Some super-passive DMs even encouraged that. But most of us just described what we were intending to do based on the best judgement of what the hell it sounded like the DM was telling us about the situation at hand, and trusted he'd try to be relatively fair in his adjudication. The same thing as works perfectly fine in 5e.

Either that or we just went full paranoid, and did everything both as carefully and quickly as we could, trying not get killed by gotcha traps while not getting jumped by wandering monsters. :smallbiggrin:

mgshamster

2016-04-01, 07:52 PM

You missed my point. 5e gives you a chance for success and failure, but you have some idea of the chance of success. You know your bonus. You know almost all checks will be DC 10, DC 15 or DC 20. (Or if your DM like's in between numbers, DC 10 to DC 20). So you have a range of chance of success, with a swing of 50% across the range.

Before skills, even when NWP existed as a straight ability check (modified) to succeed, the way you did things was describe what you wanted to do, and the DM decided what happened. There was no random factor you had some insight into. It was entirely in the head of the DM.

I know some players back then used to try to play 20 questions with the DM, trying to figure out what they could and couldn't do. Some super-passive DMs even encouraged that. But most of us just described what we were intending to do based on the best judgement of what the hell it sounded like the DM was telling us about the situation at hand, and trusted he'd try to be relatively fair in his adjudication. The same thing as works perfectly fine in 5e.

Either that or we just went full paranoid, and did everything both as carefully and quickly as we could, trying not get killed by gotcha traps while not getting jumped by wandering monsters. :smallbiggrin:

Yeah. "Skills" (non-weapon proficiencies) in 2e was based off the ability score. You passed or failed by rolling higher or lower than your ability score, plus or minus some modifiers. What that meant was entire on the GM.

There was no easy, medium, or hard difficulty. It was all the GM saying you could or couldn't or you had to roll (with your ability score being the DC).

NewDM

2016-04-01, 08:21 PM

You missed my point. 5e gives you a chance for success and failure, but you have some idea of the chance of success. You know your bonus. You know almost all checks will be DC 10, DC 15 or DC 20. (Or if your DM like's in between numbers, DC 10 to DC 20). So you have a range of chance of success, with a swing of 50% across the range.

Before skills, even when NWP existed as a straight ability check (modified) to succeed, the way you did things was describe what you wanted to do, and the DM decided what happened. There was no random factor you had some insight into. It was entirely in the head of the DM.

I know some players back then used to try to play 20 questions with the DM, trying to figure out what they could and couldn't do. Some super-passive DMs even encouraged that. But most of us just described what we were intending to do based on the best judgement of what the hell it sounded like the DM was telling us about the situation at hand, and trusted he'd try to be relatively fair in his adjudication. The same thing as works perfectly fine in 5e.

Either that or we just went full paranoid, and did everything both as carefully and quickly as we could, trying not get killed by gotcha traps while not getting jumped by wandering monsters. :smallbiggrin:

If I recall correctly both the PHB and the DMG had all kinds of tables full of modifiers and even had flat out numbers you had to roll similar to DCs. I don't have my 2E books, so I can't check this.

Shaofoo

2016-04-01, 08:48 PM

There is a giant difference between asking a DM whether your character's proposed actions are unreasonable, and asking the DM for more details about the environment and then deciding for yourself whether your intended actions are unreasonable. The former is the poster child of "Mother May I", and I don't enjoy it. The latter I find to be immersive and interactive, and is exactly what I try to encourage at my table.

It seems to me that the difference is the kind of question being asked. In this case "Mother may I" is basically 100% the player's fault. It seems to me that apparently the best thing to do is to be sure of the kind of questions that you ask and you should be fine.

Not at all.

No, he's letting the player know if they can get to the other side, they will be safe from the pursuers. He isn't pulling anything.

Yeah I don't think I'll be able to say much, you were trying to pull a bait and switch and it failed. Quite frankly I don't think any further discussion is necessary since you basically deflected all my points with nothing of note.

Please stop with the insults. They don't add to the discussion at all.

I am not insulting you, calling someone misguided isn't an insult. And you are to talk about adding to the discussion the way you basically disregarded my points.

Yes, 5e has rules for the long jump. Unfortunately all those tables and descriptions of what is possible is in the DMG, not the PHB.

PHB page 182, that is where there is the rules for Long Jump.

The average player isn't going to know that.

I would believe the average player would read the book instead of throwing their hands in the air and huffing. It can be easily found in the index.

You missed the part in the first description that talks about a 'jagged' cliff. Jagged implies handholds, and the player knows the DM meant a climb that is possible because they either have a table that mentions 'jagged' or they know the DM well enough to know when they use that word it means there are hand holds.

Nope, not at all, jagged means sharp rocks. If you can show me a place where jagged = having hand holds all the time I'd like to see it.

If your player knows you then they wouldn't try it. They would try the jump. This is what I mean when I say different and same expectations.

If my players know me then when I used the word beckons to safety they might try to jump an apparent impossible length because I am not going to pull a bait and switch and try to lead them to their doom. I am not that kind of DM. Even if the check was low I would probably say they are able to hold on to the other side but the orb falls.

Many players, like myself and others in this thread, like to have a general idea of our odds. We also think that our characters would be able to know those odds themselves so its not metagaming. Its in character knowledge.

Then ask your DM, or is that suddenly taboo? Seems to me that the only way you want this is if you want to set the odds yourself the way you self narrated the preferred action.

It just seems to me that you don't know much about the game yet wish to complain about it because it doesn't have things that you like.

mgshamster

2016-04-01, 08:55 PM

If I recall correctly both the PHB and the DMG had all kinds of tables full of modifiers and even had flat out numbers you had to roll similar to DCs. I don't have my 2E books, so I can't check this.

Because you claim to have a near perfect memory for what you read, I took you at your word and checked my copies of the 2e PHB and DMG.

The PHB has 1 (one) chart for non-Weapon proficiencies, and it lists their names, which ability score they're associated, and the modifier. Exactly as I stated above.

The DMG has 0 (zero) charts for non-Weapon proficiencies. It has some paragraphs on how to adjudicated NWP and how to make up new ones.

NewDM

2016-04-01, 09:06 PM

It seems to me that the difference is the kind of question being asked. In this case "Mother may I" is basically 100% the player's fault. It seems to me that apparently the best thing to do is to be sure of the kind of questions that you ask and you should be fine.

"Mother May I?" is no ones fault. It happens when players and DMs have different expectations about the game world, and how the rules interact with it.

Yeah I don't think I'll be able to say much, you were trying to pull a bait and switch and it failed. Quite frankly I don't think any further discussion is necessary since you basically deflected all my points with nothing of note.

Be nice. I had not intention of baiting and switching. I explained what I meant. You simply assumed you knew what it was. Move on please.

I am not insulting you, calling someone misguided isn't an insult. And you are to talk about adding to the discussion the way you basically disregarded my points.

I find it insulting when people call me misguided. That makes it insulting and now that you know that if you call me misguided, I might have to get the forum mods involved. I hear they don't take kindly to posters insulting each other.

PHB page 182, that is where there is the rules for Long Jump.

I would believe the average player would read the book instead of throwing their hands in the air and huffing. It can be easily found in the index.

The index is notoriously lacking. However the sentence I quoted says you can attempt something outside your normal jump distance. here let me quote it again "You try to jump an unusually long distance or pull off a stunt mid jump." This implies that you are jumping farther than your strength would normally allow.

Nope, not at all, jagged means sharp rocks. If you can show me a place where jagged = having hand holds all the time I'd like to see it.

You missed the part where the DM's and Players expectations of the game aligned, so the player knew the key word "jagged" meant "climbable".

If my players know me then when I used the word beckons to safety they might try to jump an apparent impossible length because I am not going to pull a bait and switch and try to lead them to their doom. I am not that kind of DM. Even if the check was low I would probably say they are able to hold on to the other side but the orb falls.

Then you probably wouldn't have said 'beckons to safety'. However that particular DM did and that particular player in the second example knew what the DM meant because they have the same expectations of the game. You seem to be missing the point of the example.

Then ask your DM, or is that suddenly taboo? Seems to me that the only way you want this is if you want to set the odds yourself the way you self narrated the preferred action.

It isn't 'taboo'. It takes time and shifts the focus of the game from the story and role play and breaks verisimilitude or interrupts suspension of disbelief or whatever you want to call it. It interrupts the fun.

It just seems to me that you don't know much about the game yet wish to complain about it because it doesn't have things that you like.

That's also insulting. I know the game pretty well. Half the people here are complaining about how they don't like the skill system. That's kind of the point of the thread.

Pex

2016-04-01, 09:14 PM

How people of you that feel that 5e is Mother-may-I would have played oD&D or BECMI? Did you enjoy it? If so, why is 5e better or worse? Because it didn't even have skills, at least not until years later with the RC.

How about 1e? At first it didn't have any skills at first other than Thief skills, which were intended to be used like 5e, only for things that couldn't be automatically done. Later the DMG added backgrounds (totally vague), then the Survival Guides added NWP, which were only slightly more specific.

Never played to comment.

2e was in the same NWP boat. It wasn't until 3e went wildly in the direction of simulation (while admittedly not getting anywhere near actual simulation) that the idea of specific & detailed rules for non-combat checks became a part of D&D.

2E was not much better. If you didn't have the proficiency you couldn't do it. Other times we had to make house rules. One I remember now is our own version of "Spot" where you had to roll less than or equal to the average of your Intelligence and Wisdom. Even so, you the player had to specifically say what you did. If the DM doesn't like what you say, too bad. You can never just search the room. You had to describe what you do and where you do it. As I mentioned earlier, my cleric was forbidden from treating an NPC for poison because I, the player, at the time really hadn't a clue how to treat poison in real life to describe what my character does.

I'm not bashing that. I *loved* 3e, exactly because of the skills system. Personally, I've since come to appreciate a rules-lighter systems because I find them much quicker and more flexible during play. But I was also very open to the idea of DM adjudication of the fly because of older edition. So I am curious if this attitude of mother-may-I arises specifically from people starting playing D&D with 3e or not.

3E Skill System in general was an improvement over 2E proficiencies. It certainly had its problems in skill point allocation, but more importantly the tables gave examples of tasks to judge whether or not your character could do something. Whatever the situation in the actual game, an analogy existed to compare DCs to help avoid bias of interpretation and expectation, accepting both the DM and Player are being Honest True within their own biases. Pathfinder improved the math of the system well enough for me but not well enough for some others and some to the point of resenting it, but that's a different topic.

While 5E does not go as far back as 2E, it is a step back into similarity. The lack of defined benchmarks of tasks forces DMs to use their own biases. Some see that as a great feature. I think it's a bug because it means my character's ability to do stuff is wholly dependent on the DM's whim, which can change from session to session and definitely from game to game playing with a different DM. The DC of the same task and how it's resolved changes depending on who is the DM. Also many skills aren't listed and have to be house ruled, and it doesn't take 3E experience to want them. Identifying a spell an enemy is casting in one such skill. It's a reasonable thing to want to know just for the sake of knowing so the players can respond. In a specific case, a wizard player may want to know to decide if he wants to cast Counterspell or not and at what level if he does. There have been a number of threads asking for methods on how to do it, and in some cases a DM is insistent he wouldn't allow it all. These differences from game to game on how to identify a spell being cast or even allowed to know is a major problem for me. Identifying a spell is just an example, not my whole issue. My whole issue is that this applies to any skill use.

NewDM

2016-04-01, 09:24 PM

Shaofoo

2016-04-01, 09:32 PM

"Mother May I?" is no ones fault. It happens when players and DMs have different expectations about the game world, and how the rules interact with it.

Except people treat it as the fault of the game and if you read the comment then you would know that it was all a question asked. Please read the entire context before replying to someone

Be nice. I had not intention of baiting and switching. I explained what I meant. You simply assumed you knew what it was. Move on please.

You intended to salvage yourself and try to prove me wrong. Maybe you could've just said you meant a different thing instead of trying to crow and think that I just couldn't understand you.

The index is notoriously lacking. However the sentence I quoted says you can attempt something outside your normal jump distance. here let me quote it again "You try to jump an unusually long distance or pull off a stunt mid jump." This implies that you are jumping farther than your strength would normally allow.

Your problem was that you thought the jumping was all DM fiat and no player rules except where I pointed that it is in the rules.

You missed the part where the DM's and Players expectations of the game aligned, so the player knew the key word "jagged" meant "climbable".

Still waiting on that reference there. You can't just hand waive it like that cause I don't see anywhere where it says that jagged = handholds if you are in sync with the person.

Then you probably wouldn't have said 'beckons to safety'. However that particular DM did and that particular player in the second example knew what the DM meant because they have the same expectations of the game. You seem to be missing the point of the example.

You're right, what is the point of the example?

It isn't 'taboo'. It takes time and shifts the focus of the game from the story and role play and breaks verisimilitude or interrupts suspension of disbelief or whatever you want to call it. It interrupts the fun.

Except it doesn't, that might be your perception but apparently this seems less problem with the system and just people who like different things.

That's also insulting. I know the game pretty well. Half the people here are complaining about how they don't like the skill system. That's kind of the point of the thread.

Yeah considering that you missed the rules of jumping I kinda referenced that part.

And you also kinda missed the part where I feel insulted that you basically disregard my points and ignored everything just to repeat your point, you didn't so much address them as simply ignore them and continue as if I was completely wrong, you obviously just wish to complain. I don't think any further discussion is necessary since you are now being offended, I don't think I can do much more discussion with you if you are so offended, please accept my apologies because that is so not my intent.

mgshamster

2016-04-01, 10:17 PM

In my experience (which might be exceptional) I had 3.5E memorized after less than 1 year, and I would rarely look up the rules during a session. .

I'm not one to judge because in my youth I had a near photographic memory for books that I read if I were interested in them.

First, I'm old now and my memory is not what it was when I was a teenager. Second I've forgotten most of 2e and 3e in favor of 4e and 5e.

Dude, if you're youth was when 3.5 was out, then you're younger than me. You can't claim old age as why you suddenly can't remember well anymore.

Xetheral

2016-04-02, 12:11 AM

It seems to me that the difference is the kind of question being asked. In this case "Mother may I" is basically 100% the player's fault. It seems to me that apparently the best thing to do is to be sure of the kind of questions that you ask and you should be fine.

Now I'm confused... you were the one saying that you always ask the DM if your character's proposed actions are unreasonable, and then went on to say that such questions are an inherent part of D&D. Now you're saying that asking the DM that kind of question is the players' fault? What am I missing?

Tanarii

2016-04-02, 12:40 AM

2E was not much better. If you didn't have the proficiency you couldn't do it. Other times we had to make house rules. One I remember now is our own version of "Spot" where you had to roll less than or equal to the average of your Intelligence and Wisdom. Even so, you the player had to specifically say what you did. If the DM doesn't like what you say, too bad. You can never just search the room. You had to describe what you do and where you do it. As I mentioned earlier, my cleric was forbidden from treating an NPC for poison because I, the player, at the time really hadn't a clue how to treat poison in real life to describe what my character does.
What you call house rules is what I call DM adjudication. It sounds like you had particularly bad experiences with it. Yes, some solid guidelines for the DM, and a consistent method for determining the results of many things your character knows how to do are a definite boon. And all recent systems of D&D have had those in the skills system. What they haven't all had is a strict, pre-knowable by the players, precise method of resolution. The reason for that is two-fold. To give the DM more flexibility, and to make the system rules light for easier adjudication in play. The assumption is still the same as it was since the beginning: the DM sets the scene, you choose how to interact with it, the DM adjudicates the resolution of those interactions.

3E Skill System in general was an improvement over 2E proficiencies. It certainly had its problems in skill point allocation, but more importantly the tables gave examples of tasks to judge whether or not your character could do something. Whatever the situation in the actual game, an analogy existed to compare DCs to help avoid bias of interpretation and expectation, accepting both the DM and Player are being Honest True within their own biases. Pathfinder improved the math of the system well enough for me but not well enough for some others and some to the point of resenting it, but that's a different topic.It also introduced rules complexity during play outside of combat. Although it simplified combat beautifully, at least at low levels. And led to a tendency to play the rules in deciding how to interact with the world, as opposed to playing the world and (if necessary) applying some kind of resolution. But the flip side of that was when resolution was necessary, at least more often than not there was rule for it. :) But the tendency to play the rules first also led to the detrimental ideas that everything required a check to do, and if there wasn't a specific rule for it you couldn't do it without first creating a specific rule for it.

While 5E does not go as far back as 2E, it is a step back into similarity. The lack of defined benchmarks of tasks forces DMs to use their own biases. Some see that as a great feature. I think it's a bug because it means my character's ability to do stuff is wholly dependent on the DM's whim, which can change from session to session and definitely from game to game playing with a different DM. The DC of the same task and how it's resolved changes depending on who is the DM. Also many skills aren't listed and have to be house ruled, and it doesn't take 3E experience to want them.If you can't trust the DM not to ruin the game when given power, why are you playing with him? The DM is there to adjudicate your interaction with the world after you declare your actions. Not merely to present a scene and sit back while you interact with it.

You're also alluding to what I just said: that somehow if there isn't a specific rule for it, you can't do it unless a specific rule is first created for it. That's what the 5e flexible Ability Check & DC system is there for. So the DM can make an on the fly determination of resolution if necessary. You don't need to 'house-rule' ... the DM determines if the action needs resolution, and if so uses the global rule system to cover it.

Pex

2016-04-02, 03:04 AM

What you call house rules is what I call DM adjudication. It sounds like you had particularly bad experiences with it. Yes, some solid guidelines for the DM, and a consistent method for determining the results of many things your character knows how to do are a definite boon. And all recent systems of D&D have had those in the skills system. What they haven't all had is a strict, pre-knowable by the players, precise method of resolution. The reason for that is two-fold. To give the DM more flexibility, and to make the system rules light for easier adjudication in play. The assumption is still the same as it was since the beginning: the DM sets the scene, you choose how to interact with it, the DM adjudicates the resolution of those interactions.

Problem was the 2E DMG advises the DM to say no to things. It's a fluke if one 2E DM forbids PCs to do stuff or just make it hard. Coincidence if two DMs. When it's many DMs who don't know each other, I have to think maybe it's the game and not my bad luck to play with only "tyrannical" DMs. I can at least say I have played with non-tyrannical 2E DMs and it was such a pleasure, but they were a rare breed back then.

It also introduced rules complexity during play outside of combat. Although it simplified combat beautifully, at least at low levels. And led to a tendency to play the rules in deciding how to interact with the world, as opposed to playing the world and (if necessary) applying some kind of resolution. But the flip side of that was when resolution was necessary, at least more often than not there was rule for it. :) But the tendency to play the rules first also led to the detrimental ideas that everything required a check to do, and if there wasn't a specific rule for it you couldn't do it without first creating a specific rule for it.

That's where Take 10 and Take 20 come into play so that there's no need to roll. Players and DM alike know if a PC can automatically do something. There is no second guessing or personal bias on what's reasonable for a character to do. The problem of the system is in how many skill points a particular character gets, not the method of resolution. 3E's cross-class cost was an abomination, to use my favorite word. Pathfinder getting rid of that is, in my opinion, the best thing it did for the skill system.

If you can't trust the DM not to ruin the game when given power, why are you playing with him? The DM is there to adjudicate your interaction with the world after you declare your actions. Not merely to present a scene and sit back while you interact with it.

You're also alluding to what I just said: that somehow if there isn't a specific rule for it, you can't do it unless a specific rule is first created for it. That's what the 5e flexible Ability Check & DC system is there for. So the DM can make an on the fly determination of resolution if necessary. You don't need to 'house-rule' ... the DM determines if the action needs resolution, and if so uses the global rule system to cover it.

In other words, you think it's a "great feature". It's still a bug to me because for what one DM says I do not need to roll another DM can say I do need to roll and a third DM applies a different DC. "Tyrannical" DMing has nothing to do with it.

Shaofoo

2016-04-02, 05:14 AM

Now I'm confused... you were the one saying that you always ask the DM if your character's proposed actions are unreasonable, and then went on to say that such questions are an inherent part of D&D. Now you're saying that asking the DM that kind of question is the players' fault? What am I missing?

You example basically put the responsibility in the player's hands because the way you presented it the player just had to phrase the question in a different way to avoid Mother May I. If the player can avoid it then it is the player's fault if he gets into it from where I'm staning.

There is a giant difference between asking a DM whether your character's proposed actions are unreasonable, and asking the DM for more details about the environment and then deciding for yourself whether your intended actions are unreasonable. The former is the poster child of "Mother May I", and I don't enjoy it. The latter I find to be immersive and interactive, and is exactly what I try to encourage at my table.

Both of these examples are "ask a DM X" but one gets into mother may I and the other doesn't apparently.

Why can't you ask for descriptions and never ask if it is reasonable instead? If this avoids Mother may I then it seems that the players have all the power to stop it.

Zalabim

2016-04-02, 05:59 AM

You missed the part where the DM's and Players expectations of the game aligned, so the player knew the key word "jagged" meant "climbable".

Obviously, even with tables of DCs and descriptions, DM and player expectations won't always align. They have to be set up ahead of time in order to do that. In that sense, there is no difference between 5E and 3.x skill systems.

The difference is that 5E lacks specific challenge DCs, which the OP supports as it lets the DM and other players set whatever expectations they like instead of feeling restricted only to the kind of expectations covered by the default tables.

Maybe one group decides that jumping farther takes a DC=10+extra feet and another decides that jumping farther takes a DC=total feet. Maybe Grondor says he wants to dive to the other cliff face and he can jump 20', is 6'3" tall, and his arms could reach another 3' past that, so the DM says ok, but roll to see how far down the cliffside you are when you stop and how much damage you take from throwing yourself into a wall.

There can be a downside if there's more expectations to cover, but this thread could help reduce that with broadly applicable expectations, like mythical heroics, action heroes, and gritty realism.

NewDM

2016-04-02, 09:19 AM

Dude, if you're youth was when 3.5 was out, then you're younger than me. You can't claim old age as why you suddenly can't remember well anymore.

Nope. I started in early 2E as I said earlier. I memorized both 3E and 3.5E when it came out. I don't have a photographic memory, but when I was a teenager, I had something close for books that I was really interested in. I realize this is probably not the norm for people here. I can still read a book a few times and have a good idea what it says. I do plan on reading the PHB, DMG, and MM of 5e. At that point I'll probably have enough system mastery that I won't have to crack a book for 5-10 sessions, mostly owing to how simple 5e is.

Except people treat it as the fault of the game and if you read the comment then you would know that it was all a question asked. Please read the entire context before replying to someone

You intended to salvage yourself and try to prove me wrong. Maybe you could've just said you meant a different thing instead of trying to crow and think that I just couldn't understand you.

Your problem was that you thought the jumping was all DM fiat and no player rules except where I pointed that it is in the rules.

Still waiting on that reference there. You can't just hand waive it like that cause I don't see anywhere where it says that jagged = handholds if you are in sync with the person.

You're right, what is the point of the example?

Except it doesn't, that might be your perception but apparently this seems less problem with the system and just people who like different things.

Yeah considering that you missed the rules of jumping I kinda referenced that part.

And you also kinda missed the part where I feel insulted that you basically disregard my points and ignored everything just to repeat your point, you didn't so much address them as simply ignore them and continue as if I was completely wrong, you obviously just wish to complain. I don't think any further discussion is necessary since you are now being offended, I don't think I can do much more discussion with you if you are so offended, please accept my apologies because that is so not my intent.

And I'm done. If you are unable to grasp my point by now and you continue to argue, there is something majorly wrong, either way I'm not going to participate anymore. Welcome to the ignore list.

For anyone else, my point was to demonstrate how a game goes when a player and DM don't have the same expectations and when they do or there are enough tables and rules to allow them to have the same expectations without having played together. Kind of like everyone has about the same expectations about combat. Very few things are left to the DM in combat. About the only thing is to award advantage or disadvantage. I would prefer a skill system that acted like that.

What you call house rules is what I call DM adjudication. It sounds like you had particularly bad experiences with it. Yes, some solid guidelines for the DM, and a consistent method for determining the results of many things your character knows how to do are a definite boon. And all recent systems of D&D have had those in the skills system. What they haven't all had is a strict, pre-knowable by the players, precise method of resolution. The reason for that is two-fold. To give the DM more flexibility, and to make the system rules light for easier adjudication in play. The assumption is still the same as it was since the beginning: the DM sets the scene, you choose how to interact with it, the DM adjudicates the resolution of those interactions.

It also introduced rules complexity during play outside of combat. Although it simplified combat beautifully, at least at low levels. And led to a tendency to play the rules in deciding how to interact with the world, as opposed to playing the world and (if necessary) applying some kind of resolution. But the flip side of that was when resolution was necessary, at least more often than not there was rule for it. :) But the tendency to play the rules first also led to the detrimental ideas that everything required a check to do, and if there wasn't a specific rule for it you couldn't do it without first creating a specific rule for it.

If you can't trust the DM not to ruin the game when given power, why are you playing with him? The DM is there to adjudicate your interaction with the world after you declare your actions. Not merely to present a scene and sit back while you interact with it.

You're also alluding to what I just said: that somehow if there isn't a specific rule for it, you can't do it unless a specific rule is first created for it. That's what the 5e flexible Ability Check & DC system is there for. So the DM can make an on the fly determination of resolution if necessary. You don't need to 'house-rule' ... the DM determines if the action needs resolution, and if so uses the global rule system to cover it.

Many of us can't trust DMs, not because they are somehow bad or evil. Its because they are human and mistake prone, they don't have the same expectations of the difficulty of the world, they don't view the game in the same light, they don't have the rules of the game internalized, and sometimes they are just bad DMs.

I personally prefer mythic style games where characters are on par with the mortal version of Hercules. Able to redirect rivers and hold the world up with a nat 20. It helps them keep up with the casters who can wish anything they want into existence warp anywhere they want and create things out of nothing.

If I were playing with a gritty DM who thinks characters are little better than untrained farmers when they start out, where rogues have trouble opening the simplest locks and where a player maximum jump is determined by their strength score and you have to roll to succeed on that.

Then as a player I would constantly be asking questions to determine whether I can do something, and they wouldn't be the kind of questions where I want more details about the terrain. Those questions wouldn't matter:

Player: "What does the cliff face look like?"
DM1&2: "Jagged, with outcroppings of rock and crevices."
Player: "I climb down to avoid the approaching enemies."
DM1: "You fall to your death because you don't have the proper tools, your athletic skills are barely adequate for climbing a rope ladder (+2 prof.) and you are carrying a large orb."

DM2: "Ok, make a DC 15 climb check with disadvantage because you are carrying something."

This is why just asking in game questions doesn't help.

Shaofoo

2016-04-02, 10:01 AM

And I'm done. If you are unable to grasp my point by now and you continue to argue, there is something majorly wrong, either way I'm not going to participate anymore. Welcome to the ignore list.

So basically if I can't understand you then there is something wrong with me, glad to know. Really for someone who is so touchy about being offended you sure like to dish it out but I am not surprised to be honest.

For anyone else, my point was to demonstrate how a game goes when a player and DM don't have the same expectations and when they do or there are enough tables and rules to allow them to have the same expectations without having played together. Kind of like everyone has about the same expectations about combat. Very few things are left to the DM in combat. About the only thing is to award advantage or disadvantage. I would prefer a skill system that acted like that.

Except the part where even with tables the DM and player's expectations didn't align at all. I would expect that expectations be something that is agreed on at the beginning and eventually we both figure out as time go on. This isn't something that someone can just pick up immediately.

Many of us can't trust DMs, not because they are somehow bad or evil. Its because they are human and mistake prone, they don't have the same expectations of the difficulty of the world, they don't view the game in the same light, they don't have the rules of the game internalized, and sometimes they are just bad DMs.

Quite frankly if you can't trust DMs then you shouldn't be playing D&D because DM is a core part of it. If I play D&D with a DM I don't know much I usually have faith that things will go all right, not somehow fret that they won't cater to my desires. Usually people tend to talk rather than just worry about their problems. And if things don't go the way I want them I leave.

Player: "What does the cliff face look like?"
DM1&2: "Jagged, with outcroppings of rock and crevices."
Player: "I climb down to avoid the approaching enemies."
DM1: "You fall to your death because you don't have the proper tools, your athletic skills are barely adequate for climbing a rope ladder (+2 prof.) and you are carrying a large orb."

DM2: "Ok, make a DC 15 climb check with disadvantage because you are carrying something."

This is why just asking in game questions doesn't help.

I think I would've asked instead how difficult does the climb down look to me. Maybe my character is head strong and thinks he can do anything but quite frankly unless it was a life and death situation then I would probably try to coax the DM to see his reaction as to my check. It might rbeak "immersion" but in either case your immersion was never broken, you were forced in a no hope scenario for the first one and that is how the dice rolled. A couple of days later the party finds the hero's body and the Orb and they take both where he will be honored as the savior that saved the town.

Unless the point was to survive which in this case maybe you should've been a bit more cautious, things can play in so many ways. What is more important, the hero surviving or the story flowing. Not all stories have the hero riding off into the sunset.

NewDM

2016-04-02, 10:13 PM

Because you claim to have a near perfect memory for what you read, I took you at your word and checked my copies of the 2e PHB and DMG.

The PHB has 1 (one) chart for non-Weapon proficiencies, and it lists their names, which ability score they're associated, and the modifier. Exactly as I stated above.

The DMG has 0 (zero) charts for non-Weapon proficiencies. It has some paragraphs on how to adjudicated NWP and how to make up new ones.

Quotes from the 2E PHB (yes, I dug out my old books):

Disguise: -7 for different race/sex. Specific person -10. Both cumulative.

Astrology: +1 for navigation checks when you see the stars.

Forgery: Autograph -2, specific document -3.

Hunting: -1 for each character without non-weapon proficiency in hunting.

Riding (airborne and land based): -1 check penalty to jump off and land on feet.

Set Snares: -4 penalty if setting for a larger creature. +2 bonus if animal handling non-weapon prof. if setting snares for game.

I could go on, but its all through the books. Bonuses and penalties in 2E were the equivalent of having different DCs.

Its also interesting to note that you can use your non-weapon prof. slots to gain better use of a non-weapon proficiency by +1.

And of course the DM could add bonuses or penalties on top.

mgshamster

2016-04-02, 10:25 PM

Quotes from the 2E PHB (yes, I dug out my old books):

Disguise: -7 for different race/sex. Specific person -10. Both cumulative.

Astrology: +1 for navigation checks when you see the stars.

Forgery: Autograph -2, specific document -3.

Hunting: -1 for each character without non-weapon proficiency in hunting.

Riding (airborne and land based): -1 check penalty to jump off and land on feet.

Set Snares: -4 penalty if setting for a larger creature. +2 bonus if animal handling non-weapon prof. if setting snares for game.

I could go on, but its all through the books. Bonuses and penalties in 2E were the equivalent of having different DCs.

Its also interesting to note that you can use your non-weapon prof. slots to gain better use of a non-weapon proficiency by +1.

And of course the DM could add bonuses or penalties on top.

Care to cite what table those are in?

Grod_The_Giant

2016-04-02, 11:18 PM

JoeJ

2016-04-03, 12:12 AM

huttj509

2016-04-03, 02:26 AM

Kurald Galain

2016-04-03, 04:05 AM

Shaofoo

2016-04-03, 05:09 AM

The more I look at threads like this, the more confused I get. It's one thing to say "I like 5e because it leaves more up to the GM." That's a perfectly reasonable opinion. But when others say "I don't like 5e because I prefer more codified rules" people FLIP THE **** out, and I can't understand why. I mean, yes, this is the internet, but some people seem utterly BAFFLED by the idea of written guidelines. Like, to the point of rage, and I can't for the life of me understand why.

Guidelines are good because they shape expectations, help with consistency and give groups a common ground. Guidelines are bad because they place limits on things, define a single expectation as correct and incentivize stopping to look things up.

It's not a hard (DC 20) concept. We can discuss our preferences, argue about which is best from a game design standpoint, and complain about what 5e did or did not do, but can we PLEASE acknowledge that both sides exist?

From where I see it, it isn't that they prefer a more codified system it is more along the lines of "I don't want to talk to the DM more than necessary, I don't trust him". I have said many times that more codification for the DM's side could be more useful in presenting help for them (so someone who doesn't want to think much can refer to the tables while those that do want a freeform game can ignore them and the player have no expectations) so changing things around isn't out of the question. There is this vibe of "The DM is my enemy, he can't be trusted" that makes me question why do people play a game where there is a guy that is basically lord and god of the world if somehow they hate the concept? It would be like saying that they hate the game because they hate any and all randomization and they want to not have anyone roll dice a single time on both player and DM side.

To me they want guidelines not because "I prefer guidelines because it leads to a more organized game" but more along the lines of "I prefer guidelines just in case the DM tries to pull a fast one so I can defend myself when I call him out on it".

A very common complaint is that there can't be any consistency in 5e except if the DM is consistent then there isn't a problem, they like to pass on problems that are DM or player provoked and say it is a weakness of the system. And then expand it because then you can't be consistent across various DMs which I wouldn't even consider it a problem.

Xetheral

2016-04-03, 05:47 AM

You example basically put the responsibility in the player's hands because the way you presented it the player just had to phrase the question in a different way to avoid Mother May I. If the player can avoid it then it is the player's fault if he gets into it from where I'm staning.

Both of these examples are "ask a DM X" but one gets into mother may I and the other doesn't apparently.

Why can't you ask for descriptions and never ask if it is reasonable instead? If this avoids Mother may I then it seems that the players have all the power to stop it.

Because asking for descriptions in a system where descriptions don't correlate to DC doesn't help determine whether the action is reasonable.

Since you've said you personally always ask your DM for their opinion on if your proposed actions are reasonable, you clearly understand the value in having a metric by which to judge reasonability. Your preferred metric is asking the DM for his opinion, which is fine, but doing so is the behavior others have characterized as "mother may I". At least at your table, "mother may I" is therefore a valid description of 5e. Unless you're an outlier, that suggests it's a valid description at other tables too.

gooddragon1

2016-04-03, 06:06 AM

NewDM

2016-04-03, 07:13 AM

Care to cite what table those are in?

They are in the non-weapon proficiency descriptions themselves. Not being in a table does not mean that it isn't a guideline or rule that puts expectations on the same page. A table is simply one way to format information. They chose not to do that in the 2E book.

Honestly, I've barely glanced at 5e (I saw the charm person spell in the next preview material and it looked okay). However, from the stuff being said (even stuff in its defense) I've liked it less and less. Saying it even touches mother may I leaves a sick feeling in my throat and stomach (I'm literally feeling it as I'm posting this (not hyperbole, this is an honest disclosure)). I have the feeling that the players should have the options to do things, but have the respect for the dm's hard work and good sense to not go nuts. I dislike a system trying to enforce this. That is one of the reasons I hated 4e. I admit an extreme bias toward 3.5 (it's the system I started with, but I did buy some pathfinder books in a humble bundle sale). I think with this news I may never play 5e. 5e is a step forward from 4e, but in my opinion it is miles from 3.5 if what I have heard is true.

Since the rules are free and the virtual table roll20.net is also free, you should probably try it for a session or two, just to see how bad it is. Then when people ask, you can say "I tried it and I really didn't like it."

pwykersotz

2016-04-03, 08:32 AM

Casualoblivion

2016-04-03, 08:39 AM

mgshamster

2016-04-03, 08:44 AM

Tanarii

2016-04-03, 09:26 AM

pwykersotz

2016-04-03, 09:36 AM

I see it as people being defensive in regards to finding validation in 5E for their opinion that 3E and 4E got D&D wrong. In other words, "5E has brought D&D back to the way it should be, so shut up".

Well, that's a bit frustrating. I love 3.5 and have no bad words for 4e because I never played it. The thread is a bit defensive, true, because I wanted to discuss the merits of an "attack" commonly used on these boards to deem an aspect of the game inferior. So while I can't exactly control your perception, your analysis is very much against my goals.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-04-03, 09:46 AM

To me they want guidelines not because "I prefer guidelines because it leads to a more organized game" but more along the lines of "I prefer guidelines just in case the DM tries to pull a fast one so I can defend myself when I call him out on it".
Except that, to the best of my knowledge, NO ONE HAS SAID THAT. The point of guidelines isn't to limit tyrannical DMs, because nothing can do that. You're arguing against a view that no-one is proposing.

The issue isn't so much session-to-session differences, or even theme-of-game differences. It's that, as mentioned, different people have different ideas of what's easy and hard, and those ideas tend to be subconscious enough that they WON'T be discussed pre-game.

And no, we don't need to know the exact DC for everything, but a game where social DCs are hard, knowledge DCs are moderate and physical DCs are easy is quite different from one where physical DCs are easy, social DCs are moderate, and knowledge DCs hard. It's about wanting to have a sense of where things lie during character creation and the first few sessions, before we learn the GM's quirks. About knowing how we can interact with the world even before we start asking questions about the specific circumstance.

I see it as people being defensive in regards to finding validation in 5E for their opinion that 3E and 4E got D&D wrong. In other words, "5E has brought D&D back to the way it should be, so shut up".
Maybe. There certainly does seem to be a lot more resistance to rules changes than I'm used to seeing.

The odd thing is that one of the reason I felt compelled to start this thread is the opposite side of that same coin. In the other skill threads people were "flipping out" over the lack of guidelines and dissent was drowned out. So I made this thread to discuss both sides and find the common ground. My whole desire is simply to understand both sides. And I have, for example, with Xetheral.
That's fair. Sometimes we do get so passionate about these things the actual point gets lost.

NewDM

2016-04-03, 09:50 AM

Ya know, if we're counting 2e's NWP system using ability scores as equivalent to a DC, then 2e definitely had variable DC. A character with a high stat had a difference target DC than a character with a low stat.

Yep, and some of the modifiers were to the "DC" (ability score) and others were to the roll. So it was all over the place.

Well, that's a bit frustrating. I love 3.5 and have no bad words for 4e because I never played it. The thread is a bit defensive, true, because I wanted to discuss the merits of an "attack" commonly used on these boards to deem an aspect of the game inferior. So while I can't exactly control your perception, your analysis is very much against my goals.

The main underlying reason I think most people rejected 4E was because it had a steep learning curve and unless you gained system mastery, you were always dipping out of immersion or suspension of disbelief and dipping into the number crunching portion of the game. When you do that, you can easily come to the conclusion that everything plays the same because essentially any edition of D&D is rolling dice and number crunching (outside of role-play). For those that eat number crunching for breakfast like me, the whole game was immersion and suspension of disbelief and therefore I had no problem with it and it actually resembled a very balanced 0E (which was assumed to be played with the chain mail minis war game).

My main conclusions about why the game is "Mother May I?":

Players and DM expectations don't line up with the few set DCs in the game and DMs make their own DCs up.
DMs and Players expectations don't align and end up playing 20 questions.
The DM chooses whether something is easy, moderate, or hard. Their description doesn't line up with those choices unless the players are familiar with the DM or the DM flat out explains it.

If none of those are true, then "Mother May I?" doesn't exist, which is why many in this thread don't acknowledge it, they've simply never encountered it, or they believe that "Mother May I?" is what the game is about.

JoeJ

2016-04-03, 09:59 AM

Honestly, I've barely glanced at 5e (I saw the charm person spell in the next preview material and it looked okay). However, from the stuff being said (even stuff in its defense) I've liked it less and less. Saying it even touches mother may I leaves a sick feeling in my throat and stomach (I'm literally feeling it as I'm posting this (not hyperbole, this is an honest disclosure)). I have the feeling that the players should have the options to do things, but have the respect for the dm's hard work and good sense to not go nuts. I dislike a system trying to enforce this. That is one of the reasons I hated 4e. I admit an extreme bias toward 3.5 (it's the system I started with, but I did buy some pathfinder books in a humble bundle sale). I think with this news I may never play 5e. 5e is a step forward from 4e, but in my opinion it is miles from 3.5 if what I have heard is true.

That's a pretty extreme reaction to a game. If even discussing it has that kind of an effect, you should stay very far away for your own well being. And not just from 5e either. In my (admittedly unscientific) experience, I've found 3.5 to be pretty far toward the extreme of every action being rigorously defined in the rules. Almost all RPGs I'm familiar with expect more GM judgment than 3.5; and many of them go a lot further in that direction than 5e does. In some games, even some pretty rules-heavy ones like GURPS, the GM is expected to play an active role even in helping create your character in the first place.

Casualoblivion

2016-04-03, 09:59 AM

Well, that's a bit frustrating. I love 3.5 and have no bad words for 4e because I never played it. The thread is a bit defensive, true, because I wanted to discuss the merits of an "attack" commonly used on these boards to deem an aspect of the game inferior. So while I can't exactly control your perception, your analysis is very much against my goals.

I understand your goals, but there are some things in play here:

1. 5E has been specifically designed to go in the opposite direction from the previous two editions in a lot of ways
2. For some people playing the game as they like doesn't seem to be enough. They seem to need the system itself to validate and give greater weight to their preferences, or to deemphasize the preference of others
3. People who have what they want from 5E seem to get really defensive when any sort of criticism is leveled at it.

Tanarii

2016-04-03, 10:03 AM

The main underlying reason I think most people rejected 4E was because it had a steep learning curve and unless you gained system mastery, you were always dipping out of immersion or suspension of disbelief and dipping into the number crunching portion of the game.The learning curve on 4e was no more than any other edition of D&D since Basic. Less in many regards, since there were fewer codified rules to learn. Instead you learned how the few global subsystems worked (powers, skills), checked out combat in detail (same as any edition), and moved on. In other editions you have to examine learn each class separately, then learn details of the codified skills (in 3e). (Spells you usually learn like powers, as you need to choose between them.)

My main conclusions about why the game is "Mother May I?":

Players and DM expectations don't line up with the few set DCs in the game and DMs make their own DCs up.
DMs and Players expectations don't align and end up playing 20 questions.
The DM chooses whether something is easy, moderate, or hard. Their description doesn't line up with those choices unless the players are familiar with the DM or the DM flat out explains it.
DMs are expected to make up their own DCs in the 10-20 range. Players can expect to encounter DCs in the 10-20 range. If the players or DMs are not operating under those expectations, it's unsurprising they run into problems.

And yeah, I agree, here is a huge difference between a DM telling you a cliff has many cracks throughout, then explicitly "it's a Medium task to climb it" vs not saying that. Just as in 3e there was a difference between the player referring to the book (or his crib sheet of DCs) to try and categorize it and guess the DC the DM had assigned from the description, vs being told the DC explicitly and finding out that it didn't match his assumptions based on the description being made.

If none of those are true, then "Mother May I?" doesn't exist, which is why many in this thread don't acknowledge it, they've simply never encountered it, or they believe that "Mother May I?" is what the game is about.if players and DMs adjust their expectations to the rules of the game, communicate clearly, then IMO "Mother may I" issues should be minimal. In any edition of the game.

pwykersotz

2016-04-03, 10:10 AM

My main conclusions about why the game is "Mother May I?":

Players and DM expectations don't line up with the few set DCs in the game and DMs make their own DCs up.
DMs and Players expectations don't align and end up playing 20 questions.
The DM chooses whether something is easy, moderate, or hard. Their description doesn't line up with those choices unless the players are familiar with the DM or the DM flat out explains it.

If none of those are true, then "Mother May I?" doesn't exist, which is why many in this thread don't acknowledge it, they've simply never encountered it, or they believe that "Mother May I?" is what the game is about.

Interesting. Then we agree completely. The other portion of my OP was around the DM and player setting expectations before the game began which would alleviate these three factors. Naturally those who table hop regularly or play AL might find this process less desirable.

NewDM

2016-04-03, 10:31 AM

The learning curve on 4e was no more than any other edition of D&D since Basic. Less in many regards, since there were fewer codified rules to learn. Instead you learned how the few global subsystems worked (powers, skills), checked out combat in detail (same as any edition), and moved on. In other editions you have to examine learn each class separately, then learn details of the codified skills (in 3e). (Spells you usually learn like powers, as you need to choose between them.)

Yes, but players had tons of individual powers to internalize and they gained a new one at almost every level. Many players would be in RP mode and then the DM says "The orcs charge you what do you do?" and then they would look at their sheets (because of a lack of system mastery) and have to read powers that were written in math crunch form and immediately drop out of RP mode and go into number crunching mode. Whereas someone that has them internalized would simply reply with the name of the power and a simple description in RP mode of what they did while rolling the dice.

5E doesn't have this problem because most attacks (excluding spells) are just 1d20+pre-added modifiers. Only spell casters have to internalize complex concepts like spells. This lowers the bar so that non-number crunchers can retain suspension of disbelief. I could be wrong though. Some people may simply have disliked the game for its complexity vs. simply attacking with a d20.

DMs are expected to make up their own DCs in the 10-20 range. Players can expect to encounter DCs in the 10-20 range. If the players or DMs are not operating under those expectations, it's unsurprising they run into problems.

And yeah, I agree, here is a huge difference between a DM telling you a cliff has many cracks throughout, then explicitly "it's a Medium task to climb it" vs not saying that. Just as in 3e there was a difference between the player referring to the book (or his crib sheet of DCs) to try and categorize it and guess the DC the DM had assigned from the description, vs being told the DC explicitly and finding out that it didn't match his assumptions based on the description being made.

if players and DMs adjust their expectations to the rules of the game, communicate clearly, then IMO "Mother may I" issues should be minimal. In any edition of the game.

Sure, but that's a lot of explaining to do to new players. You have to describe whether the campaign is gritty, heroic, or mythic. You have to tell them what the expected DCs are for any given obstacle they may encounter. In fact this might actually be impossible without playing with the DM for years.

Interesting. Then we agree completely. The other portion of my OP was around the DM and player setting expectations before the game began which would alleviate these three factors. Naturally those who table hop regularly or play AL might find this process less desirable.

Yes, it is difficult to talk about expectations for 30 minutes to an hour before each one shot pick up game or event. I've learned to roll with it. For instance in one campaign I'm in now the DM is rounding all damage up despite one of the first rules in the PHB to always round down. I simply nod and go with it. It still bugs me though. Not enough to outweigh the RP and story aspects though.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-04-03, 10:41 AM

Interesting. Then we agree completely. The other portion of my OP was around the DM and player setting expectations before the game began which would alleviate these three factors. Naturally those who table hop regularly or play AL might find this process less desirable.
Yeah. Regardless of where you fall preference-wise, I think it's fair to say that 5e really could have used more discussion about difficulty expectations. I've been working on a homebrew game that has a similar DM-determined difficulty system (one explicitly designed to accommodate different genres) and I spend several pages talking about how you set DCs, different paradigms for DCs, that sort of thing. Kind of sad that a professional system didn't bother. It would be nice to be able to just say "this is a Heroic game" or "this is a Gritty game" and have everyone be on the same page.

NewDM

2016-04-03, 10:43 AM

Yeah. Regardless of where you fall preference-wise, I think it's fair to say that 5e really could have used more discussion about difficulty expectations. I've been working on a homebrew game that has a similar DM-determined difficulty system (one explicitly designed to accommodate different genres) and I spend several pages talking about how you set DCs, different paradigms for DCs, that sort of thing. Kind of sad that a professional system didn't bother. It would be nice to be able to just say "this is a Heroic game" or "this is a Gritty game" and have everyone be on the same page.

that would literally be the perfect answer. A table with DCs for each type of play along with an entire chapter of examples of each for each skill and ability check.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-04-03, 10:46 AM

that would literally be the perfect answer. A table with DCs for each type of play along with an entire chapter of examples of each for each skill and ability check.
Maybe we should create such a thing here? Then at least there'd be a resource to direct people to.

Tanarii

2016-04-03, 10:46 AM

Yes, but players had tons of individual powers to internalize and they gained a new one at almost every level. Many players would be in RP mode and then the DM says "The orcs charge you what do you do?" and then they would look at their sheets (because of a lack of system mastery) and have to read powers that were written in math crunch form and immediately drop out of RP mode and go into number crunching mode. Whereas someone that has them internalized would simply reply with the name of the power and a simple description in RP mode of what they did while rolling the dice.Oh for sure,. That same thing led to accusations of board gaminess during combat. Out of combat was almost the exact opposite though.

Interestingly, what you're describing about 4e combat is the same reason I prefer the 5e skill system to the 3e skill system. Having to stop and look up DCs constantly can pull you out of immersion. But I believe that's your point. System mastery negates the need to stop so often, so a complex rules system isn't such an issue at that point.

3e required system mastery during play, in combat and out. 4e required it heavily during combat, but not at all during skill challenges. 5e doesn't require it very much at all.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-04-03, 11:09 AM

3e required system mastery during play, in combat and out. 4e required it heavily during combat, but not at all during skill challenges. 5e doesn't require it very much at all.
I would definitely agree. Just look at what we're arguing-- "5e doesn't give enough advice" and "5e skills are too swingy" are incredibly petty issues compared to the system-wide clunkiness and imbalances making up most of the 3.5 board. Like, I want to customize it because I like tinkering with RPG rules, but I'd definitely play by-the-book 5e over any other edition.

NewDM

2016-04-03, 11:15 AM

Maybe we should create such a thing here? Then at least there'd be a resource to direct people to.

I'd love to collaborate on something like this. You could probably release it on DMs Guild too.

Oh for sure,. That same thing led to accusations of board gaminess during combat. Out of combat was almost the exact opposite though.

Interestingly, what you're describing about 4e combat is the same reason I prefer the 5e skill system to the 3e skill system. Having to stop and look up DCs constantly can pull you out of immersion. But I believe that's your point. System mastery negates the need to stop so often, so a complex rules system isn't such an issue at that point.

3e required system mastery during play, in combat and out. 4e required it heavily during combat, but not at all during skill challenges. 5e doesn't require it very much at all.

Exactly. I think we've finally driven down to the exact reason why 4e's game style wasn't as popular as it could have been.

I would definitely agree. Just look at what we're arguing-- "5e doesn't give enough advice" and "5e skills are too swingy" are incredibly petty issues compared to the system-wide clunkiness and imbalances making up most of the 3.5 board. Like, I want to customize it because I like tinkering with RPG rules, but I'd definitely play by-the-book 5e over any other edition.

I love a simple system, but at the same time there should be guidance, especially for new DMs and players.

Shaofoo

2016-04-03, 11:27 AM

Because asking for descriptions in a system where descriptions don't correlate to DC doesn't help determine whether the action is reasonable.

Since you've said you personally always ask your DM for their opinion on if your proposed actions are reasonable, you clearly understand the value in having a metric by which to judge reasonability. Your preferred metric is asking the DM for his opinion, which is fine, but doing so is the behavior others have characterized as "mother may I". At least at your table, "mother may I" is therefore a valid description of 5e. Unless you're an outlier, that suggests it's a valid description at other tables too.

Quite frankly if even asking once is mother may I then I think that D&D isn't the game for those kinds of people. I consider communication with the DM to be of extreme importance. If you don't like to ask the DM then that is fine and dandy but then I question why are you playing D&D when the DM is a central part of the game. I cannot even begin to fathom how to play a game where communication with a DM is zero, I mean even in previous editions I always asked and those had hard coded tables, you always told the DM what to do and if certain things happens. I guess I was playing D&D wrong if I had to ask the DM if I had tables to help me.

It just seems that this problem is less a problem with the system and more irreconcilable differences. Maybe those people just used the RAW tables and the DM had no say other than to roll the dice. That seems to me to be the least immersive action

Except that, to the best of my knowledge, NO ONE HAS SAID THAT. The point of guidelines isn't to limit tyrannical DMs, because nothing can do that. You're arguing against a view that no-one is proposing.

Except when people bring their grievances they put up this front where even asking the DM once for any reason (even if this one time will clarify all future problems) is somehow inacceptible. The way they present it is if DM interaction is set to zero, preferably less, then the game can run smoothly; any more than zero then the game breaks down and the immersion is broken and all that bad stuff. Maybe they aren't directly proposing it but it does seem like the DM is to not be used at all from my point of view. It isn't just to limit tyrannical DMs it is to limit DMs as a whole.

Doesn't help that one of the guys proposing it basically did directly say in another thread that DMs only exist for the player's enjoyment, the DM is not to be considered in the fun of the game so maybe my view is tainted.

The issue isn't so much session-to-session differences, or even theme-of-game differences. It's that, as mentioned, different people have different ideas of what's easy and hard, and those ideas tend to be subconscious enough that they WON'T be discussed pre-game.

And no, we don't need to know the exact DC for everything, but a game where social DCs are hard, knowledge DCs are moderate and physical DCs are easy is quite different from one where physical DCs are easy, social DCs are moderate, and knowledge DCs hard. It's about wanting to have a sense of where things lie during character creation and the first few sessions, before we learn the GM's quirks. About knowing how we can interact with the world even before we start asking questions about the specific circumstance.

Like I said above there is a guideline as to how things are rolled, there are DCs in a table for you and the DM to follow. You shouldn't see the DM say you should beat a DC 50.

Also I would really hope things are different. Maybe in a game social DCs are easy because you are in a city where people are happy to see you and are willing to help strangers while in another game social DCs are hard because you are in a war torn city where people must survive the day to day and have little patience to deal with outsiders. Maybe knowledge is easy in one game cause they have magic internets while in another game there was a huge book burning where a lot of information was lost so it is hard. Physical is harder to justify but you also have hard rules to deal with jumping and swimming and anything more severe is up to the DM as it is always was, you had to roll to swim in the older editions while you can just do it in this edition, only when the condition is rough then is when you need to roll (which I think it is a massive plus for 5e where some things are just given to the players).

Maybe you should have a talk with the DM before character creation so you can truly have a character that you can be comfortable with in the DM's world (so you don't accidentally make a librarian in a world where the books burned, you could make a character where he hoarded books to prevent them from burning hence your knowledge). Tell me is discussing things with the DM pregame also mother may I as well?

Tanarii

2016-04-03, 11:28 AM

I love a simple system, but at the same time there should be guidance, especially for new DMs and players.
There is an entire book full of guidance. It also includes examples, mostly abstract as befits the intentional system design. As well as resolution systems for explicit situations such a tracking, getting lost, social interactions, etc. It's called the DMG.

What you appear to be looking for is detailed & specific non-abstract examples for common skill checks. But that would break their design goal. It's up to individual groups to design those, if they feel they are necessary.

mgshamster

2016-04-03, 11:31 AM

Maybe we should create such a thing here? Then at least there'd be a resource to direct people to.

I'd love to collaborate on something like this. You could probably release it on DMs Guild too.

It's a great idea, but we should start a new thread for it. Also, we need to be careful with the DM Guild - really ensure you know the legal requirements. If you're serious about posting on the DM's Guild, hire a lawyer first.

NewDM

2016-04-03, 11:37 AM

There is an entire book full of guidance. It also includes examples, mostly abstract as befits the intentional system design. As well as resolution systems for explicit situations such a tracking, getting lost, social interactions, etc. It's called the DMG.

What you appear to be looking for is detailed & specific non-abstract examples for common skill checks. But that would break their design goal. It's up to individual groups to design those, if they feel they are necessary.

I don't find abstraction useful and I can't imagine someone that has never played or DMed seeing it differently. I wouldn't call that guidance.

Yes, I am looking for detailed and specific examples for common skill checks. It might very well break their design goals, but the only goals I see being satisfied at the moment are those goals that cater to one specific play style, when supposedly this edition is meant to unite all previous edition fans.

If I wanted to design concrete examples and tables of DCs to hand out to my players, I might as well just grab the SRD and release my own Open Game License RPG. If I had the money to advertise and do play tests, I would do that too.

JoeJ

2016-04-03, 11:41 AM

I don't find abstraction useful and I can't imagine someone that has never played or DMed seeing it differently. I wouldn't call that guidance.

Yes, I am looking for detailed and specific examples for common skill checks. It might very well break their design goals, but the only goals I see being satisfied at the moment are those goals that cater to one specific play style, when supposedly this edition is meant to unite all previous edition fans.

If I wanted to design concrete examples and tables of DCs to hand out to my players, I might as well just grab the SRD and release my own Open Game License RPG. If I had the money to advertise and do play tests, I would do that too.

I disagree, I think the DMG is invaluable for somebody who has never played or DMed before. IMO, the people who are likely to have the most trouble are the ones who have played 3.PF, but not much else. Those are the ones who come to the game with expectations of what D&D is supposed to be that are different from what 5e offers.

NewDM

2016-04-03, 11:41 AM

It's a great idea, but we should start a new thread for it. Also, we need to be careful with the DM Guild - really ensure you know the legal requirements. If you're serious about posting on the DM's Guild, hire a lawyer first.

Link me the Thread and I'll join in. DM's Guild rules aren't that bad:

What can I use in my titles on the Dungeon Masters Guild?

When you create your own title for the Dungeon Masters Guild, you get access to a hoard of resources. Your work can use any of the 5th Edition D&D rules published by Wizards of the Coast, plus decades of published material for the Forgotten Realms or Ravenloft setting. Additionally, Wizards and OneBookShelf will from time to time make additional resources such as stock art, template cover designs, template stat blocks, and other such assets available on the DMsGuild.com site for you to freely use in your Dungeon Masters Guild titles.

As other authors create content for the Dungeon Masters Guild and expand the Forgotten Realms through their titles, you then have access to use that material in turn. Was there a subplot another author didn’t fully explore? A tavern you’d like to re-use in your own adventure? All Dungeon Masters Guild authors contribute to a pool of community content that can be re-used, expanded, and explored by other authors in the Dungeon Masters Guild community.

In short, this is an opportunity to take part in a massive communal design network, one that is officially recognized and sanctioned by Wizards of the Coast.

Tanarii

2016-04-03, 11:42 AM

I don't find abstraction Well, that pretty much says it all. I have to wonder why you are playing D&D at all though. The entire game, from the earliest editions, are riddled with high levels of abstraction. Even 3e, which had the most simulation of any of the editions.

I disagree, I think the DMG is invaluable for somebody who has never played or DMed before. IMO, the people who are likely to have the most trouble are the ones who have played 3.PF, but not much else. Those are the ones who come to the game with expectations of what D&D is supposed to be that are different from what 5e offers.Well said. I find the DMG in each edition after 1e to be an overlooked resource full of good advice. (1e had tons of terrible advice top. :smallwink: )

And in every edition, I've found that players and DMs bringing their old edition expectations to the table is the biggest source of problems. Since the advent of the internet, its also been a huge cause of arguments online. I remember the 3.5 release on wizards forums. The horrors I saw in those wars! Scarred for life. :smalleek:

gooddragon1

2016-04-03, 11:43 AM

Since the rules are free and the virtual table roll20.net is also free, you should probably try it for a session or two, just to see how bad it is. Then when people ask, you can say "I tried it and I really didn't like it."

Maybe I'll look at the rules sometime then.

That's a pretty extreme reaction to a game. If even discussing it has that kind of an effect, you should stay very far away for your own well being. And not just from 5e either. In my (admittedly unscientific) experience, I've found 3.5 to be pretty far toward the extreme of every action being rigorously defined in the rules. Almost all RPGs I'm familiar with expect more GM judgment than 3.5; and many of them go a lot further in that direction than 5e does. In some games, even some pretty rules-heavy ones like GURPS, the GM is expected to play an active role even in helping create your character in the first place.

I've played 3.5 for years. Never had a problem with it (well one time... when a DM (who interestingly enough, but perhaps coincidentally, liked 4e) caused my warforged to become fatigued... on the spot... with no warning that it was even possible to do that (I did fail a reflex save, but fatigued is not a condition you can apply to constructs)... because I was running through a forest to escape something (have me slam against a tree and take damage if I fail a save, that's fine, but fatigued... no)). I read this commentary in the OP and I start getting queasy. I initially thought: Well, the charm person spell looks okay. Then I heard some stuff much much later on in a thread on these forums and I'm thinking... I guess some people might like it, but 3.5 now seems better, probably won't switch but might read the rules? This thread crops up and that's that.

The DM and the players can have an understanding in 3.5. It's what happened in the games I was a player in for many years. What I'm reading here is telling me that the system is forcing players as the thread title suggests. I'll look at the rules I guess. Maybe this thread isn't representative. I dunno. But it's not looking good for me ever playing it. We'll see :/

NewDM

2016-04-03, 11:44 AM

I disagree, I think the DMG is invaluable for somebody who has never played or DMed before. IMO, the people who are likely to have the most trouble are the ones who have played 3.PF, but not much else. Those are the ones who come to the game with expectations of what D&D is supposed to be that are different from what 5e offers.

Things like "set the DC to whatever you want" and no explanation of what is standard with all abstractions can really mislead new players and DMs. The fact that there is very little mention of differing expectations between players and DMs can really be off putting for new DMs.

Player:"I jump the pit."
New DM: "You fall to your death."

NewDM

2016-04-03, 11:45 AM

Well, that pretty much says it all. i have to womder why you are playing D&D at all though. The entire game, from the earliest editions, are riddled with high levels of abstraction. Even 3e, which had the most simulation of any of the editions.

The rules are abstractions to explain how reality in the game world works. Explaining rules in an abstract way with nothing concrete is an entirely different thing.

JoeJ

2016-04-03, 11:47 AM

I've played 3.5 for years. Never had a problem with it. I read this commentary in the OP and I start getting queasy. I initially thought: Well, the charm person spell looks okay. Then I heard some stuff much much later on in a thread on these forums and I'm thinking... I guess some people might like it, but 3.5 now seems better, probably won't switch but might read the rules? This thread crops up and that's that.

The DM and the players can have an understanding in 3.5. It's what happened in the games I was a player in for many years. What I'm reading here is telling me that the system is forcing players as the thread title suggests. I'll look at the rules I guess. Maybe this thread isn't representative. I dunno. But it's not looking good for me ever playing it. We'll see :/

If the only RPG you've ever played is D&D 3.5, then 5e will seem quite different. It's not to everyone's taste; no game is. Still, feeling queasy seems like a very extreme reaction to any game.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-04-03, 11:48 AM

Except when people bring their grievances they put up this front where even asking the DM once for any reason (even if this one time will clarify all future problems) is somehow inacceptible. The way they present it is if DM interaction is set to zero, preferably less, then the game can run smoothly; any more than zero then the game breaks down and the immersion is broken and all that bad stuff. Maybe they aren't directly proposing it but it does seem like the DM is to not be used at all from my point of view. It isn't just to limit tyrannical DMs it is to limit DMs as a whole.

Doesn't help that one of the guys proposing it basically did directly say in another thread that DMs only exist for the player's enjoyment, the DM is not to be considered in the fun of the game so maybe my view is tainted.

Like I said above there is a guideline as to how things are rolled, there are DCs in a table for you and the DM to follow. You shouldn't see the DM say you should beat a DC 50.

Also I would really hope things are different. Maybe in a game social DCs are easy because you are in a city where people are happy to see you and are willing to help strangers while in another game social DCs are hard because you are in a war torn city where people must survive the day to day and have little patience to deal with outsiders. Maybe knowledge is easy in one game cause they have magic internets while in another game there was a huge book burning where a lot of information was lost so it is hard. Physical is harder to justify but you also have hard rules to deal with jumping and swimming and anything more severe is up to the DM as it is always was,

I can't speak for that guy, but the issue isn't not knowing about the circumstance, it's not knowing the underlying assumptions. It's about general trends, before circumstances and modifiers are brought up. Take a situation where there's a wooden door to be broken down-- we'll say the front door to a cobbler's shop. Nothing fancy, but competently made and not rotted or anything. There's also a monster coming up behind you, so there's a time limit and a consequence for failure. All three DMs start by thinking "eh, it's just a generic door," but from there...

DM 1 thinks "decent door, probably decent sturdy" and gives it a Moderate DC.
DM 2 thinks "doors are sturdy, you wouldn't have a door that's easy to break" and gives it a Hard DC.
DM 3 thinks "it's a wooden door and the fighter is in plate mail. No contest" and gives it an Easy DC.

And you can't predict this. The DM can't predict this. It's not about the setting, it's about their personal biases. It's about the starting point, before you factor in things like "we're in a friendly city" or "arcane lore has been suppressed." It's DM 1 saying "it would be a Hard check to get past this guard, but we're in a city so I'll drop it to 15," while DM 2 is saying "it would be a Moderate check to get past this guard, but we're in a city so I'll drop it to Easy."

That's the complaint. Something like 3.5 with tables of DCs can replace the personal bias that says "knowledge is easy, picking locks is hard." 5e doesn't really have that option. That's not necessarily a bad thing, and I think it's certainly true that most 3.5 DMs didn't have those guideline tables memorized, but that's the point of contention.

you had to roll to swim in the older editions while you can just do it in this edition, only when the condition is rough then is when you need to roll (which I think it is a massive plus for 5e where some things are just given to the players).
"Say yes or roll the dice" is a system-independent rule, incidentally. You would have done the same thing in 3.5.

NewDM

2016-04-03, 11:49 AM

{Scrubbed}

Tanarii

2016-04-03, 11:50 AM

Things like "set the DC to whatever you want" and no explanation of what is standard with all abstractions can really mislead new players and DMs.
If thats what you got from reading the DMG, I recommend you go back and read the section on Running the Game and Using Ability scores again. Because you missed ALL of the points.

Tanarii

2016-04-03, 11:53 AM

The rules are abstractions to explain how reality in the game world works. Explaining rules in an abstract way with nothing concrete is an entirely different thing.How simulationist of you.

In D&D in general, the rules are abstractions to provide a resolution mechanic. That's it. Some editions attempt to align that more with the in-game reality (1e & 3e), others don't bother much at all (BECMI & 4e). 5e is somewhere in between.

The reason is simple. If the rules align to the in-game world too much:
1) the tendency becomes to play the rules, not the world.
2) the tendency is to think you cant do something if there is no rule for it
3) the rules are usually, but not always, more unwieldy to use in play. (This may be a correlation, not a cause. Not sure.)
4) the DM has less flexibility to fit rules adjudication to his world

Edit: typo, 3e aligns more with in-game reality, not 4e.

JoeJ

2016-04-03, 12:06 PM

Things like "set the DC to whatever you want" and no explanation of what is standard with all abstractions can really mislead new players and DMs. The fact that there is very little mention of differing expectations between players and DMs can really be off putting for new DMs.

Most games that I know don't have anything like that. Apart from the d20 system, where have you seen the kind of lists of task difficulties you're looking for?

NewDM

2016-04-03, 12:15 PM

Most games that I know don't have anything like that. Apart from the d20 system, where have you seen the kind of lists of task difficulties you're looking for?

1E, 2E, 3.x and 4E all had charts with descriptions of how each roll was affected setting a DC (for those editions that didn't call it a DC, they set the roll you needed).

If you are climbing a mountain with many handholds the DC is reduced by 2. If you are climbing an oily flat wall your DC is increased by (2+4)6. Climbing a knotted rope requires you to roll a modified 5...etc...etc...

Its all throughout the books (including 4e). 5E is the only one without this. There are a few instances where it gives some specific DCs but not for every skill and not very many overall.

Shaofoo

2016-04-03, 12:23 PM

I can't speak for that guy, but the issue isn't not knowing about the circumstance, it's not knowing the underlying assumptions. It's about general trends, before circumstances and modifiers are brought up. Take a situation where there's a wooden door to be broken down-- we'll say the front door to a cobbler's shop. Nothing fancy, but competently made and not rotted or anything. There's also a monster coming up behind you, so there's a time limit and a consequence for failure. All three DMs start by thinking "eh, it's just a generic door," but from there...

DM 1 thinks "decent door, probably decent sturdy" and gives it a Moderate DC.
DM 2 thinks "doors are sturdy, you wouldn't have a door that's easy to break" and gives it a Hard DC.
DM 3 thinks "it's a wooden door and the fighter is in plate mail. No contest" and gives it an Easy DC.

And you can't predict this. The DM can't predict this. It's not about the setting, it's about their personal biases. It's about the starting point, before you factor in things like "we're in a friendly city" or "arcane lore has been suppressed." It's DM 1 saying "it would be a Hard check to get past this guard, but we're in a city so I'll drop it to 15," while DM 2 is saying "it would be a Moderate check to get past this guard, but we're in a city so I'll drop it to Easy."

That's the complaint. Something like 3.5 with tables of DCs can replace the personal bias that says "knowledge is easy, picking locks is hard." 5e doesn't really have that option. That's not necessarily a bad thing, and I think it's certainly true that most 3.5 DMs didn't have those guideline tables memorized, but that's the point of contention.

I am not seeing a complaint to be honest. And still doesn't address the point that I made.

It would be a point if at any point I was forced to ask "Can I break down the door?" which I honestly don't think most DMs would have a problem since all three DMs apparently accepted it without missing a beat, the only difference is assigning DCs which I really don't see a problem here. Most DMs if they didn't want to break down the door would just sigh and roll a fake number before declaring that you bounce off.

It seems that there is a problem where you go to DM 1's game and roll an 18 to break the door then go to DM 2's game and hearing the similar situation also roll an 18 and complain when you don't budge the door cause you did it in DM 1's game. Maybe it is me and maybe the style of "one game, multiple interchanging DMs" is much more popular than I thought but I just can't see how is having three different DCs to be a problem even in similar circumstances, I tend to basically disassociate each DM as their own game and not mix them with one another. It sounds like asking for universal structure where none was promised, it'd be one thing saying "Ooh bishops can now move one square front or back before moving diagonally" but to me changing DCs is what I would expect in a game, even if the situation is similar I don't reference previous games.

Heck I'd even expect that in one game a DM might consider breaking apart a door that was caught in the middle of a fireball even if the intent was not so while in another game a similar door will be standing tall without any damage because the point of the fireball wasn't to damage the door at all. The latter DM might've allowed the door to be broken if the wizard had said "I cast fireball to both attack the orcs AND to break the door open" or maybe he wouldn't have, who knows? If this is considered a mother may I then I really can't see how the game D&D should be played. Quite frankly asking a DM to do stuff outside the rules is essential to the game, that is what elevated D&D to above other games where there are codes and it is super rigid.

Of course I also think that things like expectations and theme are to be cultivated before and during the game. I think that even before the first game roll is cast the players should have a general idea as to how the game is structured.

"Say yes or roll the dice" is a system-independent rule, incidentally. You would have done the same thing in 3.5.

Except it is explicit in 5e while in 3.x you had to roll as soon as you were submerged by the rules. It is true that you can just do stuff in any edition but in 5e it does emphasize that a lot more. I think the amount of rolls to do stuff in 5e should be much less than in 3.x . Most players should just do things even things like picking locks or breaking doors should be automatic if you feel that they should just do it. DM 3 in your previous example should've just let the fighter say "Okay you barge through the door" and not roll a dice.

Also to talk about you making your own tables, I honestly think that the 3.x tables as is makes a great reference. Changing some things around to reference scaling should be changed or eliminated but quite frankly I think that 3.x tables can be used for 5e games, so long as we take in mind the upper limits and not to let the DC 25 creep up.