Rulings vs Rules and the Simplicity of 5e

[BiPolar]

It very much seems that there is confusion about what 5e may have been trying to achieve. I'm absolutely making some guesses here, but it seems that the goal of 5e was to streamline with simplicity and gave the DM freedom to adjust as necessary to create a game that everyone at their table enjoys.

Much of what the designers have talked about was streamlining the game and simplifying it, much of it boiling down to the "power" of advantage/disadvantage as the most impactful piece of the game. Their goal to create a simpler system of rules but allow the DM more freedom has lead to a lot of arguments about what is RAW vs not.

To me, it seems that the designers created a full system and nearly everything does have RAW. THe problem is, when you create a simple system that is built for more story telling that simulation you end up with a system that doesn't make real world sense all of the time.

However, not making logical sense doesn't mean that there isn't actually a rule in place. It just means that the rule, when looked at in comparison to the real world, doesn't seem logical. And that's okay. They traded logic and the complexity of the real world for something that was much simpler.

What this means is that there are rules for pretty much everything, but not every table may be comfortable with this simplified system, and there may be many exceptions to those rules that a DM will want to adjust on the fly to make their game more enjoyable.

Freedom to change the rules for the table's enjoyment doesn't mean you are going against RAW even. RAW allows for it. But it means you are deviating from the basic simple set of rules.

And there's the rub. RAW accommodates for DM fiat, but it also has a basic set of simple rules. When we all argue against those simple set, the most common reason is that "it doesn't make sense." Which of course it doesn't - simple rules can not handle the complexity of the real world. Use of Adv/Dis is their main method of dealing with it, but it usually doesn't totally fit the bill - and hence the DM ruling.

Just a thought i was having this morning :)

[Anonymouswizard]

It very much seems that there is confusion about what 5e may have been trying to achieve. I'm absolutely making some guesses here, but it seems that the goal of 5e was to streamline with simplicity and gave the DM freedom to adjust as necessary to create a game that everyone at their table enjoys.

Much of what the designers have talked about was streamlining the game and simplifying it, much of it boiling down to the "power" of advantage/disadvantage as the most impactful piece of the game. Their goal to create a simpler system of rules but allow the DM more freedom has lead to a lot of arguments about what is RAW vs not.

I'll agree that this was their goal. I'm not actually certain they succeeded.


To me, it seems that the designers created a full system and nearly everything does have RAW. THe problem is, when you create a simple system that is built for more story telling that simulation you end up with a system that doesn't make real world sense all of the time.

True, when you create a simple system built for telling stories more than simulating worlds the rules don't make real world sense all the time, but that's why games like Fate are set up differently to games like D&D 5e.

D&D 5e is primarily a game for modelling characters and worlds, and so most of the rules are about how characters interact with the world. Games like Fate are set up to model stories, and most of the rules are about how the characters interact with the story. For example, D&D cares if I'm proficient with a Halberd, if the Halberd is magical, if I have the Extra Attack class feature, if I have any other class features that impact this, if I have advantage, and so on. Fate just cares about 3 things, is the halberd important to the story (if no then it doesn't need stats), how good is my character at fighting, and do I want to use anything to my advantage (invoking Aspects). Fate then applies the exact same questions to what I do when trying to disgrace my rival, because to it a weeks long political struggle can be just as mechanically important as a two minute melee (especially if you have things like Reputation Stress in your game).


However, not making logical sense doesn't mean that there isn't actually a rule in place. It just means that the rule, when looked at in comparison to the real world, doesn't seem logical. And that's okay. They traded logic and the complexity of the real world for something that was much simpler.

True, and this makes 5e rather gamist. It wants to be a fast RPG where the players explore dungeons, and the rules are tuned to make sense for that.


What this means is that there are rules for pretty much everything, but not every table may be comfortable with this simplified system, and there may be many exceptions to those rules that a DM will want to adjust on the fly to make their game more enjoyable.

Depends what you're doing, it's fine for a kobold bashing session, I'd hate to see someone use 5e to model courtly politics.


Freedom to change the rules for the table's enjoyment doesn't mean you are going against RAW even. RAW allows for it. But it means you are deviating from the basic simple set of rules.

This statement is just incorrect. RAW means using the rules exactly as written (which nobody actually does in my experience, I've never met a table without at least one minor houserule to make the game work better in their specific style, and nobody cares as long as everyone agrees).

RAW is only important on the internet, and even then only when doing calculations or specifically looking for exploits (I wouldn't be surprised if 80% of RAW exploits on the internet have never been used at the table, it's just people going 'oh look at this funny thing you can do, let's extrapolate it to it's logical conclusion').


And there's the rub. RAW accommodates for DM fiat, but it also has a basic set of simple rules. When we all argue against those simple set, the most common reason is that "it doesn't make sense." Which of course it doesn't - simple rules can not handle the complexity of the real world. Use of Adv/Dis is their main method of dealing with it, but it usually doesn't totally fit the bill - and hence the DM ruling.

Just a thought i was having this morning :)

You misunderstand RAW. I'll give you that the RAI accommodate for DM fiat, but RAW is entirely about exactly what is written in the book (down to stupid stuff like the exact wording, taking errata into account of course). Now there is nothing wrong with GM fiat (just as there's nothing wrong with player fiat, it's actually a big thing in some systems), but it has no place when talking about the Rules As Written. Even if the RAW says 'the GM makes something up' what the GM makes up is not RAW, all we can say is that the RAW does not cover this specific circumstance.

On that note, Strawberry Ice Cream is the superior flavour.

[Tanarii]

I find 5e to be a simple set of rules from a basic perspective I picked up from reading blogs, the basis of the type of RPG D&D traditionally is run as: DM presents scenario, player says what their character is doing, DM adjudicates what they're doing. 5e has a bunch of tools for doing that (as do most RPGs), and several of them are predicated on the system being used for what D&D has traditionally done. Dungeon and wilderness adventures. That's why there are rules that assume things like party marching order, doing something over time (keeping an eye out for dangers), lighting, logistics & resource management, combat. They streamlined but kept rules for the biggest areas of traditional focus (e.g. sneaking/scouting and exploring, combat, how spells resolve, resource management), then provided a general rule for adjudicating anything else with the ability check system.

I find it works well. What's a key innovation compared to the original system is the underlying resolution concept of DM decides if adjudication is needed by random determination, picks the ability it's based on, and sets a target number. Of course a DM could always do that even in the early days, but this is a formalized underpinning of the current game.

Yeah, it's too streamlined for some people. But the underlying resolution method being both spelled out mechanically, generally simple to execute, and very flexible, has some huge advantages when it comes to adaptability.

[Laurefindel]

(...)However, not making logical sense doesn't mean that there isn't actually a rule in place. It just means that the rule, when looked at in comparison to the real world, doesn't seem logical.

Very few rules make no logical sense. You can logically defend the rule. What you mean is that the rule doesn't not mirror what we observe in the real world.

A rule that is not simulating our experience on earth is not necessarily an illogical one. It's a subtle difference, but an important one IMO.

[BiPolar]

This statement is just incorrect. RAW means using the rules exactly as written (which nobody actually does in my experience, I've never met a table without at least one minor houserule to make the game work better in their specific style, and nobody cares as long as everyone agrees).

RAW is only important on the internet, and even then only when doing calculations or specifically looking for exploits (I wouldn't be surprised if 80% of RAW exploits on the internet have never been used at the table, it's just people going 'oh look at this funny thing you can do, let's extrapolate it to it's logical conclusion').



You misunderstand RAW. I'll give you that the RAI accommodate for DM fiat, but RAW is entirely about exactly what is written in the book (down to stupid stuff like the exact wording, taking errata into account of course). Now there is nothing wrong with GM fiat (just as there's nothing wrong with player fiat, it's actually a big thing in some systems), but it has no place when talking about the Rules As Written. Even if the RAW says 'the GM makes something up' what the GM makes up is not RAW, all we can say is that the RAW does not cover this specific circumstance.

On that note, Strawberry Ice Cream is the superior flavour.

I guess what I was thinking that the use of the RAW ability for DM judgement was RAW to give some support to not every judgement call is houserule, but I agree your thought is correct.



Yeah, it's too streamlined for some people. But the underlying resolution method being both spelled out mechanically, generally simple to execute, and very flexible, has some huge advantages when it comes to adaptability.

It seems that to me that the real problem most folks have is that the simple system really just doesn't work with trying to explain uncertain rules with real world examples. It gives a lot of freedom for flexibility in generating your world, but for those who want to play it RAW, don't really expect it to be realistic :)

[Tanarii]

It seems that to me that the real problem most folks have is that the simple system really just doesn't work with trying to explain uncertain rules with real world examples. It gives a lot of freedom for flexibility in generating your world, but for those who want to play it RAW, don't really expect it to be realistic :)
My experience has been people mostly have trouble with the less simple sub-systems. Not the basic system of ability checks. Some exceptions obviously, the most common ones being how to use Passive Perception and Lore checks.

[BiPolar]

My experience has been people mostly have trouble with the less simple sub-systems. Not the basic system of ability checks. Some exceptions obviously, the most common ones being how to use Passive Perception and Lore checks.

I can see that, but it also seems that way with things like the invisibility/hide discussions recently.

[Submortimer]

On that note, Strawberry Ice Cream is the superior flavour.

Well this is just plainly false. The correct superior flavor is, of course, Moose Tracks.

[BurgerBeast]

It very much seems that there is confusion about what 5e may have been trying to achieve. I'm absolutely making some guesses here, but it seems that the goal of 5e was to streamline with simplicity and gave the DM freedom to adjust as necessary to create a game that everyone at their table enjoys.

Much of what the designers have talked about was streamlining the game and simplifying it, much of it boiling down to the "power" of advantage/disadvantage as the most impactful piece of the game. Their goal to create a simpler system of rules but allow the DM more freedom has lead to a lot of arguments about what is RAW vs not.

So far, so good.


To me, it seems that the designers created a full system and nearly everything does have RAW. THe problem is, when you create a simple system that is built for more story telling that simulation you end up with a system that doesn't make real world sense all of the time.

This is a nitpick, but worth mentioning: The system is not a "full system." But the system is nonetheless well-designed: I think they made it as full as it needs to be. The point is that it is acknowledged to be incomplete and is intended to be so. How complete the RAW are is not really relevant because no matter extensive they are, they will not be exhaustive.

It seems to me that the designers did an excellent job of deciding when to stop elaborating. They gave just enough to almost every aspect of the game, and gave room for personal preference.


However, not making logical sense doesn't mean that there isn't actually a rule in place. It just means that the rule, when looked at in comparison to the real world, doesn't seem logical. And that's okay. They traded logic and the complexity of the real world for something that was much simpler.

I totally agree here. I would add that the problem with many of the discussions about RAW is that they are the rules as written, and many people take that to imply things that it does not imply. For example, if there is no rule, there is no written rule - most agree on this - so then what happens?

People do some weird things at this point. They more or less start to invent reasons to defend their assumptions. But this is always wrong. If there is no rule, then we must have a default from which to begin (and we do). This is the (1) DM's brain or (2) universal mechanic. And for many people this becomes scary, because they don't want to play in a game in which their ultimate fate can be decided by a fickle human brain (either on it's own, on when it sets DCs that are ridiculous).


What this means is that there are rules for pretty much everything, but not every table may be comfortable with this simplified system, and there may be many exceptions to those rules that a DM will want to adjust on the fly to make their game more enjoyable.

Well, this is complicated in some places because the rules are more complex, and more developed, in some contexts. Again, this should not be a problem. If the rule is written, it's the rule. But many people take more from it than is offered.


Freedom to change the rules for the table's enjoyment doesn't mean you are going against RAW even. RAW allows for it. But it means you are deviating from the basic simple set of rules.

This seems to be evidence that you and I use RAW to mean different things. In my opinion, if there is a rule given in the book, and you change it, then you abandoned RAW in favour of a houserule.


And there's the rub. RAW accommodates for DM fiat, but it also has a basic set of simple rules.

I would say, that out of necessity, the RAW give room for the DM to make the call. However, in some contexts, the rules go into more detail, and in these cases the rules are rules. If you do not follow them, you're not playing the game by the rules. This is fine, but this is an instance of using house rules and not the RAW.

Note that this is decidedly different from making a call in a case where the rules are silent. In these cases, there is no rule, so any DM ruling is within RAW (a term I have been criticized for using). All I mean is that, if there is no written the rule, the DM decides.


When we all argue against those simple set, the most common reason is that "it doesn't make sense." Which of course it doesn't - simple rules can not handle the complexity of the real world. Use of Adv/Dis is their main method of dealing with it, but it usually doesn't totally fit the bill - and hence the DM ruling.

Just a thought i was having this morning :)

Well, I'm glad you shared it. I like to get to the bottom of things.

[BiPolar]

People do some weird things at this point. They more or less start to invent reasons to defend their assumptions. But this is always wrong. If there is no rule, then we must have a default from which to begin (and we do). This is the (1) DM's brain or (2) universal mechanic. And for many people this becomes scary, because they don't want to play in a game in which their ultimate fate can be decided by a fickle human brain (either on it's own, on when it sets DCs that are ridiculous).

This seems to be evidence that you and I use RAW to mean different things. In my opinion, if there is a rule given in the book, and you change it, then you abandoned RAW in favour of a houserule.


I later clarified why I was trying to include interpretation as RAW, but I do concede that it really isn't RAW (which I believe brings us back into agreement.)

The bigger issue I think is when we go into the territory of "no raw." And I don't really think there is. The rules are fairly simple, and it's generally a case where someone has a specific question that would be included in the RAW umbrella if you get more general. The specific isn't really as necessary with 5e as the rules aren't built for specific situations but for general ones - and that's where Crawford brings in RAI to support WHY the general rule applies to the specific question.

With something like Invisibility/Stealth, we want to ask more specific questions, but the answers ARE in RAW. We just don't think they make sense given the specific situation. But it doesn't have to make sense, the general RAW covers those. Now, if the table wants to adapt to make it more realistic, they can do that - but then you've deviated from RAW.

[BurgerBeast]

I later clarified why I was trying to include interpretation as RAW, but I do concede that it really isn't RAW (which I believe brings us back into agreement.)

Cool.


The bigger issue I think is when we go into the territory of "no raw." And I don't really think there is.

There are some glaring holes in this regard. For example, despite the many people on this forum who say so, and despite the obvious intent of the writers, the rules that define attacks do not actually define attacks. Some will complain that this is an overly strict adherence to logic instead of plain English, but they're mistaken, in my opinion. This can be plainly shown, but the use of logic is regularly attacked as rhetoric.


The rules are fairly simple, and it's generally a case where someone has a specific question that would be included in the RAW umbrella if you get more general. The specific isn't really as necessary with 5e as the rules aren't built for specific situations but for general ones - and that's where Crawford brings in RAI to support WHY the general rule applies to the specific question.

Yes, and beyond this, Crawford does a remarkable job of sticking to the point. The problem is that most people aren't accustomed to be spoken to in this way, and they look for implied meanings where there are none. When Crawford replies, particularly in his tweets, he means exactly what he says, and he answers amazingly well.


With something like Invisibility/Stealth, we want to ask more specific questions, but the answers ARE in RAW. We just don't think they make sense given the specific situation. But it doesn't have to make sense, the general RAW covers those. Now, if the table wants to adapt to make it more realistic, they can do that - but then you've deviated from RAW.

I'm not so sure about this. I think I know why people misunderstand the rules around hiding and invisibility, and I think you're on more or less the right track, but I think the RAW actually do make sense. I think some people are reading the RAW and jumping to unjustified conclusions.

[Anonymouswizard]

Oh, don't forget the bizarre case of 'magic gets specific rules telling you what it can do, martials get no rules saying what they can't do'. This is weird, but at the end of the day what nonmagical skill use can accomplish is actually entirely up to GM fiat.

Now this isn't in and off itself a bad thing, but if I get in a position where I'm say a 20th level Bard or Rogue with 20 Charisma and Expertise in Deception, and I want to convince people that I'm the moon, come down to check on the tides to explain exactly why I'm at the king's private dock. I roll a 10, giving me a total of 27, does this succeed? On the one hand this is in some ways stupid, on the other hand this is almost beating an impossible DC. What if my friends support me and give me advantage, allowing me to get a 30? Is a 20th level fighter Conan or Heracles?

Now at the same time I know exactly what a 20th level wizard's spells are capable of (ignoring a little bit of wiggle room inherent in the effects like igniting objects), they're in the book.

[Tanarii]

I can see that, but it also seems that way with things like the invisibility/hide discussions recently.
Unsurprising, people care a lot about the questions like (and corresponding answers to) "can I get advantage on my attack", "can I apply Sneak Attack", "do they know I am there" and "can this enemy find me to attack me at all" in D&D. They are some of the most argued points in every edition of D&D I've played to date, which is all of them except oD&D.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I think you have to separate out two aspects of the game: tactical combat and everything else. As of the last three editions or so at least, D&D is primarily a game for modelling tactical combat, with oodles of predefined character and monster options; if that's not what you're looking for in terms of system, then picking 5E to play doesn't make any sense. So if the game leaves certain connected and situationally important aspects wide open to fudging and confusion, it fails players in a quite different way from having fuzzy rules on weather or courtly intrigue or anything like that.

[Pex]

I have two issues, with one really a subset of the other. Those who have read my postings before know what's coming. :smallyuk:

I have to relearn the game depending on who is DM that day. It is obviously impossible and impractical to have a rule for every possible instance of anything that could happen. The DM has to make decisions on things where the rules are lacking or insufficient. My problem with 5E is there's too much of that. There are instances of things that were quite possible and appropriate to have official rules of how they work, but the designers decided not to do their job and made the DM do it. Skills are my main beef where this happens. It's nice they say something easy is DC 10 and hard is DC 20, but they do not give guidelines on what makes a skill use easy or hard, so what the difficulty of a skill use is depends on who is DM. My chance to succeed is never dependent on how I create my character. I could be proficient in a skill with one character and that DM says I need to roll DC 20 to succeed, but my other non-proficient character in a different game only needs to reach DC 10 in that DM's game to succeed. There are several other instances besides skills, such as in spells. Who determines what creatures are summoned in the various summoning spells? Why should I have to go online to get one designer's intent? What if a DM doesn't even know or care about that option? If one DM allows Great Weapon Style to be used on Paladin smites but another DM doesn't, both are considered correct, not a house rule, and designer's opinion of the matter is irrelevant. I shouldn't have to ask the DM what basic rules are we playing with this time.

My other issue, the subset, is that because the DM has to finish designing the game this facilitates the tyrannical DM being one or learning to be one. Not cause it. Not teach it. Facilitate it. It's not enough that players can vote with their feet. The DM doesn't learn the lesson because the game tells him to make up all the rulings he wants his way; therefore, the players must be whiny rollplaying min/maxing power gaming munchkins. Players brand new to RPGs aren't going to know any better. They can read the rules for themselves. In previous editions like 3E the players would know the DM is making all sorts of house rules that are making play difficult. They can find a DM who doesn't do that. In 5E, there are no rules to house rule. The game tells the DM to do what he wants with everything, so the new players don't fathom the game doesn't have to be so harsh as the DM makes it. If they don't like it they may just never play the game at all with anyone.

[Telok]

I have two issues, with one really a subset of the other. Those who have read my postings before know what's coming. :smallyuk:

Well one of the declared goals was to recapture some of the oD&D flavor and DMing. So it'll be like the old pre-internet days, every table can have it's own binder full of rulings and house rules or the DM just tries to keep everything in his/her head all the time. Been there, done that, not interested in rewriting someone else's rules any more.

[Anonymouswizard]

My other issue, the subset, is that because the DM has to finish designing the game this facilitates the tyrannical DM being one or learning to be one. Not cause it. Not teach it. Facilitate it. It's not enough that players can vote with their feet. The DM doesn't learn the lesson because the game tells him to make up all the rulings he wants his way; therefore, the players must be whiny rollplaying min/maxing power gaming munchkins. Players brand new to RPGs aren't going to know any better. They can read the rules for themselves. In previous editions like 3E the players would know the DM is making all sorts of house rules that are making play difficult. They can find a DM who doesn't do that. In 5E, there are no rules to house rule. The game tells the DM to do what he wants with everything, so the new players don't fathom the game doesn't have to be so harsh as the DM makes it. If they don't like it they may just never play the game at all with anyone.

I agree with your first issue, but I want to focus on this one. Because while some people will claim the lack of rules is a benefit, this is a significant problem that arises.

Now it can be pretty hard for new players (or experienced players, it's the third session and you still don't know to roll the d20 for attack and skill checks grumble grumble), and even more for complicated systems. My problem with 5e here is that instead of giving a flexible set of mechanics that can be used to model almost anything, as something like Fate* does, it just stops giving mechanics for certain ways of completing stuff. This means that, instead of giving GMs powerful tools to respond to player actions they have to make stuff up.

Now some of these abuses happen in games like Fate, I can give a difficulty of Cosmic (+11) to climbing a wall if I want to (probably to railroad, although that's what Compels are for), but whenever we come up against something the rules don't explain in 5e (social manipulation, disarming a trap, climbing a wall, sticking a sword in a stone exactly right so nobody will remove it for years) the GM has to come up with numbers completely out of thin air and what happens if it fails. This can very easily bleed into 'what I say goes, final' where anything the GM dislikes is vetoed because they get supreme power over the game, which a competent game might give some way to avoid (like Fate encouraging players to go along with plot hooks by giving FP for compels, while allowing players to avoid railroading by spending FP).

Also, I've completely encountered 'Anonymouswizard must be a minmaxer because he has a decent character' (I'm not, I'm an optimiser in the sense I start with a concept and then build a mechanically strong character from that, but apparently arrays are cheating compared to using the summon power to bring you're equipment to you), or because I want to use the actual rules in the book for something, or for some other reason. Then again, one of the people saying this did also once pull out 'Anonymouswizard is a bad player because his tank character won initiative and charged into a position where he could occupy as many enemies as possible, stopping me from using my blasty cone spells**' (I was playing a dex-based fighter and so often moved first, although if I played it again I'd go for a halberd Strength build and just take improved initiative).

* I know not everyone agrees with the design and goals of Fate, but Fate Core is actually really well designed with flexible rules that can be used in almost any situation.
** Not my fault, I'd recommended transmuter and illusionist because I knew this was going to be a problem by round 2 of any combat but apparently evokers are the only way to play wizards (what's my tribal half-elf ranger/diviner then, chopped salad?).


Well one of the declared goals was to recapture some of the oD&D flavor and DMing. So it'll be like the old pre-internet days, every table can have it's own binder full of rulings and house rules or the DM just tries to keep everything in his/her head all the time. Been there, done that, not interested in rewriting someone else's rules any more.

You're implying this was impossible in the 3.X/5e days? I've played with binders full of houserules in everything from GURPS to Mutants and Masterminds, the nice GMs let us see the houserules (the not nice ones? Well one once denied me my move action because I'd already attacked in direct contradiction of the rules, and because he was the only one with a laptop only he could check the pdf at that point*, that villain should have been unable to hit me because of my movement speed, and my attack was ranged anyway). Now every group invariably houserules something, but there is a right way to go about it.

* He was not a good GM. I've only played M&M twice, and was reluctant the second time due to Mister Railroad and his GMPC Villains of 'stay on the rails guys'. I only played it again because the GM for the second game had previously given us all the houserules whenever they were more than 'track your own hp'.

[Telok]

You're implying this was impossible in the 3.X days?
Oh, no. I'm saying that it was the norm for groups I met and played with in the TSR era to have multipage rulings, clarifications, and house rules/errata documents if they were organized. It was also common for the DM to try to remember everything and/or just make things up depending on their own unstated assumptions about the rules and your character. It was not the norm to have more than a few notes on particular rulings or house rules in 3.x, at most.

One of the declared goals was to recapture some of the oD&D flavor and DMing. I'm seeing some of the same arguments now about the rules that I saw 20 years ago. That goal has succeeded.

[Kurt Kurageous]

I've been playing with the idea of creating "the X stat." It is either rolled or created alongside the big six/point buy/array.

The X stat modifier is used when other mods don't make a lot of sense. Huh. How much you put into it is up to you.

I could see a whole slew of classes based on the X stat, much like CHA became a spell ability way back in AD&D with the multiclass aberration thing called the bard.

It's the in-between thing that is not INT WIS or CHA when those scores let us down.

[Pex]

Oh, no. I'm saying that it was the norm for groups I met and played with in the TSR era to have multipage rulings, clarifications, and house rules/errata documents if they were organized. It was also common for the DM to try to remember everything and/or just make things up depending on their own unstated assumptions about the rules and your character. It was not the norm to have more than a few notes on particular rulings or house rules in 3.x, at most.

One of the declared goals was to recapture some of the oD&D flavor and DMing. I'm seeing some of the same arguments now about the rules that I saw 20 years ago. That goal has succeeded.

One thing 5E has in its favor over old D&D (2E for me) is the 5E DMG does not tell the DM to say no to players and deny things they want for anything. The 2E DMG was full of that. That's where "facilitates" comes in as opposed to "teaching" that 2E most definitely does.

[Coidzor]

This statement is just incorrect. RAW means using the rules exactly as written (which nobody actually does in my experience, I've never met a table without at least one minor houserule to make the game work better in their specific style, and nobody cares as long as everyone agrees).

RAW is only important on the internet, and even then only when doing calculations or specifically looking for exploits (I wouldn't be surprised if 80% of RAW exploits on the internet have never been used at the table, it's just people going 'oh look at this funny thing you can do, let's extrapolate it to it's logical conclusion').

RAW is not just important on the internet, it is also an important starting point and jumping off point for making houserules. Only a limited subset of houserules will integrate well with the base rules without looking kludgey and only a limited subset of kludgey houserules will actually work out well mathematically.


Yeah, it's too streamlined for some people. But the underlying resolution method being both spelled out mechanically, generally simple to execute, and very flexible, has some huge advantages when it comes to adaptability.

I like the underlying resolution method being clearer and having guidelines.

I just also dislike when there's any risk for the frame of reference being open to subtle shifts in the GM's mood.

If the GM is really too out of sorts because they're going through a divorce or their kid is being a little devil and tried to tear out Little Susie's throat on the playground or they've had a bad string of romantic misfortune, I'd prefer for that to be clear from gross departures from a stable frame of reference rather than a difficulty spike in a nebulous one.

[Beelzebubba]

One of the declared goals was to recapture some of the oD&D flavor and DMing. I'm seeing some of the same arguments now about the rules that I saw 20 years ago. That goal has succeeded.

I dunno, maybe that's because the people are the same? I play with a new group that's 25-35 mostly, and they don't get into any of the nonsense I remember.

Most of them are also married, with kids, and have lives, too. That part is new.

Even a perfect rule set will not stop a dedicated rules bender and arguer.

[Snails]

How wide is the chasm? DC 12
How intricate is the lock? DC 15
How stubborn is the ostler? DC 9

That is not a necessarily bad way to roll.

Ultimately what is important is whether the DM is trying to say Yes or trying to say No, as a matter of habit. 3e spelled out a lot of stuff in the rules for skills, and we did not need the DM to make a decision on routine things -- the rules told us enough. The player could point to the rules and know that such and such was well within the PC's competency.

One disconcerting thing about 5e is PCs are basically not allowed to be good at anything mundane (unless they get Rogue levels for double proficiency in that skill). You net mod tops out at +11, so your 20th level seasoned masterful horseman of a Paladin can easily fail at a not very high DC 15 riding check. To me that is rather like watching Michael Jordan miss a slam dunk when the net is undefended -- dunks are not easy and most people cannot do them at all, but some people do get good enough to hit them 100% of the time unless the conditions are very adverse.

I suppose the answer is a good DM should know to not even ask for the skill check. But why should they know this?

This gets back to what Pex was saying: how the game actually plays is entirely up to the DM -- in the face of ambiguity, there is effectively no guidance on whether to crush the players with rolls that flat math will force the PCs to eventually fail, or whether to encourage the PCs to stretch their abilities by taking risks.

This is a reinvention of an ancient 1e/2e netnews debate: "Hey, my Dextrous PC just wanted to swing from a chandelier like Errol Flynn. Why does my DM make it so hard to ever do something cool?" Its 1988 all over again.

[Rhedyn]

It very much seems that there is confusion about what 5e may have been trying to achieve. I'm absolutely making some guesses here, but it seems that the goal of 5e was to streamline with simplicity and gave the DM freedom to adjust as necessary to create a game that everyone at their table enjoys.

Much of what the designers have talked about was streamlining the game and simplifying it, much of it boiling down to the "power" of advantage/disadvantage as the most impactful piece of the game. Their goal to create a simpler system of rules but allow the DM more freedom has lead to a lot of arguments about what is RAW vs not.

To me, it seems that the designers created a full system and nearly everything does have RAW. THe problem is, when you create a simple system that is built for more story telling that simulation you end up with a system that doesn't make real world sense all of the time.

However, not making logical sense doesn't mean that there isn't actually a rule in place. It just means that the rule, when looked at in comparison to the real world, doesn't seem logical. And that's okay. They traded logic and the complexity of the real world for something that was much simpler.

What this means is that there are rules for pretty much everything, but not every table may be comfortable with this simplified system, and there may be many exceptions to those rules that a DM will want to adjust on the fly to make their game more enjoyable.

Freedom to change the rules for the table's enjoyment doesn't mean you are going against RAW even. RAW allows for it. But it means you are deviating from the basic simple set of rules.

And there's the rub. RAW accommodates for DM fiat, but it also has a basic set of simple rules. When we all argue against those simple set, the most common reason is that "it doesn't make sense." Which of course it doesn't - simple rules can not handle the complexity of the real world. Use of Adv/Dis is their main method of dealing with it, but it usually doesn't totally fit the bill - and hence the DM ruling.

Just a thought i was having this morning :)
There are many interesting and cool rules in 5e that many systems could learn from. 5e just didn't finish there rules set. It hides behind the ideal of "rules light" but in reality it is just rules incomplete. They dropped the ball on skills. Many other systems left behind from 3.x can justifiably be lost do to "rules light" design, but skills are just too critical to the functioning of the world to leave all of that to the DM to make up and balance. Compare skill rules to combat or magic and you see a great disparity in the level of detail.

Basically, a third of this game is missing and it causes all sorts of problems.

[Knaight]

There are many interesting and cool rules in 5e that many systems could learn from. 5e just didn't finish there rules set. It hides behind the ideal of "rules light" but in reality it is just rules incomplete. They dropped the ball on skills. Many other systems left behind from 3.x can justifiably be lost do to "rules light" design, but skills are just too critical to the functioning of the world to leave all of that to the DM to make up and balance. Compare skill rules to combat or magic and you see a great disparity in the level of detail.

GMs picking DCs (or various other analogs in other systems) demonstrably works all over the place. It doesn't work for some people, which is one of the reasons it's nice that there are so many games built so many different ways. For other people it's close to a requirement - 5e dropping predefined DCs is a major part of the reason it's my favorite D&D edition. As far as being lighter than combat or magic, that's undeniably true. With that said, there are good reasons for that - magic tends to need more definition than other things because magic does not exist in the real world and thus is a fictional system being built from scratch. "How hard is it to climb a tree" is the sort of thing that can be reasonably asked of someone in the real world, and asking them instead of consulting a table even lets them consider the particulars of the tree (the tree loaded with branches I climbed all the time as a kid isn't remotely comparable to a moss-slicked sequoia). "How hard is it to magically produce a fireball" is not. As for combat, it's a combat focused game and thus the center of focus gets systematized.

[2D8HP]

In my first two years as a DM ( roughly1978 to 1980), I really wanted more to be spelled out. As I got more used to making "rulings", I came to want less so that it was acceptable to make stuff up, rather than my having to memorize or look up RAW.

As a DM, a big list of DC"s that I would have to wade through would be annoying, and as a player I like a bit of mystery.

I may be tempted to steal some rules for building and maintaining strongholds/manors from old D&D, or Pendragon, but otherwise I don't perceive any lack of rules.

[Pex]

I had dabbled a bit DMing 5E, and the lack of defined DCs for skills was frustrating. It was exhausting having to come up with DCs on the fly or even to determine whether there should be a roll at all for everything. By the end of a session I would give up in setting a DC. If the player rolled high he succeeded. If he rolled low he failed. If it was in the middle then I'd bother quickly to think of an appropriate DC.

I don't want to have to think of such minutiae. I don't expect to memorize tables of DCs. I'm perfectly happy to have the book beside me opened up to those rules for easy reference. The few seconds it takes is hardly game destroying. Skills that come up more often, especially those that are based on formula, would eventually be memorized. Like spell DC. I don't have to look on my character's sheet. I know the DC is 8 + proficiency + casting modifier even if I forget the exact number after two real world weeks since the last time we played, or perhaps it's a new player just learning the game and he's having trouble finding the number on his character sheet.

[Coidzor]

In my first two years as a DM ( roughly1978 to 1980), I really wanted more to be spelled out. As I got more used to making "rulings", I came to want less so that it was acceptable to make stuff up, rather than my having to memorize or look up RAW.

As a DM, a big list of DC"s that I would have to wade through would be annoying, and as a player I like a bit of mystery.

There's not really very many people asking for an exhaustive list of DCs. A significant chunk of people want enough DCs and guidelines for setting DCs and what is easy under what paradigm to actually serve as a rubric for play instead of having to wing it completely and figure out if X is hard because it's difficult for real people to do or easy because the game is set in Forgotten Realms and you're playing Fantasy Superheroes.

As it is, I've heard of there being issues just going between different DMs in AL, even after all of the restrictions and extra things codified for organized play.

[Snails]

The practical downside of rulings not rules is that when it comes to a juncture where DC matters in determining a strategic choice, the players are going to pester the DM with questions of what is this DC and what is that DC, etc., etc.

Is it really such a DM downer to just tell a player "it is X feet from there to there; look up your own Jump DC, before I get to your turn, please"? Why is it a bad thing to have a bunch of common stuff written down? The DM does not have to memorize this stuff.

[MrStabby]

There is a breakpoint where you start to get diminishing returns to complexity. It adds little that a good DM doesn't add anyway through their judgement. I think 5th judges that pretty well.

For example skills - a bad DM will tend to produce a bad game no matter what. A good DM will tailor the skill DC to the style of their campaign and the specific circumstances. Nailing down a DC does nothing to resolve a bad DM and impedes a good one. Actually in reality it probably wouldn't impede a good one, it would just give players something more to whinge about that the DC on a check they were asked for was 3 higher than they expected.

Or for example consider combat. There don't have to be complex skills for grappling in combat because the DM can create appropriate encounters. Between strength, size categories, condition immunity, advantage and proficiency a DM has enough levers to pull when designing creatures for encounters. No addition of lots of little bonuses is required.

Generally I think the edition is sound and fun. Lots of people house rule things. Lots of people modify rules based on tweets or on what people on forums say and generally it is fine. The great advantage of rulings over rules is that they can be changed from campaign to campaign to reflect the style that the group is looking for.

[mgshamster]

As it is, I've heard of there being issues just going between different DMs in AL, even after all of the restrictions and extra things codified for organized play.

Have you ever actually played or run AL? There are very few restrictions. Like, maybe 5 or 6 restrictions for both players and DMs combined.

[Anonymouswizard]

A think a major problem with 5e's version of 'the GM sets all DCs' is that there's no easily accessible standard DC, and so I have to judge the situation and determine how ready or hard it is (on a roughly 20 point scale, give or take based on skill variance in the party).

Compare this to Savage Worlds, another simulationist/gamist game where DCs are entirely GM fiat, but the way it's presented is much easier for me to use. Except in combat the target number is always a 4, you get +2 to your roll of it's easy and -2 if it's hard, if I think the modifiers are worthwhile. Combat rod are the same except the TN is the opponent's parry for melee attacks and toughness for damage rolls (ranged attacks are still TN 4 before range penalties, and psychological attacks are opposed rolls). Because of this standard TN and can just say 'make a lockpicking roll' and the player can tell if they succeeded or failed (and how many raises of they succeed).

[busterswd]

Have you ever actually played or run AL? There are very few restrictions. Like, maybe 5 or 6 restrictions for both players and DMs combined.

Yeah, this has been largely my experience as well, even at conventions. As long as you use "official" adventures and follow some very specific restrictions (restricted spells, classes, and changes to loot tables), you have a great deal of freedom on how to run an adventure as DM. It's just like any other regular game, in that DM prep and skill make a huge difference in your gaming experience.

[mgshamster]

A think a major problem with 5e's version of 'the GM sets all DCs' is that there's no easily accessible standard DC, and so I have to judge the situation and determine how ready or hard it is (on a roughly 20 point scale, give or take based on skill variance in the party).

Ignore character skill. Think of the average person.

How difficult is the task on a scale of 1-10 for the average person*? Then multiply by 2 (for a 2-20 scale) or by 3 (for a 3-30 scale).

Then let the PCs skills adjudicate from there.

*Instead of an average person, you can also say, "how difficult do I want it to be for this story, on a scale of 1-10?"

[Pex]

Ignore character skill. Think of the average person.

How difficult is the task on a scale of 1-10 for the average person*? Then multiply by 2 (for a 2-20 scale) or by 3 (for a 3-30 scale).

Then let the PCs skills adjudicate from there.

*Instead of an average person, you can also say, "how difficult do I want it to be for this story, on a scale of 1-10?"

There we go. The ability of my character to do something is dependent on who is DM that day.

"Average person" also doesn't work because PCs are not average people and people's perspectives on what is average will also differ. For example, how easy was it to climb a rope in gym class?

[mgshamster]

There we go. The ability of my character to do something is dependent on who is DM that day.

"Average person" also doesn't work because PCs are not average people and people's perspectives on what is average will also differ. For example, how easy was it to climb a rope in gym class?

For a story-based game, yes, the DC will be dependent on the story.

Note that what I suggested isn't an official way to determine the DC, it's just one technique a person may choose to use.

I got it from Numenera (where that is the official way to determine the DC in that game). It's a very story based game.

[2D8HP]

There we go. The ability of my character to do something is....


If I judge what you're saying correctly, you as a player want to already know before you attempt something what the odds are to successfully attempt a task (reminds me all the times I'm asked how long it will takes to fix something, I have to bite my tongue not to say, "between five seconds and five years, I'll know when it's done!"). In my experience real life just isn't like that, the future just isn't known.

You also want things "set in stone", and independent of individual DM"s judgement (what are they for then?).

[Pex]

If I judge what you're saying correctly, you as a player want to already know before you attempt something what the odds are to successfully attempt a task (reminds me all the times I'm asked how long it will takes to fix something, I have to bite my tongue not to say, "between five seconds and five years, I'll know when it's done!"). In my experience real life just isn't like that, the future just isn't known.

You also want things "set in stone", and independent of individual DM"s judgement (what are they for then?).

It's a game, not real life. I don't find it a problem for players to know things. Knowing the math of the game is the extrapolation of the character knowing his own skill. The character knows whether he can do something or not under normal circumstances. The d20 roll reflects the randomness of the unforeseen. The higher the skill the more the character successfully adapts to the unforeseen to succeed anyway. Passive scores and no need to roll, 5E's equivalent to Take 10 and Take 20, reflect the extra care or the character is just that good that the unforeseen is irrelevant when the character will always make the DC. When that is not enough to beat the DC then there are special circumstances or the character is not skilled enough yet and he would know he is not skilled enough.

Yes, I do want things "set in stone" without the need for the DM making up everything. The game doesn't need to tell the DM he can do whatever he wants. He can already do whatever he wants. What he needs are the tools to do it. It is also a check against DM tyranny. The players would know the DM is going against the norm should he do so and judge accordingly whether they're ok with it or not. If not, they know their problem is with that particular DM and not the game. I was fortunate enough to have years of gaming experience to know in my first 5E game that the DM was a tyrant for me to quit, not blame the game, and try again with another group. Those new to RPGs wouldn't know any better, just like I had to learn that lesson during my 2E years. Didn't help the 2E DMG teaches DMs to be tyrants, but I got a taste of how much more I was enjoying the game the first time I played with a 2E DM who wasn't a tyrant.

[Coidzor]

There is a breakpoint where you start to get diminishing returns to complexity. It adds little that a good DM doesn't add anyway through their judgement. I think 5th judges that pretty well.

For example skills - a bad DM will tend to produce a bad game no matter what. A good DM will tailor the skill DC to the style of their campaign and the specific circumstances. Nailing down a DC does nothing to resolve a bad DM and impedes a good one. Actually in reality it probably wouldn't impede a good one, it would just give players something more to whinge about that the DC on a check they were asked for was 3 higher than they expected.

Or for example consider combat. There don't have to be complex skills for grappling in combat because the DM can create appropriate encounters. Between strength, size categories, condition immunity, advantage and proficiency a DM has enough levers to pull when designing creatures for encounters. No addition of lots of little bonuses is required.

Generally I think the edition is sound and fun. Lots of people house rule things. Lots of people modify rules based on tweets or on what people on forums say and generally it is fine. The great advantage of rulings over rules is that they can be changed from campaign to campaign to reflect the style that the group is looking for.

Having good guidelines can help prevent DMs from being accidentally bad, so that when a bad DM is encountered, one can be more sure that there's some ill will going on

[Geeknamese]

The main problem that is a recurring theme in so many of these topics is play style and your expectations based on your preferred play style. There are people who play to win and that's what's fun for them. Then, there are people who play for the shared narrative and their fun is to be able to be creative and move the story. Then, there's everything in between. Most importantly for the game is you have to make sure the DM and his vision for the game is right for you. The beautiful thing about 5e is that it provides a basic framework that codifies the parts that require rules and leaves other parts loose enough so that each DM can run the game the way that facilitates their ideal game. You have to make sure you're a right fit for that particular game with that particular DM. There's a level of trust you have to have on your DM that they are looking to share this story with you and that everyone's just wants to have fun. Many of the examples mentioned previously in this thread seem more player vs. DM than creating a story together. The example previously of a DM who has secret house rules that aren't shared with the group upfront seems to be an outlier because I have never experienced anything like that. I don't think that's the norm. Like mentioned earlier, there are good DMs and there are bad DMs.

Hard and fast rules for everything, as mentioned above, limits creativity and the DM's ability to "make rulings" to move the story. Even with Combat where the rules are more robust than in other pillars, if the players want to do something creative and cool but it doesn't quite fit with the rules, I usually go with the Rule of Cool and make a ruling to allow them to go for it and be creative. If I wanted to play a strict tactical game, I'd play X-wing or wargaming. But DM fiat in 5e allows players to be creative and gives the DM the power to adjudicate it. If the Artifcer Gunsmith with expertise in masonry tools tells me that he wants to take a look at the archway above the monster mid-battle to figure out where best to shoot an Explosive Round to knock out the keystone and cause a collapse, I want to be able to make that judgement call and tell him to make a Difficult Only (Masonry Tools) check at Disadvantage due to the distance for the inspection and being in mid-battle. If he makes the check and succeeds on the shot, archway collapses on the monster and it's a really cool sequence and the player is rewarded for being creative and using skills that highlight his char. DM Fiat allows me to say it succeeds. I don't have to go to the book and look up HP per foot of thickness of stone, etc. to make sure everything is "legal". It's my call.

In regards to the 5e skill system, it does not feel incomplete to me. It feels intuitive and allows for creativity. If PCs face a climb up a difficult rock face, the fighter with his physical ability can succeed with the normal Strength (Athletics) check and climb up in no time. Perhaps the PC of the Wizard decides that he wants to take his time and study the available paths/handholds and plan the most efficient and safe climb, I'd make the call for an Int (Athletics) check. If he's really creative or comes up with something ingenious, I might give him Advantage on the check. No hard and fast rules, just rulings I can make on the fly which moves the story and rewards players for being creative. Awesome. Not so charismatic player wants to win over the female NPC using his cooking utensils ability, I'd have him explain what his idea is or better yet, if he roleplays explaining to her of the intricacies of the cooking process and the delicate flavors that is soon to caress her lips, yada yada, I would probably give him a Cha (Cooking Utensils) check at Advantage. If she's a commoner, maybe it's a moderate DC. If she's a duchess, it'll be a Difficult DC. Beautiful. Players get creative and no hard and fast rules in the way that prevent me from making that call.

I like a system that's robust enough to help facilitate my story but at the same time, doesn't get in the way of it.

[Geeknamese]

Yes, I do want things "set in stone" without the need for the DM making up everything. The game doesn't need to tell the DM he can do whatever he wants. He can already do whatever he wants. What he needs are the tools to do it. It is also a check against DM tyranny. The players would know the DM is going against the norm should he do so and judge accordingly whether they're ok with it or not. If not, they know their problem is with that particular DM and not the game. I was fortunate enough to have years of gaming experience to know in my first 5E game that the DM was a tyrant for me to quit, not blame the game, and try again with another group. Those new to RPGs wouldn't know any better, just like I had to learn that lesson during my 2E years. Didn't help the 2E DMG teaches DMs to be tyrants, but I got a taste of how much more I was enjoying the game the first time I played with a 2E DM who wasn't a tyrant.

I would hate to have to try and play tabletop RPGs with the kind of paranoia that you have where you have to worry about DM tyranny. Finding a game and finding a DM/GM is like going on a date. You got to ask questions of what their vision of a relationship is like and what are their expectations, etc. If their vision of the relationship doesn't match yours, you find another candidate. You can't go into a game and call the DM a tyrant if it isn't run the way you expect it. Statements like "DM is going against the norm" and having to challenge the DM with rules seems rather rules lawyery and a mentality of "I need to win". D&D is a combination of tactical wargame for Combat mixed with exploration, storytelling and improvisation. You can't treat things like Skills and DC like a tactical wargame with hard and fast rules. There are too many variables which require a DM to make judgment calls on DC. You're trying to climb an earthen wall, it's been raining recently, the sediment appears a little loose in parts but you have pitons and rope and the umber hulk has caught your trail and you can hear it approaching in the distance...you want the rules to be able to have this DC set in stone without the need for DM adjudication to set a DC. You're saying their should be a set DC and what, a list of micro modifiers to account for all those variables to make sure the DM isn't cheating you? Geez.

[mephnick]

I mean it's suggested that the DM set a majority of his checks from 10-20. You basically never use 5 because..why would you? 25-30 should be extremely rare. So you should have a pretty good idea that most of your DCs will hover around 15 if the DM has read the manual.

[2D8HP]

It's a game, not real life. I don't find it a problem for players to know things. Knowing the math of the game is the extrapolation of the character knowing his own skill....


In real life I work as a plumber (started when Clinton was President), and often people want to know "how long it will take". If you do a repair a couple of times and it takes the same amount of time each time you think that you know how long a particuliar symptom takes to repair. But with more experiences one realizes that while sometimes a particular symptom takes only seconds to repair, other times it takes many hours, you don't know for sure until you're done. The more you know, the more you realize you're ignorance, the Dunning–Kruger effect (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) is real.

If I (as a player) always know what the odds of my PC's success are, that breaks immersion for me and diminishes my sense of exploring a world.

I what to know what my PC's perceive the odds to be (if they have any idea), then I want to state what my PC tries to do, and only then (just before I roll the dice) do I want to be told the target number (who knows, maybe they'll be a sudden gust of wind when my PC tries to jump the chasm?).

This allows for double suspence, making the game more fun for me.

YMMV.

[Anonymouswizard]

Ignore character skill. Think of the average person.

How difficult is the task on a scale of 1-10 for the average person*? Then multiply by 2 (for a 2-20 scale) or by 3 (for a 3-30 scale).

Then let the PCs skills adjudicate from there.

*is there heInstead of an average person, you can also say, "how difficult do I want it to be for this story, on a scale of 1-10?"

Actually i do need to factor character skill into account, for a couple of reasons, mainly 'do they need a 21+' and 'is the chance of failure significant'.

While this works, it's just annoying when I use it to set a DC of 25 not realising the character only has a +4. If much rather either drop it a couple of points or say 'you try for a while before realising you can't do it'.


Having good guidelines can help prevent DMs from being accidentally bad, so that when a bad DM is encountered, one can be more sure that there's some ill will going on

I'm shocked at the quality of the GMing advice several games give, which turns promising GMs into bad ones (most commonly 'punish your players if they try to leave the railroad'). What we really need is a document we can point potential GMs to, with some basics, advice on balancing the game, a guide on incorporating freedom into a plotted adventure, and just a good section on 'when to say yes, and when to say no'.

EDIT: I must say, the only time I hated GMing was 5e. I didn't have the DMG, but all that many was I was missing the rules, I've run enough to know the GMing advice. It was just so bland, which might have been because I didn't have access to DMG optional rules, and having to work out how things work instead of having powerful tools like I do in Fate was annoying. If I knock over the table and litter the for is it difficult terrain? In Fate I just make a 'cluttered floor' Aspect and people invoke it of they want a bonus.

[mgshamster]

I'm shocked at the quality of the GMing advice several games give, which turns promising GMs into bad ones (most commonly 'punish your players if they try to leave the railroad'). What we really need is a document we can point potential GMs to, with some basics, advice on balancing the game, a guide on incorporating freedom into a plotted adventure, and just a good section on 'when to say yes, and when to say no'.

Have you read Kobold Press' new Guide to Gamemastering? My copy is on order, so I haven't read it yet, but it's written by a bunch of the bigger names in the industry.

From their book description:

"In Kobold Guide to Gamemastering, master GMs and storytellers give you advice about solo campaigns, shy players, cell phones, and making rulings on the fly. Are you unprepared for the game you’re running half an hour from now? Did you accidentally kill all the PCs? Do you want to run a game for kids? Did the plot take a sudden turn and the PCs have gone into uncharted territory? We’ve got you covered.

Complete with discussions on highlighting player strengths, tips for new and veteran GMs, and character romances, you’ll find useful advice about making your game more welcoming, more engaging, and more fun.

Featuring essays by Keith Baker, Wolfgang Baur, David “Zeb” Cook, Frank Mentzer, Shanna Germain, Monica Valentinelli, Steve Winter, and many other game professionals."

[2D8HP]

Have you read Kobold Press' new Guide to Gamemastering?....


Thanks for the tip!

I've previously read and liked their Guides to Combat, Magic, and Worldbuilding.

Looking forward to the new book now!

[Rhedyn]

GMs picking DCs (or various other analogs in other systems) demonstrably works all over the place. It doesn't work for some people, which is one of the reasons it's nice that there are so many games built so many different ways. For other people it's close to a requirement - 5e dropping predefined DCs is a major part of the reason it's my favorite D&D edition. As far as being lighter than combat or magic, that's undeniably true. With that said, there are good reasons for that - magic tends to need more definition than other things because magic does not exist in the real world and thus is a fictional system being built from scratch. "How hard is it to climb a tree" is the sort of thing that can be reasonably asked of someone in the real world, and asking them instead of consulting a table even lets them consider the particulars of the tree (the tree loaded with branches I climbed all the time as a kid isn't remotely comparable to a moss-slicked sequoia). "How hard is it to magically produce a fireball" is not. As for combat, it's a combat focused game and thus the center of focus gets systematized.
Who said there needs to be DCs?

For example, you could just have a table of things that you can just do as your bonus increases or things that only proficient people can do.

Right now a level 20 expert at a skill (+17) can still roll the same as a total novice that is inherently bad at the skill (-2). DCs probably are a poor decision from the onset if you want skills to do anything meaningful, since in bounded accuracy the d20 is most of your bonus for most heroes.

The other options is to adjust DCs based on who is performing them (like for an expert the DC is 5 but for they novice the DC is 20), but that creates all sorts of recursive problems keeping those rulings straight in your head.

[Anonymouswizard]

Have you read Kobold Press' new Guide to Gamemastering? My copy is on order, so I haven't read it yet, but it's written by a bunch of the bigger names in the industry.

From their book description:

"In Kobold Guide to Gamemastering, master GMs and storytellers give you advice about solo campaigns, shy players, cell phones, and making rulings on the fly. Are you unprepared for the game you’re running half an hour from now? Did you accidentally kill all the PCs? Do you want to run a game for kids? Did the plot take a sudden turn and the PCs have gone into uncharted territory? We’ve got you covered.

Complete with discussions on highlighting player strengths, tips for new and veteran GMs, and character romances, you’ll find useful advice about making your game more welcoming, more engaging, and more fun.

Featuring essays by Keith Baker, Wolfgang Baur, David “Zeb” Cook, Frank Mentzer, Shanna Germain, Monica Valentinelli, Steve Winter, and many other game professionals."

Interesting, although being written by designers makes me weary, most games with bad GMing advice were written by designers. I might pick it up, but I've managed to develop a GMing style people find fun while dealing with most of these (except for mobiles, never had a mobile phone problem at the table that wasn't solved by directly talking to the player), so it'll be lower priority than buying as many EE Smith ebooks as possible.

[DanyBallon]

The problem I see with having set DCs for anything written in the rule books is that it limit the DM in running their game.One DM may run a game where magic is non existant and where characters follows real world physics, so DCs will be set according to this, while another game may be high fantasy where the characters are superheroes, so the same check will use a completely different DC.

I like that 5e allow for multiple style of play using the same base set of rules.

As far as complaint about no knowing what your character can or can't do, if you designed your character to be an expert in a field, he will still be no matter the play style as others characters won't be as effective, no matter what the DCs are. The difference is that in one he may not succeed often (but the other character will nevenr succeed) and in another he will always succeed whereas his fellow character will fail more often.

[Anonymouswizard]

The problem I see with having set DCs for anything written in the rule books is that it limit the DM in running their game.One DM may run a game where magic is non existant and where characters follows real world physics, so DCs will be set according to this, while another game may be high fantasy where the characters are superheroes, so the same check will use a completely different DC.

I like that 5e allow for multiple style of play using the same base set of rules.

As far as complaint about no knowing what your character can or can't do, if you designed your character to be an expert in a field, he will still be no matter the play style as others characters won't be as effective, no matter what the DCs are. The difference is that in one he may not succeed often (but the other character will nevenr succeed) and in another he will always succeed whereas his fellow character will fail more often.

Snarky 'why are you using 5e for a no-magic game'.

(seriously, counting the classes in the PhB you have 3 classes with no-magic options [EDIT: 4 if you assume the monk's abilities are natural, which messes with 'real world physics'], the game expects most people to have some spells, it's built around access to magic in a way that something like Savage Worlds isn't)

[DanyBallon]

Snarky 'why are you using 5e for a no-magic game'.

(seriously, counting the classes in the PhB you have 3 classes with no-magic options [EDIT: 4 if you assume the monk's abilities are natural, which messes with 'real world physics'], the game expects most people to have some spells, it's built around access to magic in a way that something like Savage Worlds isn't)


One can be playing a game of knight in shinning armor fighting a neighboring country, or is having a campaign set in the gladiatorial pits of a decadent city. Not all D&D campaings are high magic.

... and it was just a example of two different play styles where the difficulty for a similar task would be different

[Anonymouswizard]

One can be playing a game of knight in shinning armor fighting a neighboring country, or is having a campaign set in the gladiatorial pits of a decadent city. Not all D&D campaings are high magic.

... and it was just a example of two different play styles where the difficulty for a similar task would be different

True, not all campaigns are high magic, low magic is possible, it's just 5e isn't designed with 'no magic' in mind. In many ways 5e is great for low magic games, just ask the PCs to stay away from the full caster classes and/or severely limit the number of spellcasting NPCs while making most people misunderstand magic. It's like how you can run a Traveller game where the party are stuck on one planet with no advanced technology, but it's designed for space bound traders and works better that way.

Also I know that is was just an example, I tried to get that across with the 'snarky...' bit in that I get what you were talking about and agree with the basic idea in some respects, but think you could have picked a better example.

[mgshamster]

There's also the Middle Earth 5e book, which adds a bunch of no magic classes to the game.

[Anonymouswizard]

There's also the Middle Earth 5e book, which adds a bunch of no magic classes to the game.

I'd look at it if I actually liked to GM 5e (I don't, I find it horrible from that side but bearable as a player), but it's an interesting idea, I'd forgotten about it (probably because if I wanted Middle Earth roleplay I'd get The One Ring as a dedicated system). Thanks for reminding me.

[Snails]

Right now a level 20 expert at a skill (+17) can still roll the same as a total novice that is inherently bad at the skill (-2). DCs probably are a poor decision from the onset if you want skills to do anything meaningful, since in bounded accuracy the d20 is most of your bonus for most heroes.

I would argue that it is a glaring weakness of 5e, one that is incongruous with the level based system and the implicit promises of the tiers of play, that PCs are locked into such a box of such utter ineptitude. PCs are allowed to be competent enough to bring people back from the dead at level 10, yet are not allowed to be highly competent at, say, tightrope walking on a windless day with no distractions at level 20. That just does not make any sense, even by the standards of fantasy, nay, especially by the standards of fantasy.

There are four very important chunks of a game system: char gen/build, combat, magic, skills. 3e was highly complex in the first 3 and moderately complex in the 4th. 5e brought down the complexity of the first three to the high end of moderate, and ground down the skill system to a low complexity nub, barely more developed than 2e.

The moderate leanness of chargen, combat, magic is good trade off IMO. The extreme leanness of the skill system is not.

[MrStabby]

I mean it's suggested that the DM set a majority of his checks from 10-20. You basically never use 5 because..why would you? 25-30 should be extremely rare. So you should have a pretty good idea that most of your DCs will hover around 15 if the DM has read the manual.

There is kind of two meanings here, one better than the other. "Most Checks" may mean most checks people could make or it could mean the checks they do make. Of the checks people could make the vast majority will be in the impossible range - picking a lock with a fossilised hamster, using a toothbrush as a battering ram or trying to court someone using the bagpipes. People in life seem to have the sense to only do things (usually) that are remotely sensible. In TTRPGs... less so. Not every table is constrained by any kind of common sense when it comes to what they try.

The distribution of check DCs should vary not only by DM (well more campaign by campaign than by DM) but also vary by the style of the group playing the game. If players routinely try the impossible then most checks should be in the impossible range.

[Anonymouswizard]

I would argue that it is a glaring weakness of 5e, one that is incongruous with the level based system and the implicit promises of the tiers of play, that PCs are locked into such a box of such utter ineptitude. PCs are allowed to be competent enough to bring people back from the dead at level 10, yet are not allowed to be highly competent at, say, tightrope walking on a windless day with no distractions at level 20. That just does not make any sense, even by the standards of fantasy, nay, especially by the standards of fantasy.

There are four very important chunks of a game system: char gen/build, combat, magic, skills. 3e was highly complex in the first 3 and moderately complex in the 4th. 5e brought down the complexity of the first three to the high end of moderate, and ground down the skill system to a low complexity nub, barely more developed than 2e.

The moderate leanness of chargen, combat, magic is good trade off IMO. The extreme leanness of the skill system is not.

So what if we had a game like 5e but with a leaner version of 3.X's skill system? (I could have worked with that, I would also like it if 'class skills' stopped being a thing) Because honestly, I've been wishing it was like that for a while, give a small number of skill points per level (4?), have the maximum skill ranks be something like 1+level/2 (or just say no skill can have more than 10 ranks, if you want to have Fighters be master smiths who took up the sword), and just have backgrounds give a nice bonus to a number of skills (I'd say if homebrewing such a system into 5e give them something like 8 free skill points to make up for the bonuses not scaling).


trying to court someone using the bagpipes.

According to some people I've met this is DC5.

[Geeknamese]

I would argue that it is a glaring weakness of 5e, one that is incongruous with the level based system and the implicit promises of the tiers of play, that PCs are locked into such a box of such utter ineptitude. PCs are allowed to be competent enough to bring people back from the dead at level 10, yet are not allowed to be highly competent at, say, tightrope walking on a windless day with no distractions at level 20. That just does not make any sense, even by the standards of fantasy, nay, especially by the standards of fantasy.

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about regarding skills. Perhaps it's the difference in DM styles or campaign styles but for me, I try not to call for checks unless I absolutely need to. So in the example above, I probably wouldn't call for a check. It's what your character does and in perfect conditions, who needs a check? You only need to call for a check when conditions call for it. Anyone can climb a tree but when you're stress level is up and you're being chased by an umber hulk, yes, you will need to make a check. Everyone should be able to swim, but if the currents start to get strong or you're heavily laden with treasure, then a check can be called for. In most of the social interactions in my game, I let the in-character dialogue with my NPCs go until I hit a point where the conversation may be edging towards the NPC's personality, ideals, bonds, flaws, duty or obligations and I'll call for the social checks. DM fiat allows me to run my game this way. I'd rather not have the rules prescribe to me that I HAVE to run my game a certain way and disrupt the dramatic tension I've set up.

Back to the example above, even if I called for a check, the expert above has a Dex (Acrobatics) of +17 which leaves a 15% chance of failure. I'd probably give Advantage on the check for the perfect conditions. There is still that small slim possibility that he will fail the check. Maybe the last serving of mutton gave him the $#!ts and he's gophering a brick. Maybe, today is the day that Fate called his number. If that day is today, he can always use his capstone Stroke of Luck ;p

[Coidzor]

The problem I see with having set DCs for anything written in the rule books is that it limit the DM in running their game.One DM may run a game where magic is non existant and where characters follows real world physics, so DCs will be set according to this, while another game may be high fantasy where the characters are superheroes, so the same check will use a completely different DC.

I like that 5e allow for multiple style of play using the same base set of rules.

If it actually had good guidelines for where the default expectation is and about how to go about shifting expectations up or down, it'd be even better at allowing for such.


As far as complaint about no knowing what your character can or can't do, if you designed your character to be an expert in a field, he will still be no matter the play style as others characters won't be as effective, no matter what the DCs are. The difference is that in one he may not succeed often (but the other character will nevenr succeed) and in another he will always succeed whereas his fellow character will fail more often.

You don't see how that could be annoying for someone? :smallconfused:

If guidelines and language existed to address skill expectation paradigms, people would be able to better communicate with players and players would be better able to understand if they're playing in a game where skills are pointless and the world is ineffable or one where only truly extraordinary things will have unopposed rolls called for them

[Pex]

I would hate to have to try and play tabletop RPGs with the kind of paranoia that you have where you have to worry about DM tyranny. Finding a game and finding a DM/GM is like going on a date. You got to ask questions of what their vision of a relationship is like and what are their expectations, etc. If their vision of the relationship doesn't match yours, you find another candidate. You can't go into a game and call the DM a tyrant if it isn't run the way you expect it. Statements like "DM is going against the norm" and having to challenge the DM with rules seems rather rules lawyery and a mentality of "I need to win". D&D is a combination of tactical wargame for Combat mixed with exploration, storytelling and improvisation. You can't treat things like Skills and DC like a tactical wargame with hard and fast rules. There are too many variables which require a DM to make judgment calls on DC. You're trying to climb an earthen wall, it's been raining recently, the sediment appears a little loose in parts but you have pitons and rope and the umber hulk has caught your trail and you can hear it approaching in the distance...you want the rules to be able to have this DC set in stone without the need for DM adjudication to set a DC. You're saying their should be a set DC and what, a list of micro modifiers to account for all those variables to make sure the DM isn't cheating you? Geez.

As I've mentioned a few times, I don't find it a coincidence in all my years playing 3E/Pathfinder I had not met a tyrant DM, but the first time I try 5E there he is. Tyrant DMs get off on the power trip. They don't want players to know things. They don't want PCs to do things not explicitly permitted by the rules. They will take advantage of 5E's vagueness, and I think that's bad for the game. For players learning how to DM 5E does not teach them to do that, but it's quite possible to fall into that way without realizing it's a problem.

Regardless, even without tyrannical DMing, I still don't want to have relearn the game depending on who is DM that day. As for the earthen wall, yes, I do want set DCs and modifiers. Let the DC be 20, but I always want it 20 so that I know my Athletics proficient 18 ST paladin will have a better chance of climbing it than my non-proficient 10 strength wizard. If it's DC 20 for one DM, DC 15 for another DM, and DC 25 for a third DM, then how I create my character becomes irrelevant. Yes, technically the paladin is always better, but if the DC is 15 my wizard has it easier and if it's 25 my paladin has it harder and my wizard not at all. Advantage/Disadvantage would be a good way to apply adjudication. The DC to climb the wall is always 20 but if in one game it's raining, thus slippery, it's Disadvantage while in another game I have pitons and rope it's Advantage, and in a third game both things are happening they cancel and it's just one d20 rolled. There's the simplicity over 3E which would have a set DC but apply fiddly numbers of plus and minus for situations.

Edit: Perhaps a better illustration. Two campaigns. In one I play a Paladin 18 strength proficient in Athletics. In another I play a Fighter 18 strength proficient in Athletics. I want both to be able to climb generic walls. If one DM has it at DC 20 while another at DC 15, that is what would bother me. The ability of my character to climb walls is dependent on who is DM, not how I create my character, and I am perfectly willing to accept neither DM is a "tyrant".

[Coffee_Dragon]

Right now a level 20 expert at a skill (+17) can still roll the same as a total novice that is inherently bad at the skill (-2).

Why is that a bad thing? "Rolling the same" has no particular significance for how those characters relate to each other. All it means is that if a roll is made, a bad character may still have a chance of succeeding, and a good character may still have a chance of failure. This is not undesirable. If either success or failure cannot be accounted for, no roll should be made. The good character will still be a lot more likely to succeed in a stressful or uncertain situation where it could go either way, as you'd expect, and how it works in most pass/fail systems.

[DanyBallon]

If it actually had good guidelines for where the default expectation is and about how to go about shifting expectations up or down, it'd be even better at allowing for such.



You don't see how that could be annoying for someone? :smallconfused:

If guidelines and language existed to address skill expectation paradigms, people would be able to better communicate with players and players would be better able to understand if they're playing in a game where skills are pointless and the world is ineffable or one where only truly extraordinary things will have unopposed rolls called for them

There are guidelines

Very Easy is DC 5
Easy is DC 10
Medium is DC 15
Hard is DC 20
Very Hard is DC 25
and Nearly Impossible is DC 30

That's all you need.

i.e.: let say two characters, one expert in jumping and one that is your average Joe, are facing a 20ft wide chasm with the opposing ledge 5ft higher than the one they stand on. Both players say they want to jump across and land on the other side.

In setting A, a gritty realism setting, the DM decide that it would be a very hard to do so without magic or some other contraption, so he set the DC to 25 and tell the player htat their character will have a real hard time pulling the maneuver. The expert character may be confident enough to try the jump (the players have a good idea that the check is around 25 from the DM description) On the other hand the average Joe decide to find another solution because he fear he won't be able to make it.

In setting B, a setting where the characters are superheroes, the DM decide that this kind of jump is quite common for adventurers so set the DC to 10 and tell the players that they can easily make the jump. The expert, unless being very unlucky, will jump across without proble, while Average Joe may fall on a bad roll but should succeed most of the time.


If there was a table in the core rules, then as a DM I'll need to create new table to overwrite the existing one in accordance to the setting we are playing in. Nw with the actual rules I just need to tell my players if it's easy, medium, hard or very hard, and voila! they already know what I'm talking about whatever the setting.

[Segev]

I disagree that those guidelines are "all you need." They don't close the gap between "Alice wants her rogue to scan the crowd for Bob," and "How hard is it for Alice to spot Bob, who is neither hiding nor trying to be spotted?"

They need some benchmark tasks for each difficulty for each skill.

[DanyBallon]

Edit: Perhaps a better illustration. Two campaigns. In one I play a Paladin 18 strength proficient in Athletics. In another I play a Fighter 18 strength proficient in Athletics. I want both to be able to climb generic walls. If one DM has it at DC 20 while another at DC 15, that is what would bother me. The ability of my character to climb walls is dependent on who is DM, not how I create my character, and I am perfectly willing to accept neither DM is a "tyrant".

When you created your characters with STR18 and proficiency in Athletics, I guess you were expecting to be better than average in doing athletics related stuff, am I right?

If yes, whether the DC is 15 or 20, you'll still manage to do athletics related stuff better than non proficient characters. I agree that against a DC 20 you will succeed less often than vs a DC 15, but everyone else will be failing more often as well so in the end you are still the best in that regard. And in a setting where the DC is 15, then more will be able to succeed, but on the other hand you'll be able to succeed at incredible stuff keeping you ahead of everyone else.

In both case the objective of being better is met!

[DanyBallon]

I disagree that those guidelines are "all you need." They don't close the gap between "Alice wants her rogue to scan the crowd for Bob," and "How hard is it for Alice to spot Bob, who is neither hiding nor trying to be spotted?"

They need some benchmark tasks for each difficulty for each skill.

The way I see it, both are exactly the same, if in both case Bob isn't hidding nor trying to be spotted, then the DM will answer the same (based on the agreed play style).

Your benchmark is: "very easy, easy, medium, hard, very hard and nearly impossible". I guess if I tell you that finding Bob in the crowd is an easy task, I guess you'll expect to succeed most of the time, which is what a DC 10 mean (over 50% chance without ability mod, proficiency and/or expertise).

Am I missing somthing? to me it's pretty obvious, but I may need to take a step back and in order to have a better overview

[Segev]

Your benchmark is: "very easy, easy, medium, hard, very hard and nearly impossible". I guess if I tell you that finding Bob in the crowd is an easy task, I guess you'll expect to succeed most of the time, which is what a DC 10 mean (over 50% chance without ability mod, proficiency and/or expertise).

Am I missing somthing? to me it's pretty obvious, but I may need to take a step back and in order to have a better overviewYou're missing that you closed the gap by saying, "finding Bob in the crowd is an easy task."

How do you know that? What did you use to judge that? If I'm the DM of a 5e game, and I really have no idea how hard it is to repair a wagon wheel, what guidance do I have to inform me whether that is a very easy, easy, medium, hard, very hard, or nearly impossible Intelligence(Craft) task? If I honestly don't know much about sculpting, how do I know if it's a very easy, easy, medium, hard, very hard, or nearly impossible task to sculpt a convincing likeness of the hag your party fought last week out of wax?

Heck, if I'm the DM and I am an expert figure skater, it seems like an Easy Dexterity(acrobatics) check to cross a frozen lake, to me. If my buddy who can't stay on his own two feet when he's got ice skates on is DMing, though, it seems obvious to him that this is a Very Hard check. Who's right?

What is needed to actually make this a complete system is example tasks of various difficulty for each skill. Something to use as a benchmark so that you can say, "Oh, crossing a frozen lake seems like it'd be slightly harder than walking across a rain-slick stone floor, and that's listed as an Easy task, so crossing the frozen lake must be Medium."

[MrStabby]

Perhaps a better illustration. Two campaigns. In one I play a Paladin 18 strength proficient in Athletics. In another I play a Fighter 18 strength proficient in Athletics. I want both to be able to climb generic walls. If one DM has it at DC 20 while another at DC 15, that is what would bother me. The ability of my character to climb walls is dependent on who is DM, not how I create my character, and I am perfectly willing to accept neither DM is a "tyrant".

I think the problem is that there is no such thing as a generic wall, or rather there may be but it will be dependant on location and campaign. In a rural setting a generic wall may be a DC5 dry-stone wall. In a city it may be timber walls at DC18. In a different district in that city the generic wall may be a well built stone wall of DC27. Those same walls 200 years later may be weather-worn with more handholds and places to insert climbing equipment and the DC may fall to 22. All of these are generic walls. I don't think it is wrong for a DM to use the DC of a wall to be part of their world and to reflect the prevailing style of architecture.

[DanyBallon]

You're missing that you closed the gap by saying, "finding Bob in the crowd is an easy task."

How do you know that? What did you use to judge that? If I'm the DM of a 5e game, and I really have no idea how hard it is to repair a wagon wheel, what guidance do I have to inform me whether that is a very easy, easy, medium, hard, very hard, or nearly impossible Intelligence(Craft) task? If I honestly don't know much about sculpting, how do I know if it's a very easy, easy, medium, hard, very hard, or nearly impossible task to sculpt a convincing likeness of the hag your party fought last week out of wax?

Heck, if I'm the DM and I am an expert figure skater, it seems like an Easy Dexterity(acrobatics) check to cross a frozen lake, to me. If my buddy who can't stay on his own two feet when he's got ice skates on is DMing, though, it seems obvious to him that this is a Very Hard check. Who's right?

Both are right as it is the DM job to decide what difficulty a task is.


What is needed to actually make this a complete system is example tasks of various difficulty for each skill. Something to use as a benchmark so that you can say, "Oh, crossing a frozen lake seems like it'd be slightly harder than walking across a rain-slick stone floor, and that's listed as an Easy task, so crossing the frozen lake must be Medium."

In your example, what if you were playing in an artic setting and character were used to walk on thin ice. Would your check still be medium? if no, then all your benchmark table you'd have in the PHB would be for nothing. Having a simplier benchmark set at very easy, easy, medium, hard, etc. and relying on DM to decide what is what, is far more flexible and useful than hard coded tables.


But I guess it's a matter of preference. While I don't mind having examples. I hated how too many players in 3.P were constantly arguing with the DM as soon as he diverge from what was written in the core rules books. 5e is far more flexible and I like it that way.

[Segev]

Both are right as it is the DM job to decide what difficulty a task is.Then it's not a complete system. The DM has to, without guidelines or suggestions, invent part of the system.


In your example, what if you were playing in an artic setting and character were used to walk on thin ice. Would your check still be medium? if no, then all your benchmark table you'd have in the PHB would be for nothing. Having a simplier benchmark set at very easy, easy, medium, hard, etc. and relying on DM to decide what is what, is far more flexible and useful than hard coded tables.The setting doesn't matter. The experience level of the PCs doesn't matter. The difficulty of the task is the same. Experience of the PCs should be reflected in their bonuses. Not in the DC.

You don't tell Eskimo Emily that her DC is 5 and Desert Dan that his DC is 20. Eskimo Emily presumably has either some Background bonus to balancing on ice, or just a higher balance check, and both roll against the same DC.


But I guess it's a matter of preference. While I don't mind having examples. I hated how too many players in 3.P were constantly arguing with the DM as soon as he diverge from what was written in the core rules books. 5e is far more flexible and I like it that way.It won't prevent arguments. Just now, when the DM says it's a Very Difficult task, he has nothing to back it up because he had to pluck that out of his pure imagination and the players will start arguing real-world examples and their own experience and ... well, it'll be just as much of an argument, with less for a DM to fall back on than "because I said so."

Obviously, he can fall back on that, but the more the game requires him to do so, the less complete a game it is.

[Knaight]

Then it's not a complete system. The DM has to, without guidelines or suggestions, invent part of the system.

Having to use rules which involve making a judgement call is not the same thing as having to invent part of the system.

[DanyBallon]

Then it's not a complete system. The DM has to, without guidelines or suggestions, invent part of the system.

The setting doesn't matter. The experience level of the PCs doesn't matter. The difficulty of the task is the same. Experience of the PCs should be reflected in their bonuses. Not in the DC.

You don't tell Eskimo Emily that her DC is 5 and Desert Dan that his DC is 20. Eskimo Emily presumably has either some Background bonus to balancing on ice, or just a higher balance check, and both roll against the same DC.

Setting do matter, see my example between a gritty realism like setting vs a superheroes like setting in a previous post. DC for the same task in the same setting should be the same, but from one setting to another, the DCs can be diferrent as they have different rules/physics.


It won't prevent arguments. Just now, when the DM says it's a Very Difficult task, he has nothing to back it up because he had to pluck that out of his pure imagination and the players will start arguing real-world examples and their own experience and ... well, it'll be just as much of an argument, with less for a DM to fall back on than "because I said so."

Obviously, he can fall back on that, but the more the game requires him to do so, the less complete a game it is.

A DM makes a call to the best of his knowledge. When playing I know that we are all humans around the table, thus allowed and bound to make errors. The game is not about deciding who's right and who's wrong, it's about having fun.

In your previous example about a DM that is figure skater and walking on thin ice. Being a figure skater, he knows that it's not that easy to stand walk on ice and it takes a lot of practice to do so easily, in regard to this he'll be able to set the DC somewhere near what common sense would suggest. And even if if choose to move it ousided of common expectation, he has the right to do so.

[Segev]

Having to use rules which involve making a judgement call is not the same thing as having to invent part of the system.The problem is that these aren't "rules that require a judgment call" so much as a lack of rules. The terms "very easy" through "nearly impossible" are meaningless without context. The rules would be no more or less complete if they'd simply said that the DM sets a DC between 0 and 30, without specifying those categories, because those categories are meaningless except as they relate to the DC, as written, and have no connection back to the task to help determine how hard the task is.


Setting do matter, see my example between a gritty realism like setting vs a superheroes like setting in a previous post. DC for the same task in the same setting should be the same, but from one setting to another, the DCs can be diferrent as they have different rules/physics.Which is fine and dandy, but that certainly isn't communicated by having meaningless categories instead of connected mechanics.


A DM makes a call to the best of his knowledge. When playing I know that we are all humans around the table, thus allowed and bound to make errors. The game is not about deciding who's right and who's wrong, it's about having fun.

In your previous example about a DM that is figure skater and walking on thin ice. Being a figure skater, he knows that it's not that easy to stand walk on ice and it takes a lot of practice to do so easily, in regard to this he'll be able to set the DC somewhere near what common sense would suggest. And even if if choose to move it ousided of common expectation, he has the right to do so.I know, from my experience gaming and in life, that people tend to think things they're good at are easier than others view them to be, and things they aren't good at as harder than others view them to be. While somebody who knows they're an expert at something unusual to be good at may recognize that it's harder for others than for them, they still tend to underestimate the difficulty of that task for others.

[DanyBallon]

The problem is that these aren't "rules that require a judgment call" so much as a lack of rules. The terms "very easy" through "nearly impossible" are meaningless without context. The rules would be no more or less complete if they'd simply said that the DM sets a DC between 0 and 30, without specifying those categories, because those categories are meaningless except as they relate to the DC, as written, and have no connection back to the task to help determine how hard the task is.

Which is fine and dandy, but that certainly isn't communicated by having meaningless categories instead of connected mechanics.

I know, from my experience gaming and in life, that people tend to think things they're good at are easier than others view them to be, and things they aren't good at as harder than others view them to be. While somebody who knows they're an expert at something unusual to be good at may recognize that it's harder for others than for them, they still tend to underestimate the difficulty of that task for others.

I never thought, and I'm not sure the devs either, that someone couldn't tell the difference between very easy, easy, medium, hard, very hard, and nearly impossible. I idea is not to give something specific. They are generic enough that they can be use in any context, and anyone would be able to grasp the difficulty level. Knowing that very easy = DC 5 and easy = DC 10, etc. and I'm telling you that climbing that ladder is very easy, but climbing the slippery rope next to it, is hard, right away you know that you have better chance of succeeding at climbing the ladder. It's all that you need to know in order to make a decision as a player. By knowing that hard is DC 20, and that you have 20 in STR + your have expertise in athletic (or DEX 20 and expertise in acrobatics if you prefer to use acrobatics over athletic for climbing a slippery rope) you can even choose to climb the rope knowing that you have few chances to fail anyway.

[Rhedyn]

Why is that a bad thing? "Rolling the same" has no particular significance for how those characters relate to each other. All it means is that if a roll is made, a bad character may still have a chance of succeeding, and a good character may still have a chance of failure. This is not undesirable. If either success or failure cannot be accounted for, no roll should be made. The good character will still be a lot more likely to succeed in a stressful or uncertain situation where it could go either way, as you'd expect, and how it works in most pass/fail systems.It's immersion breaking. I cannot perform surgery as well as a world renown expert 0.25% of the time.

Being capable does not mean you fail less than a novice. It means you can do things they can't.

[mgshamster]

It's immersion breaking. I cannot perform surgery as well as a world renown expert 0.25% of the time.

Being capable does not mean you fail less than a novice. It means you can do things they can't.

This is why bring a medical doctor or surgeon is better represented through class features than the skill system.

It doesn't really matter how high or low your Arcana skill is, if you don't have a feature that allows you to cast a spell, then you can't cast it.

However, medical knowledge would be represented through the skill system. There's a small chance that a world renowned expert may not know a tidbit of information, because he forgot it right when the question needed answering, but that PC with the -2 check might just happen to know it because he saw it on TV this morning.

[Segev]

I never thought, and I'm not sure the devs either, that someone couldn't tell the difference between very easy, easy, medium, hard, very hard, and nearly impossible. I idea is not to give something specific. They are generic enough that they can be use in any context, and anyone would be able to grasp the difficulty level. Knowing that very easy = DC 5 and easy = DC 10, etc. and I'm telling you that climbing that ladder is very easy, but climbing the slippery rope next to it, is hard, right away you know that you have better chance of succeeding at climbing the ladder. It's all that you need to know in order to make a decision as a player. By knowing that hard is DC 20, and that you have 20 in STR + your have expertise in athletic (or DEX 20 and expertise in acrobatics if you prefer to use acrobatics over athletic for climbing a slippery rope) you can even choose to climb the rope knowing that you have few chances to fail anyway.

I see nothing easier for a DM about saying "climbing a ladder is very easy" and "climbing a ladder is DC 5." They're the same exact value judgment.

Heck, already we have a disagreement, because I wouldn't have thought climbing a ladder was DC 5. I'd have thought it automatic, barring somebody having active disability or further adverse condition, so it's DC 0 or lower, with the disability applying penalties and adverse conditions raising the DC.

Now, that I disagree with this DC means we could start an argument at the gaming table over what it should be, and there's nothing in the rules (other than "stop arguing with the DM you moron") to support one over the other. No benchmarks.

That's the problem.

[Knaight]

It's immersion breaking. I cannot perform surgery as well as a world renown expert 0.25% of the time.

Being capable does not mean you fail less than a novice. It means you can do things they can't.

Part of this depends on the task - for the set of skills in 5e (none of which are as specialized as surgery) it works a lot better. On top of that, if the surgery is something like DC 25 then the way it works out is that the untrained can't succeed and the highly trained usually succeed, so that works. It leaves a possibility that the expert at their worst does as poorly as the novice at their best, yes, but it also has tons of situations where only the expert can succeed, or only the novice can fail. It's not a bad range.

With that said, that +17 is restricted to certain classes, and the +11 is a bit less impressive. On top of that, for most of the game even that +11 isn't in effect - something like a +8 is common for a mid level character, and while it adequately represents being decentish at a skill they can be a lot more than decentish at combat or magic once +8 bonuses are flying around.


I see nothing easier for a DM about saying "climbing a ladder is very easy" and "climbing a ladder is DC 5." They're the same exact value judgment.
One of these is a qualitative assessment that can be done with no RPG knowledge whatsoever. The other is a system side assessment that requires having internalized the math of the system.

[2D8HP]

.
I know, from my experience gaming and in life, that people tend to think things they're good at are easier than others view them to be....


Really?

I find the opposite.

It's people who have little skill in a job that usually think something is "easy".

[DanyBallon]

I see nothing easier for a DM about saying "climbing a ladder is very easy" and "climbing a ladder is DC 5." They're the same exact value judgment.

Heck, already we have a disagreement, because I wouldn't have thought climbing a ladder was DC 5. I'd have thought it automatic, barring somebody having active disability or further adverse condition, so it's DC 0 or lower, with the disability applying penalties and adverse conditions raising the DC.

Now, that I disagree with this DC means we could start an argument at the gaming table over what it should be, and there's nothing in the rules (other than "stop arguing with the DM you moron") to support one over the other. No benchmarks.

That's the problem.

The problem is that the player prefer to argue about skill DC instead of just going with it and play the game. The game is called Dungeons & Dragons, not Courtroom & Lawyers (somehow the later is more terrifying in my opinion :smallbiggrin:).

And even with fully descriptive charts, there will still be arguments about how correct the devs were when setting them up. We already a multitude of threads about how people disagree with the rules. You'll still have the "stop arguing with the DM you moron" because the player don't like the rules in the book that the DM is following. In the end it's still up to the DM to put his foot down and have his players follow the rules they've agreed upon, whether they are from the core rules or ruling from the DM.

[Anonymouswizard]

It's immersion breaking. I cannot perform surgery as well as a world renown expert 0.25% of the time.

Being capable does not mean you fail less than a novice. It means you can do things they can't.

I've now been thinking of how Savage Worlds works it's skills, and I think it gets to a decent mix between playability and modelling reality if you use the optional specialty rules. Assuming a Surgery is a difficult task (TN6) and we're dealing with a good surgeon (d10 in the Medicine skill*) then the character will succeed 50% of the time (nearly 60% of the time if they have a d12 and so are one of the best). If we assume it's a simple routine surgery or we have lots of time then it'll be TN4, and we'll succeed 70% of the time, 90% of the time for both. Jo Bloggs however only has basic first aid training and a d4 in medicine, without the Surgery specialty he rolls at -2. For the simple routine surgery with lots of time he has a 25% chance of succeeding, for anything more complex he has to roll the maximum so he can 'ace' (explode his die, essentially reroll it and add it to the current total), at a 12.5% chance of success for TN 6 and 6.25% chance for TN8. If it's me, with no medical skill, then there's a 6.25% chance I'll make TN4. EDIT: oh, and if I have a 6.25% chance then the expert has a 30% chance of just doing it better and faster because they got a raise (4 over the TN).

Now in SW it gets a bit more complicated, because major NPCs and PCs get to roll an extra d6 with every trait roll and take the higher result, but the idea stands.

* In Savage Worlds skills and stats are ranked in dice, from d4 to d12, with unskilled at d4-2.

[Pex]

There are guidelines

Very Easy is DC 5
Easy is DC 10
Medium is DC 15
Hard is DC 20
Very Hard is DC 25
and Nearly Impossible is DC 30

That's all you need.

Not at all. How hard is to climb a slippery rope? How hard is it to know what spell a bad guys is casting. How hard is it to know the capabilities of the monster the PC is fighting? What is easy for one DM is hard for another, player character creation irrelevant.


i.e.: let say two characters, one expert in jumping and one that is your average Joe, are facing a 20ft wide chasm with the opposing ledge 5ft higher than the one they stand on. Both players say they want to jump across and land on the other side.

In setting A, a gritty realism setting, the DM decide that it would be a very hard to do so without magic or some other contraption, so he set the DC to 25 and tell the player htat their character will have a real hard time pulling the maneuver. The expert character may be confident enough to try the jump (the players have a good idea that the check is around 25 from the DM description) On the other hand the average Joe decide to find another solution because he fear he won't be able to make it.

In setting B, a setting where the characters are superheroes, the DM decide that this kind of jump is quite common for adventurers so set the DC to 10 and tell the players that they can easily make the jump. The expert, unless being very unlucky, will jump across without proble, while Average Joe may fall on a bad roll but should succeed most of the time.


If there was a table in the core rules, then as a DM I'll need to create new table to overwrite the existing one in accordance to the setting we are playing in. Nw with the actual rules I just need to tell my players if it's easy, medium, hard or very hard, and voila! they already know what I'm talking about whatever the setting.

Just as I've been saying. The ability of my character to do anything is dependent on who is DM that day. One DM's easy is another DM's hard.


I think the problem is that there is no such thing as a generic wall, or rather there may be but it will be dependant on location and campaign. In a rural setting a generic wall may be a DC5 dry-stone wall. In a city it may be timber walls at DC18. In a different district in that city the generic wall may be a well built stone wall of DC27. Those same walls 200 years later may be weather-worn with more handholds and places to insert climbing equipment and the DC may fall to 22. All of these are generic walls. I don't think it is wrong for a DM to use the DC of a wall to be part of their world and to reflect the prevailing style of architecture.

It's not about the wall. What's the DC to climb a slippery rope? What's the DC to know what spell someone is casting? What's the DC to know what the monster is the party is fighting and abilities it has? What's the DC to treat a disease? What's the DC to decipher a code?


Setting do matter, see my example between a gritty realism like setting vs a superheroes like setting in a previous post. DC for the same task in the same setting should be the same, but from one setting to another, the DCs can be diferrent as they have different rules/physics.



A DM makes a call to the best of his knowledge. When playing I know that we are all humans around the table, thus allowed and bound to make errors. The game is not about deciding who's right and who's wrong, it's about having fun.

In your previous example about a DM that is figure skater and walking on thin ice. Being a figure skater, he knows that it's not that easy to stand walk on ice and it takes a lot of practice to do so easily, in regard to this he'll be able to set the DC somewhere near what common sense would suggest. And even if if choose to move it ousided of common expectation, he has the right to do so.

Who says one DM's game is gritty but another's is not? What if both DM's think they're playing high fantasy but because they haven't a clue on how hard it is to swim across a river with a current one would set the DC at 20 while another at 15.

[Ruslan]

Heck, already we have a disagreement, because I wouldn't have thought climbing a ladder was DC 5. I'd have thought it automatic, barring somebody having active disability or further adverse condition, so it's DC 0 or lower, with the disability applying penalties and adverse conditions raising the DC.
I forget the source, but I believe there's a recommendation not to roll at all for very low DCs. So "DC 5" and "automatic" are in fact the same.


Now, that I disagree with this DC means we could start an argument at the gaming table over what it should be
:smallwink: You could, but that does not mean you should. There are many possible points of disagreement between DM and player in any game system. They don't have to stall the game.


, and there's nothing in the rules (other than "stop arguing with the DM you moron") to support one over the other.
:smalleek: Isn't that enough? Isn't your desire, as a player, to play the game rather than engage in an argument over a few points of DC enough? Whether you like it or not, that's the paradigm of 5E - let the DM decide the DC, and let the player play the game. They put a built-in assumption in the system that a slight disagreement ("It should be DC 10" "I say 15") will not ruin the game. Were they wrong?

[Coidzor]

Isn't your desire, as a player, to play the game rather than engage in an argument over a few points of DC enough?

If the problem is chronic and egregious, it's still an ongoing problem even if I don't say anything.

People can bottle up about something that's annoying them for quite a while, but if it's serious enough, it will eventually erupt without some form of release or a change in circumstances.

Plus, if they act all holier than thou, that'll generally hasten the process by which players choose to leave the game instead of attempting to work things out. Which is great for setting up a situation that'll create escalating prickishness where teh paradigm fails when they could have easily taken the time to come up with better guidelines, I suppose.

Some people certainly must like that element, given how vitriolic discussion can get online.

[Ruslan]

If the problem is chronic and egregious, it's still an ongoing problem even if I don't say anything.

People can bottle up about something that's annoying them for quite a while, but if it's serious enough, it will eventually erupt without some form of release or a change in circumstances.

Plus, if they act all holier than thou, that'll generally hasten the process by which players choose to leave the game instead of attempting to work things out. Which is great for setting up a situation that'll create escalating prickishness where teh paradigm fails when they could have easily taken the time to come up with better guidelines, I suppose.
Fair enough. I acknowledge the problem, but I do not feel the problem is specific to 5E. Does 5E encourage this type of issue compared to other systems? My impression is that it does not. At least not compared to systems I know (3.5e and Dungeon World). 3.5e has more codified rules and DCs for everything, but also a lot more options and openings for ambiguities. And Dungeon World is the ultimate "do whatever you bloody want, DM will decide anyway" system.


Some people certainly must like that element, given how vitriolic discussion can get online.
Hehe. <points at sig>

[BurgerBeast]

There we go. The ability of my character to do something is dependent on who is DM that day.

The problem I have with this is: it always will be.

Even if there is a list of DCs for a particular task, one DM can just the choose easier conditions and another can pick the more difficult.


"Average person" also doesn't work because PCs are not average people and people's perspectives on what is average will also differ. For example, how easy was it to climb a rope in gym class?

I mostly agree with you, but then all you're asking for is for the writer to impose his or her view. A typical DM will make judgments and adjust the DCs anyway to create the game he is trying to create.

[Pex]

The problem I have with this is: it always will be.

Even if there is a list of DCs for a particular task, one DM can just the choose easier conditions and another can pick the more difficult.



But then the player would know the DM is doing this and can judge for himself whether he's ok with it or not. The player has an expectation of how the game is to be played and has a buy-in to how the DM is running it. It may not mean anything to the experienced gamer but is important to the brand new player. If the player is not having fun he'll know it's the DM and not the game.

[LeonBH]

Late to the party and all.

What if, as a "simple" house rule, the DM just uses the following meter stick: A moderate task (DC 10) is something a commoner will fail at 50% of the time, and succeed 50% of the time.

So a figure skater DM can recalibrate their thoughts and imagine how hard it must be for a Commoner, with no training at all, to go figure skating.

It's not exact, and it leaves a lot of room for the DM to make judgment calls. But it calibrates everyone to the same meter stick.

[mephnick]

It's immersion breaking. I cannot perform surgery as well as a world renown expert 0.25% of the time.

Being capable does not mean you fail less than a novice. It means you can do things they can't.

But you're not performing surgery. You're adventurers doing adventurer things that you're all fairly competent at. You're better at some stuff because of training, experience or stats. You're not some untouchable expert at specific tasks, you are an adventurer with general adventuring skill. That's what the system is designed for.

My stupid barbarian knows some medicine and first aid because that's integral to adventuring. My weak wizard can climb a wall most of the time because he's an adventurer! Sure your rogue is better at it but we're both adventurers! We're both competent at it. People just forget that D&D is about adventurers and get mad when it doesn't model their dumb opinions about what they want D&D to be about.

[2D8HP]

I feel that a big part of this thread is going over my head.

As I've written before:


.My PC's can:

Fire arrows

Swing swords

Track

Sneak

Hide

Climb

Swim

Sometimes Convince

Sometimes heal

And one could entertain

And one could shoot bolts of fire out of his fingertips!
.


The rules allow all of that.

What am I missing?

[Pex]

I feel that a big part of this thread is going over my head.

As I've written before:

My PC's can:

Fire arrows

Swing swords

Track

Sneak

Hide

Climb

Swim

Sometimes Convince

Sometimes heal

And one could entertain

And one could shoot bolts of fire out of his fingertips!


The rules allow all of that.

What am I missing?

The ability to do all that is dependent on who is DM that day and not on the player creating his character with the exception of shooting bolts out of his finger tips. That the player gets to decide if his character can do that. Obviously a hypothetical DM could ban Fire Bolt, but let's not be pedantic about it. (Not accusing you of being pedantic, just in hypothetical generality.)

Of course my argument doesn't really apply to opposed rolls. Stealth vs Perception. Persuasion vs Insight. Intimidation vs Wisdom save perhaps. There couldn't possibly be a defined DC nor should there be. If a PC is always failing these because the NPC conveniently rolled high behind the screen or the DM privately set the DC as never regardless of roll then the problem is all on the DM and not 5E rulings or 5E at all. Keyword is "always". I'm perfectly happy with the concept the king will not give up his crown just because the player rolled a Natural 20 with a total +11 modifier to Persuasion and other such things, or the DM Honest True really did roll high for the NPC or even a non-proficient character with an 8 in the relevant score is going to fail a lot more than succeed.

[Anonymouswizard]

I feel that a big part of this thread is going over my head.

As I've written before:

My PC's can:

Fire arrows

Swing swords

Track

Sneak

Hide

Climb

Swim

Sometimes Convince

Sometimes heal

And one could entertain

And one could shoot bolts of fire out of his fingertips!


The rules allow all of that.

What am I missing?

Build a 20 meter tall sentient steampunk assembler robot? Pretty high on my list of 'does the system let me do this'.

[DanyBallon]

@Pex

As I stated before, varying DC for a same task from a DM to another do not impede your character at all. They just shift the numbers, but your relative competence is still the same. If you build your character to be an expert in a skill and in one game the DCs are higher, then you'll still be better than the other PCs and NPCs. When you are creating your character, what is your main goal, be able to succeed agaist a DC 20 75% of the time, or are you thinking, I want my character to be an expert in this skill? In my opinion, the for,er is metagaming, as the character don't know what a DC 20 is, and if this this your train of thought when creating a character, I understand how you can feel cheated with inconsistensies between to DM, but if instead when building a character, you are thinking the later, as long as in game you succeed more often that others, you've achieved your goal from being better, DCs don't matter in this case.

[KorvinStarmast]

Unsurprising, people care a lot about the questions like (and corresponding answers to) "can I get advantage on my attack", "can I apply Sneak Attack", "do they know I am there" and "can this enemy find me to attack me at all" in D&D. They are some of the most argued points in every edition of D&D I've played to date, which is all of them except oD&D. It was true then as well, as soon as Greyhawk came out and thieves got the sneak attack and hide in shadows features.
I've been playing with the idea of creating "the X stat." What do you think of the honor stat in the DMG? We've toyed with adding it to our game.

RAW is not just important on the internet, it is also an important starting point and jumping off point for making houserules. Only a limited subset of houserules will integrate well with the base rules without looking kludgey and only a limited subset of kludgey houserules will actually work out well mathematically. Thank you for making that point.

In my first two years as a DM ( roughly1978 to 1980), I really wanted more to be spelled out. As I got more used to making "rulings", I came to want less so that it was acceptable to make stuff up, rather than my having to memorize or look up RAW. Yes. DMing a lot builds your confidence in making rulings. One need not be a rule cripple.* (that term is explained at the end).

It was exhausting having to come up with DCs on the fly I find this completely at odds with my experience as a DM. It is insanely easy to pick a number and play on. It takes fractions of a second. Look at the probability curve of a 1d20 roll. It's a sloped line. Don't agonize over it. Pick a number and go. You are experienced enough in the game play to not need to agonize over the value being 14, 15, or 16 for a given check.

Yes, I do want things "set in stone" without the need for the DM making up everything. Then I'd suggest one stop playing a game where rolling a d20 is an inherent mechanic.

One can be playing a game of knight in shinning armor fighting a neighboring country, or is having a campaign set in the gladiatorial pits of a decadent city. Not all D&D campaings are high magic. Yep.

I disagree that those guidelines are "all you need." They don't close the gap between "Alice wants her rogue to scan the crowd for Bob," and "How hard is it for Alice to spot Bob, who is neither hiding nor trying to be spotted?" Recommendation: pick a number and play on. Don't agonize over it. The chance for failure is built into the system, as is the chance to succeed. The advice to "only roll dice when the chance of success or failure is interesting" is very good advice.

---------------------

* About the "rules cripple" thing I mentioned above: if one does not or cannot exercise a muscle, it atrophies. (Point of reference: breaking an arm or a leg and having it in a cast means that when the bone is finished knitting, one has to rebuild the atrophied muscle ...)

a. When GPS came out and became more used in the early 1990's, those of us who knew a bit about land navigation became concerned about those raised with GPS as their primary navigational tool. GPS gives you outcome, not process nor understanding about spatial relationships. We used the term "GPS cripple" to describe the lack of the ability to understand/innovate/make intuitive leaps that this induced. A similar problem cropped up in air navigation during that decade.

b. There was a long running debate about whether or not a pilot was a "HUD cripple" in terms of aircraft carrier landing skill. When the HUD (Heads Up Display) was up, the boarding rate was markedly higher among new pilots. But those who became HUD dependent weren't as good at simply flying the approach to the three wire when the HUD was on the fritz. (These days, HUD reliability is impressive, I will note).

From this RL experience, I propose the parallel problem of the rules cripple (it can happen to any of us in any edition of D&D since 1e AD&D): a DM who is so used to a rule telling him/her what to do, who is so book/rule focused, that the habit of innovating and improvising shrivels/atrophies, or never develops.

I will point out that something similar is happening among airline pilots: the term of art is 'children of the magenta line' and what is happening is that Over Reliance on Automation is manifesting itself in two critical problems: reduced hand flying skill, and significantly reduced airmanship/judgment.

What I find most interesting in D&D is that Gygax walked both sides of that line at the same time, in terms of what was for sale from TSR. The AD&D system was built to support the ability to play a standardized / convention style of play (the Schick influence), while at the same time, in the DMG, it spent no small amount of time telling DM's to play in the rules light method that Gygax himself ran, that Dave Arneson ran, that Rob Kuntz ran, etc. (Per commentary by Rob Kuntz over at the odd74 forums).

We, the gaming audience, were always hungry for more content, but once you got that mountain of content, what do you do with it all? The Dragon was full of 'try this' which made amateur play testers of a lot of us. The result tends to become "you take what you like and leave the rest" and you focus as a GM on running a game.
It takes some "learning by doing" to do that.
Nobody can expect to be a good GM without having tried it.
(And at this point, please head to Angry GM's website).

D&D isn't rules light; there is a certain amount of system mastery/understanding required to know the mechanics of the game well enough to improvise. (Analogy: to improvise well on piano, you have to first be really good at playing piano). So you can expect a learning curve as you run games. That's not a bad thing, since your decision making ability grows as you do it more.

Don't let the muscle atrophy.

[Rhedyn]

But you're not performing surgery. You're adventurers doing adventurer things that you're all fairly competent at. You're better at some stuff because of training, experience or stats. You're not some untouchable expert at specific tasks, you are an adventurer with general adventuring skill. That's what the system is designed for.

My stupid barbarian knows some medicine and first aid because that's integral to adventuring. My weak wizard can climb a wall most of the time because he's an adventurer! Sure your rogue is better at it but we're both adventurers! We're both competent at it. People just forget that D&D is about adventurers and get mad when it doesn't model their dumb opinions about what they want D&D to be about.

Surgery is basically the heal skill. In 5e you just can't be good enough in the healing arts to treat basic modern medical problems because that world mean ignorant peasants could do the same thing. Meanwhile magic from 10 levels ago can bring back the dead.

In 5e alchemy or herbalism, I can't make a philosopher stone, find eternal youth, turn lead into gold, or even something as mundane as creating high grade modern ceramic armor, because Joe the mentally challenged can apparently bumble his way to similar results if such things were possible. Meanwhile mages can turn into liches and make themselves younger and poop money while having an at will shield spell on.

[LordVonDerp]

It's immersion breaking. I cannot perform surgery as well as a world renown expert 0.25% of the time.

Being capable does not mean you fail less than a novice. It means you can do things they can't.
Depends on what century you take the surgeon from.

[LordVonDerp]

Really?

I find the opposite.

It's people who have little skill in a job that usually think something is "easy".
Here's the thing you're looking for.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

[mgshamster]

Surgery is basically the heal skill. In 5e you just can't be good enough in the healing arts to treat basic modern medical problems because that world mean ignorant peasants could do the same thing. Meanwhile magic from 10 levels ago can bring back the dead.

In 5e alchemy or herbalism, I can't make a philosopher stone, find eternal youth, turn lead into gold, or even something as mundane as creating high grade modern ceramic armor, because Joe the mentally challenged can apparently bumble his way to similar results if such things were possible. Meanwhile mages can turn into liches and make themselves younger and poop money while having an at will shield spell on.

There is no heal skill. There is a medicine skill, which lets you save a dying companion or diagnose an illness. So it's first aid and medical knowledge.

Surgery is not represented through the skill system. It would be represented as a class features much like magic is. If you wanted to make a surgeon, you'd make a new class around it with features that only the surgeon can do. Similarly, you can't cast a spell with an arcane check, so there's no chance Joe the bumbling idiot would be able to do it unless he had very specific training or some other Feature which granted it.

As for making a philosophers stone - that be using the magic item creation rules in combination with high DCs that Joe the bumbling idiot could never achieve, over a long period of time.

Even high grade modern ceramic armor would require a high DC (lower with some manufacturing equipment) that Joe the bumbling idiot would never be able to achieve. And likely also use the magic item creation rules, similar to how the non-magical mithril armor would be constructed. It's just not something poor Joe can do with a handful of skill checks by happenstance.

[2D8HP]

As I've mentioned a few times, I don't find it a coincidence in all my years playing 3E/Pathfinder I had not met a tyrant DM, but the first time I try 5E there he is. Tyrant DMs get off on the power trip. They don't want players to know things. They don't want PCs to do things not explicitly permitted by the rules. They will take advantage of 5E's vagueness, and I think that's bad for the game.....

....Regardless, even without tyrannical DMing, I still don't want to have relearn the game depending on who is DM that day. As for the earthen wall, yes, I do want set DCs and modifiers....

....If one DM has it at DC 20 while another at DC 15, that is what would bother me. The ability of my character to climb walls is dependent on who is DM, not how I create my character, and I am perfectly willing to accept neither DM is a "tyrant".


Interesting.

A lot of what you described as "5e" problems just sound like they way "D&D has always been", but my experience is actually pretty limited in that I really mostly just have dim memories of the '80's, and a little bit of "table time" (old rules, and 5e) these past couple of years. I'm actually jealous of those who've had more time playing over the years (I'm looking at you KorvinStarmast, and Tanarii)

So Pex... In your experience 3.x's more explicit rules make for better DM's? I'm a surprised by this. I've looked at the rulebook's, but I've never played any of the editions between 1985's Unearthed Arcana and WotC 5e, so I'm curious to learn more.


Build a 20 meter tall sentient steampunk assembler robot? Pretty high on my list of 'does the system let me do this'.


3e's Eberron campaign setting had sentient robots (just because I didn't play it doesn't mean I didn't read it!), and the Castle Falkenstein RPG had giant steam powered robots in Japan.

Maybe combine settings?
(If you do let me know!)

[Snails]

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about regarding skills. Perhaps it's the difference in DM styles or campaign styles but for me, I try not to call for checks unless I absolutely need to. So in the example above, I probably wouldn't call for a check. It's what your character does and in perfect conditions, who needs a check? You only need to call for a check when conditions call for it. Anyone can climb a tree but when you're stress level is up and you're being chased by an umber hulk, yes, you will need to make a check. Everyone should be able to swim, but if the currents start to get strong or you're heavily laden with treasure, then a check can be called for. In most of the social interactions in my game, I let the in-character dialogue with my NPCs go until I hit a point where the conversation may be edging towards the NPC's personality, ideals, bonds, flaws, duty or obligations and I'll call for the social checks. DM fiat allows me to run my game this way. I'd rather not have the rules prescribe to me that I HAVE to run my game a certain way and disrupt the dramatic tension I've set up.

Back to the example above, even if I called for a check, the expert above has a Dex (Acrobatics) of +17 which leaves a 15% chance of failure. I'd probably give Advantage on the check for the perfect conditions. There is still that small slim possibility that he will fail the check. Maybe the last serving of mutton gave him the $#!ts and he's gophering a brick. Maybe, today is the day that Fate called his number. If that day is today, he can always use his capstone Stroke of Luck ;p

What you are hinting at (or perhaps are trying to say and I am not understanding, or not) is that you are running a qualitative skill system on top of the 5e skill system, where you just let the character concept give automatic successes for the more simple cases, until the situation is obviously "dicey" and calls for a roll.

As a player, I would be happy to work within that framework.

I am not asking for more consistent DCs because I feel the need to make tactically optimal choices. Having DCs is a means to a goal, the actual goal being: I can make meaningful decisions in the context of my character concept and understanding of the world, with results that are not jarring and immersion breaking.

Consistent DCs are just one means of getting a grasp of how my character is likely to succeed or fail at tasks in the world.

A qualitative first approach will always have its rough edges, but it is something I can work with. Keep in mind that the implied logic of a qualitative approach suggests that character level does not usually matter. If my PC has a high Dex and Acrobatics, tightrope walking succeeds under good conditions, always, regardless of whether the PC is low or high level -- we only roll when conditions are poor. If my PC has a Sailor background, we never wonder if the prisoners are properly tied up, unless one of them has a gobsmacking escape ability we did not anticipate. If my PC is a mounted Paladin, we do not roll for jumping over fences that are physically plausible in the real world -- we just handwave a success. Look at the PC concept first and jump to Yes when the background implies competence.

[Segev]

Isn't your desire, as a player, to play the game rather than engage in an argument over a few points of DC enough? Whether you like it or not, that's the paradigm of 5E - let the DM decide the DC, and let the player play the game. They put a built-in assumption in the system that a slight disagreement ("It should be DC 10" "I say 15") will not ruin the game. Were they wrong?

In one game I'm in (not a D&D game), the GM calls for checks far, far more often than I think she should, and I do bite my tongue and accept it, though it annoys me. It annoys me because this is a % system, and thus by asking for 3-5 checks for every complex action (roll to see if you use your radio successfully; recipient rolls to see if he uses his successfully; roll to see if you successfully encode a message; roll to see if the recipient successfully decodes it; roll to see if you navigate to the right spot; roll to see if you calculate the right coordinates you're giving over the radio; roll to see if the other guy correctly uses his computer to enter those coordinates in.........), the chances of failure mount rapidly, since any of the rolls failing leads to "hilarious" failure.

So, yes, I do actually do as you advise, to the detriment of my fun, in the name of not frustrating everybody else by arguing. But believe me, I want to argue, because I think I should climb that darned ladder without chance of failure, but the GM thinks I should roll for everything harder than waking up and getting out of bed in the morning, and I fail at the sub-tasks often enough that I feel incompetent as a character.



Now, to the "setting expectations" side of things, if Player Alice thinks her rogue's +6 to climbing should give her a high chance to make it over that stone wall, but DM Betty thinks that that's a Nearly Impossible task, Alice will try and be shocked when she practically auto-fails, and be in a more dire situation than if she hadn't had her character try.

If there are some baseline expectations for how difficult a task is, Alice won't go 5 minutes into a description of her plan, past a couple of successful stealth checks to make it to the wall, only to learn once there that the task is far harder than she expected. At least, she won't discover this based solely on differing expectations between her and the DM. (She might learn the wall is coated in oil, but she didn't see this before. But that's a vastly different situation than the stone wall being exactly what she thought it was, but the difficulty being higher because, hey, the DM thinks stone walls are Nearly Impossible to climb. --no, you don't get to say the DM is being unreasonable, the rules don't actually tell us whether stone walls are Nearly Impossible or not.)

With guidelines in the rules, Alice could know what those guidelines are, and be aware that stone walls are Hard to climb, giving her a good ballpark for her DC and a way to gauge her chances based on her bonus. Without having to pre-outline every step of her approach so the DM can lay out every DC for her in advance. Or retcon back because Alice's rogue would've known she couldn't climb that wall.

[Pex]

@Pex

As I stated before, varying DC for a same task from a DM to another do not impede your character at all. They just shift the numbers, but your relative competence is still the same. If you build your character to be an expert in a skill and in one game the DCs are higher, then you'll still be better than the other PCs and NPCs. When you are creating your character, what is your main goal, be able to succeed agaist a DC 20 75% of the time, or are you thinking, I want my character to be an expert in this skill? In my opinion, the for,er is metagaming, as the character don't know what a DC 20 is, and if this this your train of thought when creating a character, I understand how you can feel cheated with inconsistensies between to DM, but if instead when building a character, you are thinking the later, as long as in game you succeed more often that others, you've achieved your goal from being better, DCs don't matter in this case.

I don't compare my character to NPCs or other PCs. I don't need to be "better" than them. I want consistency. It breaks my immersion if I'm able to climb a wall in one campaign but can't in another given the same relevant build, and enough about not all walls are the same. That's not the point. It is a bother I'm allowed a roll to recognize a troll in one game but denied it in another because the rules say DM do whatever the heck you want we're not bothering.

The game has specifics for class abilities (for the most part). It has specifics for spells (for the most part). It has specifics for monsters. It has specifics for feats. It has specifics for magic items. It should have had specifics for skills.

The parts that don't fit in "for the most part" (Paladins & Great Weapon Style, Summoning spells, etc.) are their own problems that lead to inconsistency, but I would have forgiven 5E of them if they were Honest True due to no game is perfect rather than their on purpose design choice of they're not bothering to finish designing the game and make DMs do the rest of the work.

[Ruslan]

"Average person" also doesn't work because PCs are not average people
This argument is irrelevant. When setting the DC, the DM should not consider the PC at all. He should consider Average Joe only, and pick the
statement that applies best from the list below:


Average Joe should have no problem whatsoever => DC 0 (or just autosuccess)
Easy for Average Joe. Unlikely to fail, unless there are detrimental circumstances => DC 5
About 50/50 chance for Average Joe => DC 10
Quite difficult for Average Joe, but still has a fighting chance => DC 15
Average Joe barely has any chance at all => DC 20
Average Joe has no chance whatsoever; get an expert => DC 25 or higher



and people's perspectives on what is average will also differ. For example, how easy was it to climb a rope in gym class?
How many kids in a gym class of 30 failed to climb that rope? About 10? Well, then Average Joe should have a 1/3 chance to fail. DC 8. There you go.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't compare my character to NPCs or other PCs. I don't need to be "better" than them. I want consistency. It breaks my immersion if I'm able to climb a wall in one campaign but can't in another given the same relevant build, and enough about not all walls are the same. That's not the point. It is a bother I'm allowed a roll to recognize a troll in one game but denied it in another because the rules say DM do whatever the heck you want we're not bothering.

The game has specifics for class abilities (for the most part). It has specifics for spells (for the most part). It has specifics for monsters. It has specifics for feats. It has specifics for magic items. It should have had specifics for skills.

The parts that don't fit in "for the most part" (Paladins & Great Weapon Style, Summoning spells, etc.) are their own problems that lead to inconsistency, but I would have forgiven 5E of them if they were Honest True due to no game is perfect rather than their on purpose design choice of they're not bothering to finish designing the game and make DMs do the rest of the work.

Consistency between tables is an illusion at best. Yes, not all stone walls (even within a single campaign) are the same. They vary wildly. That elven-work, magic-crafted stone wall in the Towers of the Four is a very different beast than the rough-work, piled-stone wall that makes up the edge of that farmer's field. They cannot be represented by the same DC, even with any reasonable modifiers. It would take magic (or a rope hanging from the top) to climb one (no handholds, molecular-scale smoothness, inward sloping, etc) while the other wouldn't even (except under super-adverse circumstances) merit a roll.

Note that in 5e, climbing is not generally a check at all. You can climb any reasonable surface by spending 2 feet of movement for every foot of progress. What is reasonable?
Depends on the setting, the table, the tone of the game, and the DM. Same with jumping. There's a fixed (based on STR) distance you can jump--anything beyond that is at the DM's discretion if it's even possible,
let alone what the check would be.

I see this with players (and DMs!) who are used to other editions of D&D. They import their old rules in, instead of changing the baseline to the new one. Different editions have different baselines. If you try to play 5e using 3e mentality, it's not going to work.


Also, your character is not the same between tables. Yes, the metagame stuff (numbers) are the same, but what that represents as to the actual capability varies between universes. It varies with the tone of the game. A wuxia game will have much more wall-jumping and acrobatics than a grimdark low-fantasy game. It's inherent in the nature of the thing.

I can understand a desire for consistency within the same situation at the same table (climbing the same wall under the same circumstances should be the same DC), but not between tables or between situations. That's a huge constraint on the DM, on the setting, and on the rules themselves that I don't believe has ever even come close to being satisfied without homogenizing everything. Even in the 3.X era (which I never played, but read the rules), I doubt that many tables actually followed those set DC rules too closely.

Your build improves your ability to do {specific thing}. It does not and cannot guarantee success, nor can it set exact probabilities ahead of time. That's an entirely meta-game thing.

I'll admit to rarely making up a specific DC for things (except those of spells, traps, or creatures). I know whether it's hard or medium (easy tends to be auto-success). For wild ideas, I know about what the appropriate modifier is and if they roll well (a fuzzy concept) they tend to at least partially succeed and if they roll poorly (also a fuzzy concept) they tend to fail (or receive less success). Some checks really only involve degrees of success--they'll succeed but how much will they get from it? Maybe (rarely) nothing, but usually more or less depending on the roll.

This freedom is vital to me. I play mostly with strong time constraints--1hr per session at most. Any time spent looking things up and calculating modifiers is too much. Game flow is the most important thing, other than making sure people are having fun.

[Pex]

Interesting.

A lot of what you described as "5e" problems just sound like they way "D&D has always been", but my experience is actually pretty limited in that I really mostly just have dim memories of the '80's, and a little bit of "table time" (old rules, and 5e) these past couple of years. I'm actually jealous of those who've had more time playing over the years (I'm looking at you KorvinStarmast, and Tanarii)

Not in 3E/Pathfinder/4E. There are defined DCs for things. 2E too somewhat. Even for things where you don't have proficiency in you would still roll against your ability score but different DMs applied different fiddlies such as whether you have to roll against your (ability score - 2) or something, hence the "somewhat".


So Pex... In your experience 3.x's more explicit rules make for better DM's? I'm a surprised by this. I've looked at the rulebook's, but I've never played any of the editions between 1985's Unearthed Arcana and WotC 5e, so I'm curious to learn more.


By virtue alone of never having met a tyrant DM while playing 3E/Pathfinder I would say yes. I know, it's been said before a bad DM will be one regardless of system. That is true. In 3E/Pathfinder and I'll even say 4E you have to on purpose try to be one because you have to go against specified rules, with one subset exception. The abuse of Rule 0 is apparent. I will say again 5E does not teach people to be bad DMs. It just facilitates them because there are less rules to purposely go against, allowing for the potential new player learning the game becoming one if he lets the power trip go to his head.

Subset exception: Killer DMs. In my view, not all tyrant DMs are Killer DMs but all Killer DMs are tyrant DMs. Killer DMs are those with a high PC death count, enjoy the high PC death count, and bask in the glory of their omnipotent power against "stupid players". A 3E/Pathfinder/4E Killer DM will follow the rules creating his own version of the TO builds you see in other threads for NPCs and monsters and/or present continuous waves of enemies against the PCs, and boy do they love using traps and cursed magic items.

Edit: Spelling

[Snails]

In one game I'm in (not a D&D game), the GM calls for checks far, far more often than I think she should, and I do bite my tongue and accept it, though it annoys me. It annoys me because this is a % system, and thus by asking for 3-5 checks for every complex action (roll to see if you use your radio successfully; recipient rolls to see if he uses his successfully; roll to see if you successfully encode a message; roll to see if the recipient successfully decodes it; roll to see if you navigate to the right spot; roll to see if you calculate the right coordinates you're giving over the radio; roll to see if the other guy correctly uses his computer to enter those coordinates in.........), the chances of failure mount rapidly, since any of the rolls failing leads to "hilarious" failure.

So, yes, I do actually do as you advise, to the detriment of my fun, in the name of not frustrating everybody else by arguing. But believe me, I want to argue, because I think I should climb that darned ladder without chance of failure, but the GM thinks I should roll for everything harder than waking up and getting out of bed in the morning, and I fail at the sub-tasks often enough that I feel incompetent as a character.

This is a classic kind of DM failure from the 1e/2e days. Based on conversations from NetNews back in the 80s, I would bet circa 90% of the DMs punished players for daring to be creative, daring to try anything cool that the DM did not anticipate.

One reason is that D&D culture back then was still carrying significant simulationist pretensions. So anything that was not covered in the rules was an excuse for the DM to imagine 5 different ways to fail, and demand a roll to for each one. The other reason is Sage Advice, to be blunt, explicitly encouraged this attitude.

Most modern RPGs do not apologize for being games that are intended to be fun, rather than simulations. Thus more gamemasters are used to saying yes without picking up the dice, or just figuring out which one roll to call good enough and not worry over the other little chances of failure.

My experience with 3e is it tended to encourage the DMs to learn to say yes, even if they did not make the full trip to lightweight style. That is because the PCs, once they hit middling levels, could do so many useful things with 100% success based on their skills. My personal experience is that the 3e DCs are a trivial effort 99% of the time. The DM just describes the scenario (e.g. the wall is rough, but wet) and we find a DC that everyone agrees is about right without any argument or fuss.

[KorvinStarmast]

Consistency between tables is an illusion at best.
I think that only Adventure League has that as a goal.

I'm actually jealous of those who've had more time playing over the years (I'm looking at you KorvinStarmast, and Tanarii) I was young and single for OD&D, 1e, Some Basic/Expert, and a bit of 2e. That allowed for investing time and energy into world building and systems mastery. I got married around the time 2e came out. Unlike the previous versions, I did not have time to develop systems mastery, as kids soon followed. Likewise with 3/3.5, not only not enough time for systems master, neither the budget nor the patience to invest in that system. The times I played it were often non satisfying, other than the time I was spending with friends and family doing a fun thing.
Our one on line game was going OK until the DM's dad made him stop running the game. (College grades, and all that).

So Pex... In your experience 3.x's more explicit rules make for better DM's? I will suggest that a good GM is rules independent. That's my experience. The guy in college who ran a good D&D game also ran a good Runequest game when I met him again a few years later, and he had run an excellent Chivalry and Sorcery game as well our last year at college.

[Snails]

This argument is irrelevant. When setting the DC, the DM should not consider the PC at all. He should consider Average Joe only, and pick the
statement that applies best from the list below:


Average Joe should have no problem whatsoever => DC 0 (or just autosuccess)
Easy for Average Joe. Unlikely to fail, unless there are detrimental circumstances => DC 5
About 50/50 chance for Average Joe => DC 10
Quite difficult for Average Joe, but still has a fighting chance => DC 15
Average Joe barely has any chance at all => DC 20
Average Joe has no chance whatsoever; get an expert => DC 25 or higher



How many kids in a gym class of 30 failed to climb that rope? About 10? Well, then Average Joe should have a 1/3 chance to fail. DC 8. There you go.

That is a very logical seeming approach, the main problem being the results are obviously wrong once we look at anyone other than Average Joe.

We might agree about Average Joe regarding a set of similar tasks of varying difficult. Good. We know how to game with an Average Joe PC. We also happen to know there is are a few actual Expert Bob's in the real world who can do a "Average Joe barely has any chance at all" task with a 99% success rate.

5e appears to be unable to model the level of competence that we see in the real world. The flat math simply disallows it. That is not a auspicious starting place for a system that should model both realistic mundane levels of competence plus fantastic & heroic levels of competence, as well.

The flat math works well enough in the combat system because the classes are rich in combat abilities that useful for mitigating the downsides. Since the skill system is so incomplete, most PCs have few mitigation options and most classes do not provide more at higher levels.

[DeathEatsCurry]

5e appears to be unable to model the level of competence that we see in the real world.

It's almost like a system with a huge amount of inherent variance through d20s made for playing the actions of fantasy heroes and other larger-than-reality figures is unsuited for providing accurate simulation of the Average (anachronistic) Joe's competence in various tasks.

[Tanarii]

Wow, walked away for a weekend and this thread took off. :smallbiggrin:

I have two issues, with one really a subset of the other. Those who have read my postings before know what's coming. :smallyuk:nooooooo....

Actually, while at first I had a lot of issues with your viewpoints, I've got a lot more sympathy for them now than I did back then. The only thing I take some issue with is the way you view and frame the issue. For example:

There are instances of things that were quite possible and appropriate to have official rules of how they work, but the designers decided not to do their job and made the DM do it. Skills are my main beef where this happens.The designers did their job on skills, given the design goal and paramaters. You just don't like the design goal. That's not the same as them not doing their job.


My other issue, the subset, is that because the DM has to finish designing the game this facilitates the tyrannical DM being one or learning to be one. Not cause it. Not teach it. Facilitate it.I've never met someone I'd consider a 'tyrannical DM' in 30 years of playing, and I've heard you use the term many times. What do you mean by this? A Railroading plot-stickler DM? (Of course, never having met one may mean I'm one. :smallyuk: )


Not at all. How hard is to climb a slippery rope? How hard is it to know what spell a bad guys is casting. How hard is it to know the capabilities of the monster the PC is fighting? What is easy for one DM is hard for another, player character creation irrelevant.Those are actually some of the best examples, especially the last two. Because many DMs / Players will say 'That's not possible in 5e' and others will say 'sure it is the DM just needs to set a DC'.


I like the underlying resolution method being clearer and having guidelines.That's a valid personal preference. I enjoyed it at first in 3e. Then I came to prefer the idea that not all 'sheer cliffs' in a world have the same DC in 4e. From both a player and DM perspective, I prefer the 5e way at the moment. That almost certainly WILL change over time and as a new edition comes out. Just as I'm currently prefering 5e TotM play, after ~20 years (out of ~30 of playing D&D) of heavy battle-mat focused play from 2E combat & tactics through the end of 4e.


It was true then as well, as soon as Greyhawk came out and thieves got the sneak attack and hide in shadows features.I'm totally unsurprised they were important to people in oD&D as well ... since AD&D 1e had some incredibly complex rules for some things. Those complex rules had to come from something other than Gygax's love of actuarial tables. :smallyuk:

[2D8HP]

...I don't compare my character to NPCs or other PCs. I don't need to be "better" than them. I want consistency. It breaks my immersion if I'm able to climb a wall in one campaign but can't in another given the same relevant build....,


I don't feel that way, but I can see why you'd want want the difficulty of tasks to be consistent in a game, but my own real life experience shows me that the same tasks can very incredibly in difficulty (maybe my competency just varies unusually hour to hour?).



...I will suggest that a good GM is rules independent. That's my experience. The guy in college who ran a good D&D game also ran a good Runequest game when I met him again a few years later, and he had run an excellent Chivalry and Sorcery game as well our last year at college.


I agree, and... you got to play Chivalry & Sorcery?! (so jealous!).

My first gaming circle had tried and discarded C&S (and Stormbringer) sadly without me, so I sadly never got to experience how bad (or good!) they were.

I did get to play Runequest, and I'm actually pretty fond of it, though I never had quite as much fun as I did with D&D.
If I had to GM a straight and pure RAW game I think I'd rather do Runequest than 1e AD&D (just easier for me).

[Ruslan]

We might agree about Average Joe regarding a set of similar tasks of varying difficult. Good. We know how to game with an Average Joe PC. We also happen to know there is are a few actual Expert Bob's in the real world who can do a "Average Joe barely has any chance at all" task with a 99% success rate.Yes, expert Bob exists. And he won't be a PC, though. PCs are not (despite what the class feature named Expertise says) experts in their skills. They are first and foremost adventurers, doing adventurer stuff.

The skill system cannot, and is not intended to, model an expert in brain surgery. It models a rugged adventurer (warrior, wizard, whatnot), who happens to be somewhat skilled in the arts of healing. The expert in brain surgery does not go on adventures. He is an NPC.

[Snails]

It's almost like a system with a huge amount of inherent variance through d20s made for playing the actions of fantasy heroes and other larger-than-reality figures is unsuited for providing accurate simulation of the Average (anachronistic) Joe's competence in various tasks.

That could be true, at a theoretical level, that because the system is so expansive in scope it makes compromises that mean it models the mundane a bit less well.

But I would argue it is not really the case here, that 5e as written often flounders for both mundane people and for fantastic people.

3e has shown us that you can map out a bunch of tasks referenced to Average Joe's and Olympic Gold Oliver's, and get sensible enough DCs in the 5 to 25 range, assuming a real world where all but very rare individuals are somewhere in "tier 1" (levels 1-4). As our fantastic 3e PCs reach the double digits, we get nice meaty results like "Hunkrah the Barbarian can do in a blizzard what Olympic Oliver can do on a sunny day". It is very easy to understand, and it meets our expectations of what fantasy heroes can do.

The 5e rules as written fail to model both Oliver and Hunkrah, although they work well enough for Joe, I suppose.

[Snails]

I don't feel that way, but I can see why you'd want want the difficulty of tasks to be consistent in a game, but my own real life experience shows me that the same tasks can very incredibly in difficulty (maybe my competency just varies unusually hour to hour?).


Careful. I think you may be confounding "difficulty" in terms of how much time effort a task ended up taking with DC. They are not quite the same thing, even if they are related.

Say you are a seasoned pro in some field of endeavor. You might have a +10 skill. You might find you get the most lucrative pay by concentrating on tasks at ~DC 25. Since you do not succeed with Take 10, you could easily "fail" on your check day after day. Eventually you will succeed, and you get to bill for your success. A priori, we expect these DCs to give you a mix of results in the 1 day to 12 days range. In hindsight, you would have a concrete reason why it took 9 days to get down to the "real" work for one task and say "dang, this stuff is unpredictable". But the mechanics do not care about those details, and calls the entire set of tasks that took a mix of times the same DC.

Just because Task A took 2 days to complete and Task B took 7 days to complete does not mean they had different DCs.

[DanyBallon]

That could be true, at a theoretical level, that because the system is so expansive in scope it makes compromises that mean it models the mundane a bit less well.

But I would argue it is not really the case here, that 5e as written often flounders for both mundane people and for fantastic people.

3e has shown us that you can map out a bunch of tasks referenced to Average Joe's and Olympic Gold Oliver's, and get sensible enough DCs in the 5 to 25 range, assuming a real world where all but very rare individuals are somewhere in "tier 1" (levels 1-4). As our fantastic 3e PCs reach the double digits, we get nice meaty results like "Hunkrah the Barbarian can do in a blizzard what Olympic Oliver can do on a sunny day". It is very easy to understand, and it meets our expectations of what fantasy heroes can do.

The 5e rules as written fail to model both Oliver and Hunkrah, although they work well enough for Joe, I suppose.

This all depend on your play style, you are looking for a game where Hunkrah becomes a superhero, whil I like my game where Hunkrah is exceptionnal, but within human limits.

To represent this, the DM running both game can set different DCs for the same task, you in one game Hunkrah can easily achieve task that mundane won't be able to do, while in the other game, the DM set the DC higher and now the PC feel more "human"

[Snails]

Yes, expert Bob exists. And he won't be a PC, though. PCs are not (despite what the class feature named Expertise says) experts in their skills. They are first and foremost adventurers, doing adventurer stuff.

The skill system cannot, and is not intended to, model an expert in brain surgery. It models a rugged adventurer (warrior, wizard, whatnot), who happens to be somewhat skilled in the arts of healing. The expert in brain surgery does not go on adventures. He is an NPC.

For brain surgery, I will shrug and accept your argument as good enough.

The idea that PCs are not true experts at approximately anything modeled primarily by the skill system is profound and far reaching.

In essence, that is my main complaint against 5e, and I consider it a significant flaw. Many, many game systems work otherwise.

[Snails]

This all depend on your play style, you are looking for a game where Hunkrah becomes a superhero, whil I like my game where Hunkrah is exceptionnal, but within human limits.

To represent this, the DM running both game can set different DCs for the same task, you in one game Hunkrah can easily achieve task that mundane won't be able to do, while in the other game, the DM set the DC higher and now the PC feel more "human"

That is a fair point.

I would suggest that in a game when your traveling companion can literally bring a man back from the dead, that many PCs will eventually reach superheroic levels of skill in some areas seems like a good default.

[mgshamster]

For brain surgery, I will shrug and accept your argument as good enough.

The idea that PCs are not true experts at approximately anything modeled primarily by the skill system is profound and far reaching.

In essence, that is my main complaint against 5e, and I consider it a significant flaw. Many, many game systems work otherwise.

It's not that profound or far reaching. Being an expert in an area is modeled by Features (primarily Class Features, but may also be Race or Background Features). It's not modeled by the skill system.

[Tanarii]

Careful. I think you may be confounding "difficulty" in terms of how much time effort a task ended up taking with DC. They are not quite the same thing, even if they are related.

Say you are a seasoned pro in some field of endeavor. You might have a +10 skill. You might find you get the most lucrative pay by concentrating on tasks at ~DC 25. Since you do not succeed with Take 10, you could easily "fail" on your check day after day. Eventually you will succeed, and you get to bill for your success. A priori, we expect these DCs to give you a mix of results in the 1 day to 12 days range. In hindsight, you would have a concrete reason why it took 9 days to get down to the "real" work for one task and say "dang, this stuff is unpredictable". But the mechanics do not care about those details, and calls the entire set of tasks that took a mix of times the same DC.

Just because Task A took 2 days to complete and Task B took 7 days to complete does not mean they had different DCs.
You are mixing up "atomic difficulty to complete the task right now the very first time" with "DC necessary to complete the overall task". But that's unsurprising because unlike the 3e system skill checks were born in, D&D 5e ability score checks don't necessarily require setting the DC for 'complete once right now' and checking over and over again. In fact, in some situations (social checks, foraging, not getting lost, etc) the check is explicitly the overall task, not the individual portion of the task. Whereas in other situations there are special rules for doing the task over and over again, either as the same task but different circumstances / location (passive rule in PHB) or the same task until you get it right (automatic success rule in DMG).

Which boils down again to a variable tool kit which allows the DM to choose a resolution rule as needed for the circumstances. With all it's benefits and downsides.

[Rhedyn]

It's not that profound or far reaching. Being an expert in an area is modeled by Features (primarily Class Features, but may also be Race or Background Features). It's not modeled by the skill system.
Or.. Bare with me on this...

Skills could be modeled by the skill system rather than tying such things behind heroic PC classes that npcs are not designed to even be able to take levels in.

This discussion though is the exact problem with the skill system. Every DM and player could extract something different from it.

If you walked into a game where DCs were set relative to those performing them and the barbarian was ripping up trees and knocking down castle walls while your 20 str fighter had trouble flipping a wagon because the barbarian was proficient and you weren't so your 20 athletics check produced different result than his 20 athletics, you may be put out by such an event because it doesn't match your expectations. But it is a valid RAW way to run the skill rules. It's just not how you envision them.

[DanyBallon]

That is a fair point.

I would suggest that in a game when your traveling companion can literally bring a man back from the dead, that many PCs will eventually reach superheroic levels of skill in some areas seems like a good default.

I'd say, it just means that he can use magic. Again is a matter of preference. 5e is vague enough to allow all the style of play.

The guidelines tell you how difficult a task is:
Very easy = DC 5 means that on a d20 roll you'll beat the target more than 75% of the time
Easy = DC 10 means that on a d20 roll you beat the target more than 50% of the time
Medium = DC 15 means that on a d20 roll you beat the target more than 25% of the time
Hard = DC 20 means that on a d20 roll you beat the target 5% of the time.
Very Hard = DC 25 means that unless you have some kind of bonus you won't be able to beat the target
Nearly impossible = DC 30 means that even with incredible bonus you may not be able to beat the target often

Let say we agree that the default setting is a superheroic style of play. A DM can decide that jumping over a 50ft chasm is a medium task. The player immediately have good idea of it's chances of success.
Now if the player bring his character in a more grittier setting and the DM says that to cross the exact same 50ft chasm is now very hard. Again the player immediately know his chances of success.

The rules are clear for everyone. Adding specific DCs for a given task, would only applies to the default setting the devs had in mind. If it happens it's not the same default as you like, then it would be worthless.

[DeathEatsCurry]

For brain surgery, I will shrug and accept your argument as good enough.

The idea that PCs are not true experts at approximately anything modeled primarily by the skill system is profound and far reaching.

In essence, that is my main complaint against 5e, and I consider it a significant flaw. Many, many game systems work otherwise.

Well except rogues. Being able to just minimize (and sometimes ignore) D20 variance and know exactly what DC you can and can't beat with that mid-level feature of which the name eludes me, is really good at making you an expert any skill.

[Tanarii]

This discussion though is the exact problem with the skill system. Every DM and player could extract something different from it.This discussion is the exact benefits of the skill system. Every DM can and does extract something different from it.

[mgshamster]

Or.. Bare with me on this...

Skills could be modeled by the skill system rather than tying such things behind heroic PC classes that npcs are not designed to even be able to take levels in.

This discussion though is the exact problem with the skill system. Every DM and player could extract something different from it.

If you walked into a game where DCs were set relative to those performing them and the barbarian was ripping up trees and knocking down castle walls while your 20 str fighter had trouble flipping a wagon because the barbarian was proficient and you weren't so your 20 athletics check produced different result than his 20 athletics, you may be put out by such an event because it doesn't match your expectations. But it is a valid RAW way to run the skill rules. It's just not how you envision them.

Did you quote the right person? I'm confused on how your response and assumptions about me have anything to do with what was quoted.

Edit: Ah, I see it. Your claiming that since NPCs don't take PC class levels, they therefore can't have Features and instead need to use the skill system to become an area expert. That's not the case; for NPCs, just slap on the Feature you want them to have for the purpose of the story. That's all that's needed.

For example, all of the class-based NPCs don't have PC class levels, they just have some of the Features slapped on to them to create the same feel. The Archmage has the Spellcasting Feature despite not having any levels in Wizard, and he'd definitely be an area expert in magic.

[Geeknamese]

What you are hinting at (or perhaps are trying to say and I am not understanding, or not) is that you are running a qualitative skill system on top of the 5e skill system, where you just let the character concept give automatic successes for the more simple cases, until the situation is obviously "dicey" and calls for a roll.

As a player, I would be happy to work within that framework.

I am not asking for more consistent DCs because I feel the need to make tactically optimal choices. Having DCs is a means to a goal, the actual goal being: I can make meaningful decisions in the context of my character concept and understanding of the world, with results that are not jarring and immersion breaking.

Consistent DCs are just one means of getting a grasp of how my character is likely to succeed or fail at tasks in the world.

A qualitative first approach will always have its rough edges, but it is something I can work with. Keep in mind that the implied logic of a qualitative approach suggests that character level does not usually matter. If my PC has a high Dex and Acrobatics, tightrope walking succeeds under good conditions, always, regardless of whether the PC is low or high level -- we only roll when conditions are poor. If my PC has a Sailor background, we never wonder if the prisoners are properly tied up, unless one of them has a gobsmacking escape ability we did not anticipate. If my PC is a mounted Paladin, we do not roll for jumping over fences that are physically plausible in the real world -- we just handwave a success. Look at the PC concept first and jump to Yes when the background implies competence.

Exactly ;) I tried to avoid skill checks as much as possible unless the skill check will make a difference to the narrative or it makes sense to. If you're a mounted Paladin, you can jump fences on horses all day during Exploration or what not. In the middle of battle or during the stress of a chase scene or while taking fire from crossbows, I'd call for a check. If you're in an in-character dialogue to persuade an NPC, I'll only call for a Persuasion check if what you're pushing towards directly opposes the NPCs Personality, Ideals, Bond, Flaws or current obligations. If not, I'll let your awesome roleplaying determine the success. Even if it does oppose the NPCs beliefs, I may grant Advantage due to the awesome and convincing role playing. I don't call for rolls which make little impact on the narrative or dramatic tension.

[Pex]

nooooooo....

hahahahaha


Actually, while at first I had a lot of issues with your viewpoints, I've got a lot more sympathy for them now than I did back then. The only thing I take some issue with is the way you view and frame the issue. For example:
The designers did their job on skills, given the design goal and paramaters. You just don't like the design goal. That's not the same as them not doing their job.

Fair enough. I was going for sarcasm or maybe hyperbole is the better word.


I've never met someone I'd consider a 'tyrannical DM' in 30 years of playing, and I've heard you use the term many times. What do you mean by this? A Railroading plot-stickler DM? (Of course, never having met one may mean I'm one. :smallyuk: )

Lucky you. Tyrant DMs say no for anything players want to do. No Rule of Cool. No outsmarting the DM. No getting off the train. He is to be Obeyed. Anyone who questions him is a whiny baby. Played with a few in my 2E days because I didn't know any better. Never met one during 3E/Pathfinder. (I had not played 4E.) First 5E game I try, there he is, denying rests, arguing with a player on her ability to fix the mast of a ship, says I quote: "I'm a DM who believes players should never get what they want."



Those are actually some of the best examples, especially the last two. Because many DMs / Players will say 'That's not possible in 5e' and others will say 'sure it is the DM just needs to set a DC'.

Thanks.

Cheers

[Contrast]

Lucky you. Tyrant DMs say no for anything players want to do. No Rule of Cool. No outsmarting the DM. No getting off the train. He is to be Obeyed. Anyone who questions him is a whiny baby. Played with a few in my 2E days because I didn't know any better. Never met one during 3E/Pathfinder. (I had not played 4E.) First 5E game I try, there he is, denying rests, arguing with a player on her ability to fix the mast of a ship, says I quote: "I'm a DM who believes players should never get what they want."


Out of interest does playing with such a DM under a more structured system actually help? Seems you should really just stop playing with that sort of DM in either situation.

As a side note if 3E has a table somewhere listing DCs for fixing different types of damage to masts of ships I would find that hilarious :smallbiggrin:

[DanyBallon]

Lucky you. Tyrant DMs say no for anything players want to do. No Rule of Cool. No outsmarting the DM. No getting off the train. He is to be Obeyed. Anyone who questions him is a whiny baby. Played with a few in my 2E days because I didn't know any better. Never met one during 3E/Pathfinder. (I had not played 4E.) First 5E game I try, there he is, denying rests, arguing with a player on her ability to fix the mast of a ship, says I quote: "I'm a DM who believes players should never get what they want."

On the other hand 3.P (can't say about 4e) created tyranical players, as in they will argue endlessly with the DM if he houserule anything or if he make a ruling on the spot to speed up play. Those players would never accept a no for an answer and they believe that the DM is a yesman to promote their character no matter what the setting and/or storyline.

No editions is perfect and we can find jerk palying any edition. But most of the players and DM out there are not "tyranical" DM or players, don't let this minority ruin our fun :smallamused:

[Ruslan]

Lucky you. Tyrant DMs say no for anything players want to do. No Rule of Cool. No outsmarting the DM. No getting off the train. He is to be Obeyed. Anyone who questions him is a whiny baby. Played with a few in my 2E days because I didn't know any better. Never met one during 3E/Pathfinder. (I had not played 4E.) First 5E game I try, there he is, denying rests, arguing with a player on her ability to fix the mast of a ship, says I quote: "I'm a DM who believes players should never get what they want."
So, are you saying certain D&D editions cause DMs to become tyrants (and same DMs would not be tyrants in other editions), or that tyrant DMs are attracted to certain D&D editions and not others?

[2D8HP]

On the other hand 3.P (can't say about 4e) created tyranical players...


Now that's interesting.

The chief problem that I see with D&D is simply a lack of willing DM's.

If (after a couple of more years for folks to learn and get used to 5e), an edition.has more potential players per available DM's who never get to play because of a lack of space at any tables, then on a personal practical level, I judge it the inferior edition.

Note that this is not about the intrinsic worth of any rules.

Yes "too bad" D&D is worse than no D&D (the last D&D table I played at for decades was very bad, and I walked out), but "good enough" D&D is far better than no game.

Being a DM is work. Being a good DM is even more work.

Once you have a family to support the time to put in is even more difficult.

If an edition is more attractive to DM, and hence it has more open tables, then I regard it as a better edition to learn.

Which game has more actual opportunities to play?

That's the one that's "best".

[Snails]

Which game has more actual opportunities to play?

That's the one that's "best".

I like the very practical minded way you think.

However, raw numbers could be misleading. 1e did not compete with the vast number of high production value computer games, especially good quality games you can play while sitting in the back of your history class. To some degree, 3e had it easier than 4e or 5e, as it had its big push well before the iPhone existed.

[Segev]

I like the very practical minded way you think.

However, raw numbers could be misleading. 1e did not compete with the vast number of high production value computer games, especially good quality games you can play while sitting in the back of your history class. To some degree, 3e had it easier than 4e or 5e, as it had its big push well before the iPhone existed.

So iD&D, which is an ap which lets people hook up and play D&D together on the iPhone in the back of their history classes, is the wave of PnP future? :smallwink::smalltongue:

[Pex]

Out of interest does playing with such a DM under a more structured system actually help? Seems you should really just stop playing with that sort of DM in either situation.

As a side note if 3E has a table somewhere listing DCs for fixing different types of damage to masts of ships I would find that hilarious :smallbiggrin:

To be honest not fully as evidenced by 2E. It is a more structured system than 5E, but the 2E DMG teaches DMs to be tyrants telling them to say no to players, such as denying a player the ability to play a ranger even if you adjust ability scores. 5E is less structured but the DMG does encourage DM to be accommodating to players catering to the different player personalities, which is why I agree 5E does not teach bad DMing.

My greater focus on this point is rather the ability of a new player to recognize a bad DM than a new DM becoming one. Rule 0 can only go so far before what the DM is doing is nonsense. When the player recognizes how different the DM's house rules are from the normal rules, he gauges his own sense of fun against it. If he's having fun, great. Play on. If not, vote with feet. Since 5E is less structured, the player doesn't know how far apart the DM's rules are from the game's. The game is telling the player the DM's rules are the actual rules. A player not having fun just might blame the game and stop playing at all.

As for 3E skills fixing a ship mast I couldn't tell you off hand what the DC would be, but a Take 20 in Profession (sailor) or Knowledge (engineering) would suffice.


So, are you saying certain D&D editions cause DMs to become tyrants (and same new DMs would not be tyrants in other editions), or that tyrant DMs are attracted to certain D&D editions and not others?

Yes, with a fix.

:smallsmile:

[Knaight]

My greater focus on this point is rather the ability of a new player to recognize a bad DM than a new DM becoming one. Rule 0 can only go so far before what the DM is doing is nonsense. When the player recognizes how different the DM's house rules are from the normal rules, he gauges his own sense of fun against it. If he's having fun, great. Play on. If not, vote with feet. Since 5E is less structured, the player doesn't know how far apart the DM's rules are from the game's. The game is telling the player the DM's rules are the actual rules. A player not having fun just might blame the game and stop playing at all.

Yes, and a player not having fun with 3.x not having fun might blame the game and stop playing at all. If I hadn't found non-D&D alternatives early (in the 3.x period), I'd have abandoned the hobby - the sort of thing a looser game downright prevented.

[2D8HP]

...If I hadn't found non-D&D alternatives early (in the 3.x period), I'd have abandoned the hobby - the sort of thing a looser game downright prevented.


I did abandon the hobby during the 2e, 3e, and 4e years because only non-D&D alternatives were being played (Champions, Cyberpunk, and Vampire). I just like playing a human-scale PC exploring a fantastic world better than a super powered PC dominating a mundane world.

I'm grateful that D&D is popular again, and I've mostly enjoyed playing it again except... I played a 5e game that started at 11th level, and I hated it.

Just not for me.

I'm up to try Savage Worlds if anyone else actually played it (or BRP, or FATE, or 7th Sea, or any of a hundred "OSR" games), but really the choice is between Pathfinder, and 5e.

I like 5e a lot at low levels. I just wish it stayed longer somewhere around maybe 3rd to 6th?

More to the point, I do think some of the issues people have with DC's could be fixed by using a d100 instead of a d20, so you could have smaller graduations.

[Snails]

More to the point, I do think some of the issues people have with DC's could be fixed by using a d100 instead of a d20, so you could have smaller graduations.

Some of the issues, yes.

There is a well known problem in BRP and similar systems (the % system that grew out of RuneQuest) that it is easy for the GM to accidentally crush the fun out of the game by following the letter of the rules and asking for too many rolls. My PC could be the greatest horseman on the continent for an entire generation with a 97% Ride skill. Does that mean he falls off the horse 3% of the time he charges into battle?

BRP/% systems are a kind of "flat math" system, and they share many of the positives and negatives of the 5e skill system.

The most common mitigation strategy is for the GM to learn to say Yes, and not ask for rolls, because the flat math of a % system gives too many opportunities for immersion damaging weird failures. This is directly related to the discussion I was having with Geeknamese, regarding qualitative assessments of skills.

For example: If someone has a 80+% Riding skill, they are experts, and just do not ask them for a roll unless they just got smacked by a dragon tail, their horse is on fire, they are directly racing against someone of similar skill, etc. Put the dice down.

[mephnick]

I'm grateful that D&D is popular again, and I've mostly enjoyed playing it again except... I played a 5e game that started at 11th level, and I hated it.

I pretty much end all the campaigns I run at level 11-13. After that play becomes more of a theoretical exercise than a fantasy game and I stop enjoying it.

"Here's a bunch of demons, explain to me how you avoid the fight using high level magic and we'll move on.."

*To be fair this was true in 3.5 as well, although I generally ended 3.5 campaigns at like...8

[Contrast]

I've heard the argument before than d100 systems allow more granularity and somehow makes them better or even particularly different and I've honestly never understood the argument.

Rolling a d20 is identical to rolling a d100 in a system where all checks are rounded up to the nearest 5. I've played d100 and d20 systems - I really can't see how someone can say the target being 58 instead of '60' significantly changes how the system runs or how you experience or enjoy it as a player. Just makes no sense to me at all :smallconfused:

[Snails]

I've heard the argument before than d100 systems allow more granularity and somehow makes them better or even particularly different and I've honestly never understood the argument.

Rolling a d20 is identical to rolling a d100 in a system where all checks are rounded up to the nearest 5. I've played d100 and d20 systems - I really can't see how someone can say the target being 58 instead of '60' significantly changes how the system runs or how you experience or enjoy it as a player. Just makes no sense to me at all :smallconfused:

I agree, with an important clarification...

3e d20 was actually significantly different from the usual d100/% systems, because 3e explicitly scaled both the skills and the DCs up into the 20s and 30s. A direct result is that you could get autosuccess on heroic tasks, which fit quite well with the implied tiers of play.

5e d20 is very, very close to standard BRP/% systems. 5e frowns on having a +30 skill for reasons similar to why Runequest frowns on a skill of 150%. Obviously it is possible to use those high skills meaningfully, but the designers made a design decision to not go there.

[Pex]

Yes, and a player not having fun with 3.x not having fun might blame the game and stop playing at all. If I hadn't found non-D&D alternatives early (in the 3.x period), I'd have abandoned the hobby - the sort of thing a looser game downright prevented.

Certainly a player could not have fun with the game rules and stop playing anyway. (Raises own hand and points to 4E.) However, if that's going to happen I'd prefer it's because the player really didn't like the rules and not because of how the DM ran the game. Quit such a DM, not the game.

[Beelzebubba]

It's amusing seeing the same arguments that created every other game after Basic D&D being re-argued here and now, since D&D has, in many ways, gone back to Basic. So many games were literally built around 'oh this mechanic in D&D wasn't good, mine is way better' and going from there.

Chaosium said 'd% is better than d20, and let's replace hit points with skill rolls' and made a simple game with an incredible amount of dice rolling.

Gurps said 'I hate rolled stats. I like Lego and point buy. Let's make a game like Lego. With point buy.' and built up something that was a complex game with even more rolling than Chaosium games.

Rolemaster said 'AD&D weapon speed and per AC modifiers were a bad implementation of a great idea. And the best thing about AD&D were the charts!' and went way down the path of grognardiness.

Shadowrun said 'what if we replaced one roll with a wide numerical range with a bunch of smaller rolls that had a smaller numerical range but added up to make a big one' and the 6-sided dice makers of the world rejoiced.

I can't wait to see the Fantasy Heartbreakers (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/) that will spring out of 5E.

[mephnick]

Rolemaster has always seemed like something I would love to play for exactly 1 session.

[DanyBallon]

Rolemaster has always seemed like something I would love to play for exactly 1 session.

Don't even bother. I've played their version of Middle Earth and the system is just plain awful!!! There's is a reason why Rolemaster was nicknamed ROLLmaster. Unless you wan to know the feel of roling dice for every action you may think of, then stay as far away as you can from this system :smallwink:

[2D8HP]

...I really can't see how someone can say the target being 58 instead of '60' significantly changes how the system runs or how you experience or enjoy it as a player. Just makes no sense to me at all :smallconfused:


I imagine that you would mostly just keep at 5% graduations (so keep the d20), but you'd use a d100 (or d1000 etc.l for very small chances of failure or success (if a roll is wanted at all).


RuneQuest...


...Rolemaster...


Rolemaste....


...Rolemaster...


My second DM/GM had us try both RuneQuest and Rolemaster. I liked RuneQuest a lot, but it never was as much fun for me as early D&D was (but that may have been because I was already a teenager, and few things were as fun).

MERP/Rolemaster, on the other hand. . If he was still alive I would gladly sit at his table and play it, but the rules?

I glanced at them, and decided they were just too much work.

[Beelzebubba]

The best part of Rolemaster is character creation.

All four hours of it.

Once.

[Pex]

Rolemaster

(shudder)

Is the game still in publication? My experience was made worse because one of the players was a That Guy being a real jerk-donkey as they always are. I just had to quit the game I was so miserable.

I also tried Fantasy Warhammer. I was able to have fun with it but had to quit because the only two players who took turns DMing it played favorites with each other's characters with an occasional That Guy jerk playing as well, different player from the other one.

This was during my college years along with 2E learning the ropes of RPGs. At least not all the 2E DMs were tyrants with plenty of fun players to keep me still playing.

And you wonder why I get so sensitive about tyrannical DMing and Real Jerk players. :smallbiggrin:

[Zalabim]

Some of the issues, yes.

There is a well known problem in BRP and similar systems (the % system that grew out of RuneQuest) that it is easy for the GM to accidentally crush the fun out of the game by following the letter of the rules and asking for too many rolls. My PC could be the greatest horseman on the continent for an entire generation with a 97% Ride skill. Does that mean he falls off the horse 3% of the time he charges into battle?

BRP/% systems are a kind of "flat math" system, and they share many of the positives and negatives of the 5e skill system.

The most common mitigation strategy is for the GM to learn to say Yes, and not ask for rolls, because the flat math of a % system gives too many opportunities for immersion damaging weird failures. This is directly related to the discussion I was having with Geeknamese, regarding qualitative assessments of skills.

For example: If someone has a 80+% Riding skill, they are experts, and just do not ask them for a roll unless they just got smacked by a dragon tail, their horse is on fire, they are directly racing against someone of similar skill, etc. Put the dice down.
You can still roll the dice, but the important thing, and 5E does talk about this a little bit, is calibrating your expectations. The result of success is important, but it's extra important to handle failure well. No, the horseman does not fall of his horse 3% of the time. It is not 97% chance to ride normally and 3% chance to fall off because that's not fun. Indeed, you shouldn't roll that. But it can be 97% chance to jump that hurdle and 3% chance the horse balks and you have to turn and go around or run up again.

The basic rules says failing to meet an ability check DC results in no progress or progress along with a setback. Not "hilarious comeuppance." It's a decent guideline.

I've been trying to stay out of this thread too.