Do You Enjoy Vague Rules Which Are Open To Interpretation?

[milona]

Does anyone else find it annoying to have to constantly debate with people about what a character can do? Whenever I play in a rules light system it seems like that is all that ever happens, someone is arguing with the GM over whether or not their character can do something. I personally hate it, regardless of what side of the screen I am on.

Can someone explain the appeal to me? In my experience you either get a iron fisted DM who says no to everything, in which case you are constantly frustrated and disappointed, a more lax DM in which case everyone is competing to top one another as the only limits they place are on themselves, or a more reasonable DM who allows things that they think won't cause problems, but then bog the game down with endless debate and deliberation.

Currently I am playing in two games, both of which run off the "the rules are just a guideline" philosophy. Maybe it is just the DM's I am playing under, but I have yet to have one of them approve a character action that fell outside the written rules. On the other hand, on more occasions that I can count I have been denied a rules legal action because the DM didn't like it for whatever reason. This is not fun.

Recently one of them wanted to swap out the standard skill system in PF to the 13th age system, where if I understand it correctly you write up a character biography and then convince the DM that your backstory should allow you to perform the task you want to do in the present. This sounds like it is going to be a nightmare.

On the other hand I remember when I was running a very early version of Heart of Darkness some years ago before the rules were really worked out. One of the players at my table was a door to door salesman for his day job, and he was very good at convincing me to let him do things, to the point where the other players actually got rather jealous and or mad at him about it and stopped having fun.

Really, I don't get the appeal. Unless everyone is on exactly the same page and perfectly unbiased I don't see any advantage to coming up with things on the fly over looking through a heavy rulebook and calculating the proper odds. But judging by the love of rules light games and the almost universal praise of the 5E skill system it seems like I am in the minority. What am I missing?

[Pelle]

Everyone involved playing in good faith perhaps?

[flond]

Generally, the advantage is choosing where you are on a spectrum. Lighter rules allow things to be more breezy (and, in general, in something like 13th age you should let things apply much more than you don't let things apply) and give you more leeway, while heavier systems allow for more differentiation and can suffer from "sorry, you only have fire building, not fire extinguishing, you should have seen that forest fire coming."

[Florian]

Can someone explain the appeal to me? What am I missing?

Rules can only ever cover what the designer created them to do, with something specific in mind. That can make the game pretty inflexible or even dysfunctional when the actual game and the implied game start to become different.

Things actually work fine when you sit down (session zero) before that gam and actually talk about genre, setting and expectations. When someone says "D&D" and has "Conan" in mind, while the other says "D&D" and has "Pun-Pun" in mind, both smile and agree on "D&D"... and then the game grinds to a halt as you described. When both participants agree on either "Conan" or "Pun-Pun", it´s just a little bit of fine-tuning necessary and that it, no particular need to additional rules to moderate how the game plays.

[Knaight]

I play with a group where everyone trusts the GM's judgement, and is at least very near the same page. This works fine, and the described process of arguing with the GM is a rarity, with said arguments being short (two sentences tops). As such this works just fine, where looking through a rule book is just added hassle.

As for the problem with the salesman, it's a case of someone having out of game skills which make them better at the game. I have no more issue with that coming up there than I do with it coming up when the skills in question are system familiarity, probability theory familiarity, general optimization skill, etc. This is despite my skills leaning much more heavily towards numerical intuition and rapidly learning systems than sales or even rhetoric.

With that said, I'm also not playing Pathfinder. Half the point of these systems is that you can learn and use them quickly, where there's a very small set of core rules that can be that small because they let GM judgment in. Using this same philosophy with a much heavier system with a whole bunch of rules is just asking for a headache.

[Lalliman]

To call them vague rules is a rather guiding choice of words. I don't think anyone specifically enjoys vague rules, but I will happily tolerate the vagueness for the sake of having an elegant and concise system. Dealing with tables full of skill DCs and lengthy descriptions of niche exceptions is annoying. Either you have to halt play to look them up, or you have to spend the time and effort to memorise them. I'll take the uncertainty of letting the DM arbitrate what is and isn't possible over dealing with that. If you want complete control and understanding of the game, then why are you playing a game that has a dungeon master to begin with?

Playing a rules light system does indeed require a good DM, cooperative players, and good communication of expectations. And your DM doesn't sound like he's doing a very good job, from the brief insight you provided. One strength of rules heavy systems is that they can mitigate the problems caused by a poorly-attuned group. But I see that as little more than a band-aid. A good group will always be better than a bad group, and I think that a rules light system does more to accommodate the good aspects of a good group.

[S@tanicoaldo]

A player once said that I’m a storyteller first and a DM second, and I’m very lucky that my players really enjoy the stories I try to tell through my games, so I don’t like when mechanics get in the way of fluff, but it seems I’m the minority.

If I could I would do away with all rules and just RP and freeform.

Too bad most players really like the G aspect of RPG, they need their sheets, their numbers, their math, their stats and their rolls. They take joy in rolling a natural 20 and I can't really blame for that, not everybody is up about staying in a room playing a glorified make believe.

[Darth Ultron]

I LOVE it. It is the only way to Game.

The so called rules are just vague suggestions, made up by some people...long, long ago...that are just scribbles on a page. They are good for a ''hum" but are not to be put on a pedestal and in anyway worshiped.

And the real secret is: all rules are open to interpretation. And you don't think that...well, P.T. Barnimum has a quote about this type of person being born....

Though I can see your problems.

Like first of all: There is no debate. The GM says what IS. Period. The End. You are free to ''not like it'', but it does not matter: The DM says what Is.

Second, no rule book covers everything. The people that wrote it were just people...not rule demi gods. Trying to play a game exactly by the scribbles on a page is just silly. Just about no one does that. And you can't really ignore pages 20-44 just as you don't ''like them", but then say pages 45-50 are absolutely carved in stone and must be done exactly as written on the page at all times.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Frame challenge: all non trivial rulesets require interpretation. Not just RPGs, but all rules. The only way to minimize this (not eliminate, because that's impossible) is to restrict the range of possibilities that the system allows and forbid all others categorically. At the extreme you get to a particularly confining board game. Allowing multiple interpretations allows my table to do different things than your table. Which is a good thing in my eyes.

I have no problem with rulings, as long as I trust the DM (and other players) to act in the game's best interests. Then again, no rule will confine them, since the rules only have the power we give them. So I only play with those I trust. I prefer a bit of crunch, but that's for aesthetic reasons, not to avoid vagueness.

I've seen game systems that in the interests of removing vagueness have instead caused nonsense or malsense (the difference is that one has no valid interpretation, while the other has one or more, but they're detrimental to play). I'd much rather have rules with multiple useful interpretations than either of those failures.

[King of Nowhere]

Playing a rules light system does indeed require a good DM, cooperative players, and good communication of expectations. And your DM doesn't sound like he's doing a very good job, from the brief insight you provided. One strength of rules heavy systems is that they can mitigate the problems caused by a poorly-attuned group. But I see that as little more than a band-aid. A good group will always be better than a bad group, and I think that a rules light system does more to accommodate the good aspects of a good group.
and the players are also making a poor job, if they are trying so often to outperform each other by pushing the DM. In a good group the DM takes reasonable decisions and the players accept them. If there are problems, some quiet talking can fix them. In such an environment, too many rules get in the way of fun.

In general, that's true for most facets of life. in the workplace or in personal relationships, the more you can trust the other people, the less hard rules you need. Then someone tries to abuse the flexibility, and you have to stop them by making hard rules. And they'll still try to circumvent those rules, but at least the rules give them some limitations.
Basically, in my experience honest and mature people are better off with loose guidelines. Hard rules are needed to keep those who do not fit those critieria from squabbling tooo much.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Basically, in my experience honest and mature people are better off with loose guidelines. Hard rules are needed to keep those who do not fit those critieria from squabbling tooo much.

Hard rules also are needed for strangers in an organized play scenario (because you won't have the trust needed and one bad apple can cause cascading problems). But those can be added on top of a lighter system by pre-deciding the relevant facts for that case. It doesn't have to infect the rest of the system.

[Max_Killjoy]

Does anyone else find it annoying to have to constantly debate with people about what a character can do? Whenever I play in a rules light system it seems like that is all that ever happens, someone is arguing with the GM over whether or not their character can do something. I personally hate it, regardless of what side of the screen I am on.

Can someone explain the appeal to me? In my experience you either get a iron fisted DM who says no to everything, in which case you are constantly frustrated and disappointed, a more lax DM in which case everyone is competing to top one another as the only limits they place are on themselves, or a more reasonable DM who allows things that they think won't cause problems, but then bog the game down with endless debate and deliberation.

Currently I am playing in two games, both of which run off the "the rules are just a guideline" philosophy. Maybe it is just the DM's I am playing under, but I have yet to have one of them approve a character action that fell outside the written rules. On the other hand, on more occasions that I can count I have been denied a rules legal action because the DM didn't like it for whatever reason. This is not fun.

Recently one of them wanted to swap out the standard skill system in PF to the 13th age system, where if I understand it correctly you write up a character biography and then convince the DM that your backstory should allow you to perform the task you want to do in the present. This sounds like it is going to be a nightmare.

On the other hand I remember when I was running a very early version of Heart of Darkness some years ago before the rules were really worked out. One of the players at my table was a door to door salesman for his day job, and he was very good at convincing me to let him do things, to the point where the other players actually got rather jealous and or mad at him about it and stopped having fun.

Really, I don't get the appeal. Unless everyone is on exactly the same page and perfectly unbiased I don't see any advantage to coming up with things on the fly over looking through a heavy rulebook and calculating the proper odds. But judging by the love of rules light games and the almost universal praise of the 5E skill system it seems like I am in the minority. What am I missing?



On the whole, I agree with you.

I have a friend who adores some obscure diceless systems, and keeps pushing them as "elegant" and "unobstructed"... and I look at them and see nothing but games that consists of a single rule -- "The GM gets to decide everything".

[GungHo]

Depends on the context.

When we're playing Interpretation: The Vaguening, it's fine. We know that the game is going to expect us to act as the gods of the gaps. The framework may barely even exist, but they told you up front, you're building this house and we're not even providing you wood. There's a forest. Here's some saws. Have at it.

However, today I chose Furniture & Rugs and wanted to play a coffee table because it said on the back of the box, "all you need to do is goto Ikea, pick the color and style, assemble per instructions, and place". They didn't say "oh yeah... well, you're gonna have to peel the top off the house because we didn't think you needed doors. Oh, you might want to leave the ladder there because the toilets don't flush... we figured because there were no doors, you'd never try to use the bathroom."

[Satinavian]

Personally i don't enjoy vague rules.

[1337 b4k4]

I enjoy games that have structure but that are honest about the fact that language is impresise by its nature, and that there no way they could reasonably cover every possible situation. I’ve enjoyed both rules heavy (e.g. GURPS) and I’ve enjoyed games that are rules lite (Fate Accelerated). What I have never enjoyed are games that are strong on the “rules as law” attitude and over confident in their precision, because my experience has been those systems lead to the worst arguments either due to hard rules having .weird interactions (e.g. drowning yourself back to life) or due to some situation being close to but not exactly like the rules have a case for, so everyone assumes it will work like that.

As a GM lighter rules systems allow me to be more reactive and improvisational with my games (my preferred way of running a game) and allow me to bring new players into the hobby much easier. For example I played in a 4e campaign for 3 years where by the end of the campaign we still had players who weren’t comfortable with what their character could do and found the level of complexity off putting. So much so that one of then basically just waited until their turn and said “I attack” otherwise. We later picked up a Dungeon World campaign and those same players became alive. Yes the first handful of sessions were a lot of “what can I do?”, but once they realized that what I as a GM was looking for was to tell me what they wanted to do and we’d adjudicate it, they became much more involved. The rules are more vague, but the way the rules interact with the players took them from trying to pick the right tactic from a menu on a character sheet to actually inhabiting the role of their character.

That isn’t to say rules detailed games necessarily prevent that, but my experience has been that new and “casual” gamers find the heaviness of rules detailed games to be more of a distraction than and help.

[Pex]

Heck no.

I like to know what my character can do based on the choices I make and not who is DM that day. It's my character. I'm entitled (ooh I said a bad word for some people) to know how it works. I don't want to relearn how to play the game for every new campaign. I shouldn't have to need a list of questions to ask each DM how something works this time. House rules are fine, but it's a problem when the basic fundamentals of how a game works change because of who is DM that day.

[Max_Killjoy]

Heck no.

I like to know what my character can do based on the choices I make and not who is DM that day. It's my character. I'm entitled (ooh I said a bad word for some people) to know how it works. I don't want to relearn how to play the game for every new campaign. I shouldn't have to need a list of questions to ask each DM how something works this time. House rules are fine, but it's a problem when the basic fundamentals of how a game works change because of who is DM that day.


Again, on the whole, I agree with this.

[Quertus]

I've had a number of GMs with, shall we say, a rather poor grasp on reality. If there's any way it can be coded into the rules, by all means, encode away!


Dealing with tables full of skill DCs and lengthy descriptions of niche exceptions is annoying. Either you have to halt play to look them up, or you have to spend the time and effort to memorise them.

Or you look them up when it's not your turn, so, come your turn, you're ready with the relevant details, and the game keeps flowing smoothly. Much more smoothly than it would with a party of rules lawyers arguing with a GM with no grasp on reality.


Heck no.

I like to know what my character can do based on the choices I make and not who is DM that day. It's my character. I'm entitled (ooh I said a bad word for some people) to know how it works. I don't want to relearn how to play the game for every new campaign. I shouldn't have to need a list of questions to ask each DM how something works this time. House rules are fine, but it's a problem when the basic fundamentals of how a game works change because of who is DM that day.

Pretty much this.

If I come over to your house to play Monopoly, I expect to understand how the dice, turns, and money work. I don't want to relearn that for every table!

[Mato]

Does anyone else find it annoying to have to constantly debate with people about what a character can do? Whenever I play in a rules light system it seems like that is all that ever happens, someone is arguing with the GM over whether or not their character can do something. I personally hate it, regardless of what side of the screen I am on.Welcome to being middle aged, at least in mental development if not in body. Teenagers have an inherent disposition towards arguing against the status quo in order to prove their independence to them selves. And if you've ever argued with one, you know how hard it is to convince them of anything.

Plus getting angry also releases adrenaline and can closely link to getting a rush, many people become addicted to it similar to thrill seekers, runners, or hot food lovers as well. You'll recognize the concept if I use the phase "drama queen", is when someone doesn't get enough interact out of their stressful work life and managing their children and instead turn to verbally lashing out over minor things in order to fulfill their desires they claim they don't have. And it's not that having those things means you don't have some sort of addiction but it's more of you get enough through normal interaction you have no desire to seek out any more.

And since the discussions center around an opinion. Young adults identify them selves based on their opinions. In other words, if you discredit their opinion on a matter you have personally insulted them. Without an external network of validation, like being successful at work, having a supportive spouse, being top of their class, or other personal forms of accomplishments their personal ego is entirely based on their online persona. And remember the current generation has had a life long experience of being rewarded simply for being them selves rather than through in actual merits. They simply don't have anything else but arguing on the Internet, and because that sounds poor their psyche is unable to acknowledge it.

Which arrives to the final point. Studies have proven that an emotional response such as anger has a huge impact in how you remember how the events played out, they will always remember the event in a favorable way and dismiss the negative implications it has with their relationships, be it personal, business, or online. In other words, it's almost impossible for them to admit they have a problem because they are unable to perceive a problem on their side to begin with.

But the better question to ask your self (and not online where you'll feel you must defend your self) is. Did you post this to stimulate an argument as proof of your mendacious maturity or did you post this as an honest question as you become aware of this phenomenon and you are trying to understand it better?

[King of Nowhere]

Heck no.

I like to know what my character can do based on the choices I make and not who is DM that day. It's my character. I'm entitled (ooh I said a bad word for some people) to know how it works. I don't want to relearn how to play the game for every new campaign. I shouldn't have to need a list of questions to ask each DM how something works this time. House rules are fine, but it's a problem when the basic fundamentals of how a game works change because of who is DM that day.

ok, better to be clear:

the basics cannot be vague. I need a good framework on what characters can and cannot do, that has to be pretty solid. I must know exactly how much bonus my monk has to attack, trip, or grapple, and how that compares to my enemies. Free interpretation is for details. Generally when I must engage I describe the action I want to take as a set of tumbles, jumps, movements that would put me in the right position and then attack. And there are no clear rules for that - well, sometimes there are, sometimes there is some ambiguity and sometimes the battleground is just not described in enough details - and the DM adjudicates the DC and we roll with it. And if we had to provide detailed descriptions of the battleground and go all "your monk think he probably won't make that jump" "ok, would it be more feasible if - action sequence B -?" it would really take hours, and we'd lose some possibility. Once I used a summoned bear as stepping stone during a jump. Today I had an extended exchange with a dragon in midflight in a pit over a pool of acid as I kept jumping from walls to the dragon and back to walls. It's the kind of thing that makes for very enjoyable action, and they fit a lot with the character concept, while being too strange to have actual rules.

A good example that comes to mind is chess. To play chess you need to know exactly how each piece moves, and the rules for winning and drawing. Those must be set in stone, it would not do if someone decided to "wing it" and just move some piece irregularly.
but then the chess federation also established a set of other rules detailing which hand you have to use when you ccapture a piece, the exact sequence of movements to pperform when promoting a pawn - all rigorously to be done with one hand, or your opponent may call it irregular move and cause you to lose the game - and to whom you must notify when you go to the toilet (tournament games can last longer than 6 hours, it is a necessity) and a lot of other minutiae, and those rules are damn annoying and they add nothing to the game. So, some rules are necessary, toomany rules are annoying.

[1337 b4k4]

If I come over to your house to play Monopoly, I expect to understand how the dice, turns, and money work. I don't want to relearn that for every table!

While the larger point is understood, it's amusing you picked Monopoly as your example given that almost no one actually plays monopoly by the rules (https://www.rd.com/culture/turns-playing-monopoly-wrong/).

Edit:
------

And thinking about it, this might be a good argument why more and better defined rules are not always a good thing. Good rules are only useful if everyone follows and reads them. But as we can see from the link above, or The Alexandrian (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2) and really any discussion on rules where it turns out the actual rule is different than most people think, a lot of our games and pastimes are learned by "osmosis" and oral tradition rather than reading a rule book. And it's been this way for almost as long as we've had games. How many of you ever read the Uno rule book and know that you can't play a Draw 4 card unless it's the only valid card in your hand (https://www.unorules.com)? How many of you have read the baseball rules and know that opposing players aren't supposed to fraternize while in uniform or know how the infield fly rule works? If there are too many rules to read, you're just as likely to be playing by rules you don't know until you sit down at the table.

Which isn't to say having defined rules is a bad thing. MLB would be terrible if every home team had their own "house rules" for how to play the game. But at the same time, sandlot baseball would be awful if everyone was having to follow all the rules all the time, because a sandlot game isn't supposed to be an MLB game.

[Pex]

While the larger point is understood, it's amusing you picked Monopoly as your example given that almost no one actually plays monopoly by the rules (https://www.rd.com/culture/turns-playing-monopoly-wrong/).

I don't either. :smallbiggrin:

[ImNotTrevor]

It's hilarious to me that virtually all complaints (aside from taste, of course) about vague rules and DM issues are solved by having a conversation. You know, like what grownups do when they have a problem.

I like vague rules. I don't swap groups often and usually I GM. If people want to know how I GM, they need not wait long because I explain it early. Any decisions I make, I justify immediately. I make it clear that my players can make a case, but ultimately I'll go with what makes sense to me.
Sometimes they turn me around. Sometimes they don't. This process rarely takes longer than about 30 seconds.

And if you can make the level of abstraction clear for everyone, then there's even fewer problems.

This is why I do a Session 0. Always. Even with the same group. There is ALWAYS a Session 0.

[Inchhighguy]

It always amazes me how people say they want to play a game....yet also seem to want to argue forever.

[D+1]

Both as GM and player, I prefer a game with rules which are clear and comprehensive enough to minimize the NEED for interpretation. Interpretation should only be necessary in UNUSUAL or at best UNCOMMON situations. When interpretation IS necessary, then if the GM (whether that means ME or someone else) can't be trusted to do it swiftly, intelligently, fairly, then I should be looking for a different game to play or different people to play it with.

I, and any other decent game master can make up rules (or interpret them) as often as is required, but it should not be the goal of rules to REQUIRE that. It should be the goal of rules to make that LESS necessary, not more.

That said, there are games that revolve around not only the GM but the players as well engaging in creative, imaginative interpretation of results (FFG's SW games for example) and I can and do thoroughly enjoy them, but those are clear exceptions. They are fun, I think, in large part BECAUSE they are exceptions.

[Pex]

Edit:
------

And thinking about it, this might be a good argument why more and better defined rules are not always a good thing. Good rules are only useful if everyone follows and reads them. But as we can see from the link above, or The Alexandrian (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2) and really any discussion on rules where it turns out the actual rule is different than most people think, a lot of our games and pastimes are learned by "osmosis" and oral tradition rather than reading a rule book. And it's been this way for almost as long as we've had games. How many of you ever read the Uno rule book and know that you can't play a Draw 4 card unless it's the only valid card in your hand (https://www.unorules.com)? How many of you have read the baseball rules and know that opposing players aren't supposed to fraternize while in uniform or know how the infield fly rule works? If there are too many rules to read, you're just as likely to be playing by rules you don't know until you sit down at the table.

Which isn't to say having defined rules is a bad thing. MLB would be terrible if every home team had their own "house rules" for how to play the game. But at the same time, sandlot baseball would be awful if everyone was having to follow all the rules all the time, because a sandlot game isn't supposed to be an MLB game.

Of course. If I don't like the rules I don't play that game. I never played 4E for that reason, but I knew what my character could do if I were to play.


It's hilarious to me that virtually all complaints (aside from taste, of course) about vague rules and DM issues are solved by having a conversation. You know, like what grownups do when they have a problem.

I like vague rules. I don't swap groups often and usually I GM. If people want to know how I GM, they need not wait long because I explain it early. Any decisions I make, I justify immediately. I make it clear that my players can make a case, but ultimately I'll go with what makes sense to me.
Sometimes they turn me around. Sometimes they don't. This process rarely takes longer than about 30 seconds.

And if you can make the level of abstraction clear for everyone, then there's even fewer problems.

This is why I do a Session 0. Always. Even with the same group. There is ALWAYS a Session 0.

Except for absolutely new players who never played the game before and need to learn how to play, Session 0 should not require those who have played and know how to play to forget everything they know about how to play and relearn step by step how this DM plays the game. Once those new players learn how to play, how are they going to react when they play their second game but that DM plays it differently using the same vague rules but interpreted differently? What if despite a Session 0 the different interpretation was never discussed because it wasn't relevant but then during the game play it becomes relevant and the player now learns he can't do what he always did before. Suppose he climbed a tree in the previous game just because he wanted to but now in this game he needs to roll using a game statistic he didn't invest in to climb trees because he didn't know he needed to? Who asks about climbing trees in Session 0? Why should it be asked about for every DM a person plays with?

[1337 b4k4]

Of course. If I don't like the rules I don't play that game. I never played 4E for that reason, but I knew what my character could do if I were to play.

I don't even think it's a matter of liking the rules or not. I like GURPS rules. And honestly the game is dead simple, but it's very clear to me that the volume of rules leads to two things:

1) A dearth of GURPS players, and even more so GURPS GMs
2) I would highly doubt anyone has played a 100% by the book GURPS game.

Now #1 is an issue, but #2 isn't really a problem, but it does mean that a lot of the rules aren't serving the purpose of unifying from GM to GM and table to table. This table uses hit locations, that one drops damage types, this one over here replaced the primary magic system. And again, to a large extent this isn't a problem, especially since GURPS is a toolkit first and a specific game second. But the same holds true for other more focuses systems that are rule heavy.The more rules, the less likely they're all actually being used.



Except for absolutely new players who never played the game before and need to learn how to play, Session 0 should not require those who have played and know how to play to forget everything they know about how to play and relearn step by step how this DM plays the game. Once those new players learn how to play, how are they going to react when they play their second game but that DM plays it differently using the same vague rules but interpreted differently? What if despite a Session 0 the different interpretation was never discussed because it wasn't relevant but then during the game play it becomes relevant and the player now learns he can't do what he always did before. Suppose he climbed a tree in the previous game just because he wanted to but now in this game he needs to roll using a game statistic he didn't invest in to climb trees because he didn't know he needed to? Who asks about climbing trees in Session 0? Why should it be asked about for every DM a person plays with?

You know, this is less a problem with interpretive rules themselves and more a problem with interpretive rules that try to be as specific as rules heavy systems. If your system makes it so that investment in very specific skills is important (e.g. climb trees, or spot vs find hidden vs notice vs evaluate) then you absolutely need strongly defined rules, because as you point out, there's no way to know at the beginning how to invest otherwise.

Interpretive rules must by definition be broad focused on the general case, and if minutia are important, provide a system for resolving that minutia at the moment it becomes relevant and not punish you for not having done so previously. Players in an interpretive system shouldn't have to know the specifics about what they're good at until it becomes specifically relevant, and otherwise the broad competency categories should be sufficient for most use cases. To put it numerically, the difference between non specific ability and specific ability in an interpretive system should be within 1 standard deviation of probability. In a specific system where the impacts and importance of those details can be known up front, you can have a wider split.

[Pex]

I don't even think it's a matter of liking the rules or not. I like GURPS rules. And honestly the game is dead simple, but it's very clear to me that the volume of rules leads to two things:

1) A dearth of GURPS players, and even more so GURPS GMs
2) I would highly doubt anyone has played a 100% by the book GURPS game.

Now #1 is an issue, but #2 isn't really a problem, but it does mean that a lot of the rules aren't serving the purpose of unifying from GM to GM and table to table. This table uses hit locations, that one drops damage types, this one over here replaced the primary magic system. And again, to a large extent this isn't a problem, especially since GURPS is a toolkit first and a specific game second. But the same holds true for other more focuses systems that are rule heavy.The more rules, the less likely they're all actually being used.

Ah, got it. I can forgive a DM/Player not remembering a rule that gets lost in the shuffle. I admit to that happening to me in 3E/Pathfinder so I have to forgive it in others. :smalltongue: Often it's something that comes up rarely enough we end up assuming how it works. When we learn the truth the DM decides with player input whether to use the official rule or continue as we have been. It's something to deal with, but I don't view it as a casus belli to condemn having a subjectively large number of defined rules. (Not saying you are.) I chalk it up to we don't all have eidetic memory so whatever. However, I still want those defined rules. If out of all those defined rules a vague rule or two slips in that needs interpretation, gosh darn shame on you game but also whatever. When the vagueness is purposely designed and/or carelessly left in for a subjective significant amount of those rules, then it's curse you game designers I wish you did your job correctly. I can still enjoy playing the game, but I won't stop complaining about it. :smallwink:

[Quertus]

While the larger point is understood, it's amusing you picked Monopoly as your example given that almost no one actually plays monopoly by the rules (https://www.rd.com/culture/turns-playing-monopoly-wrong/).

Edit:
------

And thinking about it, this might be a good argument why more and better defined rules are not always a good thing. Good rules are only useful if everyone follows and reads them. But as we can see from the link above, or The Alexandrian (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2) and really any discussion on rules where it turns out the actual rule is different than most people think, a lot of our games and pastimes are learned by "osmosis" and oral tradition rather than reading a rule book. And it's been this way for almost as long as we've had games. How many of you ever read the Uno rule book and know that you can't play a Draw 4 card unless it's the only valid card in your hand (https://www.unorules.com)?

I'm glad my choice was amusing.

I'm a rules lawyer. I actually knew the Wild Draw 4 rule. :smalltongue:

I expect Monopoly to have house rules. But I expect to understand the buying power of a "twenty", and to not have to get a PhD in "this table's Monopoly rules".


It's hilarious to me that virtually all complaints (aside from taste, of course) about vague rules and DM issues are solved by having a conversation. You know, like what grownups do when they have a problem.

I like vague rules. I don't swap groups often and usually I GM.

So, I'm a fan of communication, and of a well-run Session 0. So why do I take the opposite stance?

One thing I note is your GM-centric stance - I usually take a player-centric stance. Yes, knowledge:GM is a very important player skill. But, given the lack of predictability (and general sanity) in many of my GMs, I'd prefer the solid base of the rules.

I guess I'm used to having to try to hammer the GM into some semblance of sanity. And the rules help with that.

Also, I think in terms of having lots of GMs being the optimal experience. It's great to have dozens of styles of content. It's horrible to deal with dozens of sets of rules and assumptions.

[FreddyNoNose]

Does anyone else find it annoying to have to constantly debate with people about what a character can do? Whenever I play in a rules light system it seems like that is all that ever happens, someone is arguing with the GM over whether or not their character can do something. I personally hate it, regardless of what side of the screen I am on.

Can someone explain the appeal to me? In my experience you either get a iron fisted DM who says no to everything, in which case you are constantly frustrated and disappointed, a more lax DM in which case everyone is competing to top one another as the only limits they place are on themselves, or a more reasonable DM who allows things that they think won't cause problems, but then bog the game down with endless debate and deliberation.

Currently I am playing in two games, both of which run off the "the rules are just a guideline" philosophy. Maybe it is just the DM's I am playing under, but I have yet to have one of them approve a character action that fell outside the written rules. On the other hand, on more occasions that I can count I have been denied a rules legal action because the DM didn't like it for whatever reason. This is not fun.

Recently one of them wanted to swap out the standard skill system in PF to the 13th age system, where if I understand it correctly you write up a character biography and then convince the DM that your backstory should allow you to perform the task you want to do in the present. This sounds like it is going to be a nightmare.

On the other hand I remember when I was running a very early version of Heart of Darkness some years ago before the rules were really worked out. One of the players at my table was a door to door salesman for his day job, and he was very good at convincing me to let him do things, to the point where the other players actually got rather jealous and or mad at him about it and stopped having fun.

Really, I don't get the appeal. Unless everyone is on exactly the same page and perfectly unbiased I don't see any advantage to coming up with things on the fly over looking through a heavy rulebook and calculating the proper odds. But judging by the love of rules light games and the almost universal praise of the 5E skill system it seems like I am in the minority. What am I missing?

I just follow Protocol 23

[Aliquid]

I find this thread to be vague...

What do people mean by “vague rules” vs rules that are not vague?

What’s an issue that would be argued about? (I’m not used to people arguing in game about stuff like that... so I really don’t know)

If I were to guess, I’m assuming something like this:

Player wants to jump across a pit.

Game A) there is a “jump skill” with very specific rules about exactly what distance you can jump with a certain roll. You roll a X, you jump Y feet.

Game B) there is a generic “athletics” skill and the rules don’t really say anything other than basically: “high roll good, low roll bad”

[1337 b4k4]

I chalk it up to we don't all have eidetic memory so whatever. However, I still want those defined rules. If out of all those defined rules a vague rule or two slips in that needs interpretation, gosh darn shame on you game but also whatever. When the vagueness is purposely designed and/or carelessly left in for a subjective significant amount of those rules, then it's curse you game designers I wish you did your job correctly. I can still enjoy playing the game, but I won't stop complaining about it. :smallwink:

Hmm, you got me thinking. The entire time I've been writing my responses here, I've had a hard time picking the words I want to use, because while there are a lot of parallels we're not really talking rules heavy vs rules light here. For example, the car game "go fish" is extremely rules light, but the rules are very clearly defined. Same with tic-tac-toe. On the other side of the spectrum, GURPS is very rules heavy, but they're all also very well defined rules. So it's not really the volume of the rules that is an issue, or for that matter I don't think (for me) its the vagueness or the definition. To me, it's really the cognitive load that determines whether or not a like a set of rules. I love GURPS because despite how heavy it is, it's also very boxed together and contained, so once you've invested in learning the system, you can make inferences about the rules you can't remember, and even if you're making something up completely agains the rules, if you make those inferences from the rules you know, it will likely fit. Rules light games, even with vague rules have sort of the same thing. If the rules are vague, but can be extrapolated from easily, then anything you have to do that isn't covered exclusively by the rules is likely to fit what you already know and fall within expectations. Dungeon World is a lot like this.

On the other hand, a rules heavy game with a lot of clearly defined rules that you can't extrapolate from results in that sort of "table to table dissonance" that rules heavy tries to avoid. I mean, as much as I generally don't have a problem with separate mechanical systems, imagine if in 3x D&D instead of class advancement, skills and combat as the major systems, you had combat, class advancement, stat advancement, crafting, spell casting, item use, physical skill use, intellectual skill use and people skill use all as distinct mechanical systems. No matter how strongly and clearly defined, the cognitive load of such a system would mean no one would actually use the rules consistently from table to table because it would just depend on what each table was likely to have. Going from a combat heavy to a intrigue heavy to a puzzle solving tomb robbing heavy table would be almost as bad as if the GM was just making stuff up anyway because in order to actually know what to expect you'd have to keep so much in your head.

So it's not rules heavy or rules light, or the total volume of the books, it's how much cognitive load I have to keep. I think this also explains why player vs GM perspective on this stuff often differs. Most GMs I know while they appreciate what 3.x was trying to do, don't really like to GM 3.x D&D. Not that it's bad, but the amount of stuff you have to keep track of was more than they're comfortable with. Players on the other hand seemed to like it a lot, and I don't think it was just the "power to the players" attitude. I think it was like you said, if I know my jump skill is X, then I know I have to roll a Y every single time for every single jump to do what I want. That's a very light cognitive load on the player.

But a game that has a lower cognitive load on the GM ("oh just make whatever up") could be much higher on the player (how do I know what I can do and how likely I am to succeed at anything if I don't even know what I can do until I get there). In think this might be why Dungeon World despite being closer to the vague side, works out really well for players. Because the moves are less focused on specific actions and more general things and the general expected outcome. They didn't try to just make the rules governing D&D style skills more vague, they flipped it from "doge is a thing, ask your GM how to do it" like some attempts at lightening have gone and turned it instead into that Defy Danger move, where if you're doing something (anything at all) to avoid a danger, describe it and roll the appropriate skill. And while the specifics about the outcome are still vague, the broad strokes on what level of success you can expect are strongly defined. You will NEVER get a hard bargain if you succeed completely and you WILL avoid that damage, now whether that means that your dodge busted the attacker's weapon, got you out of the fight completely, caused the enemy to trip or whatever isn't defined, but that doesn't seem to be important cognitive load for a player in Dungeon World because the degree of success and therefore the immediate consequence for the character is what matters more because of the way the system is set up. I think I'm rambling now, but it's something that clicked when I was reading your response. Vague or well defined doesn't bother me so much as "how much effort do I have to put in to be able to make the decisions I care about".

Edit
-----------



Game A) there is a “jump skill” with very specific rules about exactly what distance you can jump with a certain roll. You roll a X, you jump Y feet.

Game B) there is a generic “athletics” skill and the rules don’t really say anything other than basically: “high roll good, low roll bad”

Yeah, this is kind of what I was getting at above. B is clearly vague, and low cognitive load for the GM, but hight load for the player (can I jump this pit, I don't know I need to ask the GM. If I roll well, will I jump the pit? I don't know I have to ask the GM, should I bother trying to jump this pit, I don't know and even if I ask I likely won't get an answer."

But there's a third form of game, one that would generally be defined as having vague rules, but which has a much lower cognitive load for the player:

Game C) There'a a generic "athletics" skill and the rules say "When you try and do something physical, roll the dice. On a result of A-B, you don't do what you wanted or if you do get it, it's at a very very high price, on a result of C-D, you can get what you want but you'll have to give something up for it, otherwise you're not going to quite make it, your GM will tell you what not quite making it means", on a result of E-F, you made it and did exactly what you wanted to do without any major issues.

That's much more vague than Game A as to the results and a roll of X doesn't always correspond to being able to do the same thing. But the only real question up to the GM is can you even attempt this in the first place (which isn't much different from assigning a distance in Game A and the specifics of what you might have to give up if you don't succeed completely. But it's clear that if you have a athletics skill of X, then you have a Y chance of succeeding at a given task as long as you can attempt the task in the first place.

So it's a little more cognitive load than A, but less than B, and depending on the game you're playing, rarely is "how many feet I jump" more important than "can and did I jump from point P to point Q and did I lose anything in the process", so it still allows the players to have useful information for making useful decisions.

[Jay R]

The crucial fact about different ways to play is that they really are different. And most of the problems come from playing one way as if it were another.

A rules-light approach is based on the idea that the game is run by a GM’s judgment rather than completely knowable rules. This is great – if you believe in the GM’s judgment. I would never play a rules-light game with a GM I didn’t trust.

[Of course, I would never play a rules-heavy game with a GM I didn’t trust, either. I would never play any game with a GM I didn’t trust, and I cannot understand why anybody else would.]

The phrase “Vague Rules Which Are Open To Interpretation” is a clear example of the problem. It is based on the implicit assumption that a rule written by a stranger is inherently better than the judgment of a trustworthy friend who is running a game for me. That phrase is itself based on evaluating one way of playing as if it were the other.

A GM’s ruling is not vague or open to interpretation. In fact, they are less vague and less open to interpretation than published rules are. We might not agree on what the published rules mean, but the GM’s ruling is immediate and unambiguous. And if you accept the GM’s judgment, then there is no problem.

I agree 100% about the problems of “endless debate and deliberation”. But those problems don’t come from a rules-light system based on GM judgment. They come from players refusing to accept the basic premise of the game. There is no endless debate and deliberation when the players accept the GM’s ruling in a rules-light game, just as there is no endless debate and deliberation when the players accept the rulebook’s ruling in a rules-heavy game.

A ruling from a GM is not vague. It is clear, unambiguous, and conclusive. Just as in any other game, the problem comes from players who don’t accept the rulebook – even when that rulebook is a GM.

I once played a game with no rules. You told Todd what you wanted to do, and he described what happened. It was fascinating. But you cannot play such a game if you are willing to ruin the game by starting endless debate and deliberation with the GM, just as you cannot play a rules-light game if you are willing to ruin the game by starting endless debate and deliberation with the GM’s rulings, and you cannot play a rules-heavy game if you are willing to ruin the game by starting endless debate and deliberation with the rulebook.

If you don’t enjoy a rules-light game, don’t play one. But you don’t need to go on the internet to sneer at games other people like.

If you don’t enjoy a rules-heavy game, don’t play one. But don’t go on the internet to sneer at games other people like.

I enjoy both. I play each one as the game it is, not as some other game.

Rules heavy; rules light; it doesn’t matter. If you will endlessly debate and deliberate with the authority, you will ruin the game.

Play with a GM you trust, and then trust your GM.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Rules light systems aren't necessarily vague; they often cover broad scenarios pretty clearly, if in an annoyingly uniform manner. Does the character want to do X? Roll Y. Does the character want to do Z, which is very different from X? Don't care, roll Y. Often the rules are almost entirely dissociated from the material circumstances in the game world, but hey, the rules are well defined. Wushu is one example*.

Holes in the rules are at some level a necessary evil, and evils in game systems can be abused. Power tripping DMs can take holes in the rules and turn them into an excuse to control every aspect of the game, at which point you really should be free-forming, or better yet leaving the table. The key for good vague systems is to distribute narrative control more evenly. Powered by the apocalypse systems, for instance, generally have a lot of vagueness in their central resolution mechanic, but that is a deliberate choice to give both the player and GM the power to figure out what's happening in the scene and force difficult player decisions. The dice are mostly there to add tension and push the narrative along.

I will agree with the OP on one major point: Sometimes you have a generally good DM who has power-tripping tendencies. In that case, you want a system that curbs those tendencies, which generally replaces adjudication with rules (simple or no).

*Wushu's resolution does have some vagueness, e.g., what counts as a "detail" in the description of your action, but the mechanics are so simple that it's easy to hash these things out ahead of time and/or correct on the fly.

[Jay R]

Rules light systems aren't necessarily vague; they often cover broad scenarios pretty clearly, if in an annoyingly uniform manner. Does the character want to do X? Roll Y. Does the character want to do Z, which is very different from X? Don't care, roll Y. Often the rules are almost entirely dissociated from the material circumstances in the game world, but hey, the rules are well defined.

Intriguingly, this is exactly my problem with D&D 3.5e, which is rules heavy. If you have 4 more points of INT than I do, that represents a 20% advantage. OK, I can see that - maybe I happen to know a fact you don't.

But if you have 4 more points of STR than I do, that shouldn't represent a mere 20% advantage in a tug of war or arm-wrestling. You should win every time.

The idea that the same mechanic always works is an attribute of rules-heavy systems. In a rules-light system, the GM can simply say that the stronger character wins the arm-wrestling.

As I said above, the problems many people ascribe to a rules-light systems don't come from a poor system; they come from a poor GM.

Play with a GM you trust, and then trust your GM.

[Quertus]

On the other hand, a rules heavy game with a lot of clearly defined rules that you can't extrapolate from results in that sort of "table to table dissonance" that rules heavy tries to avoid. I mean, as much as I generally don't have a problem with separate mechanical systems, imagine if in 3x D&D instead of class advancement, skills and combat as the major systems, you had combat, class advancement, stat advancement, crafting, spell casting, item use, physical skill use, intellectual skill use and people skill use all as distinct mechanical systems. No matter how strongly and clearly defined, the cognitive load of such a system would mean no one would actually use the rules consistently from table to table because it would just depend on what each table was likely to have. Going from a combat heavy to a intrigue heavy to a puzzle solving tomb robbing heavy table would be almost as bad as if the GM was just making stuff up anyway because in order to actually know what to expect you'd have to keep so much in your head.

So it's not rules heavy or rules light, or the total volume of the books, it's how much cognitive load I have to keep. I think this also explains why player vs GM perspective on this stuff often differs. Most GMs I know while they appreciate what 3.x was trying to do, don't really like to GM 3.x D&D. Not that it's bad, but the amount of stuff you have to keep track of was more than they're comfortable with. Players on the other hand seemed to like it a lot, and I don't think it was just the "power to the players" attitude. I think it was like you said, if I know my jump skill is X, then I know I have to roll a Y every single time for every single jump to do what I want. That's a very light cognitive load on the player.

But a game that has a lower cognitive load on the GM ("oh just make whatever up") could be much higher on the player (how do I know what I can do and how likely I am to succeed at anything if I don't even know what I can do until I get there).

Wow. Where to start?

Kudos on pointing out both the "cognitive load" and "table to table dissonance" as important facets of this discussion.

I find it quite amusing where you contend that rules heavy can create exactly the "table to table dissonance" that it tries to and is designed to avoid. So true, and so sad when it happens. But the specific cause of the T2T dissonance that you list is curious.

You specifically call out having lots of different sub-systems - ie, the opposite of the d20 unified mechanics - as leading to T2T dissonance. Let's break this down.

"Going from a combat heavy to a intrigue heavy to a puzzle solving tomb robbing heavy table would be almost as bad as if the GM was just making stuff up anyway because in order to actually know what to expect you'd have to keep so much in your head."

Using different subsystems makes it difficult to keep all the rules in your head. Sure. But... the existence of different RPGs with different mechanics would, when played at different tables, have exactly the same effect.

If you know what to expect out of a game, you can have the appropriate rules in mind when you play. Just like I did when I was in 6 different weekly games.

Lots of different subsystems used at the same table? Well, that sounds an awful lot like Shadowrun - or most old-school games, actually. Usually, each character - and, by extension, each player - would specialize in a subset of the rules set.

The player who wants to use a given rule can look it up when it's not their turn / the GM can look up rules he knows will come up between sessions. So the "active player" can usually easily have the relevant information on hand when it's needed.

If combat is handled by dice, and skill checks are handled by a game of cards, and travel is handled by hopscotch... If every table follows the rules... Then there isn't rules dissonance between tables. Now, if one table is mostly combat, and another mostly travel, those tables will feel very different - but that's not a bad thing. I expect murder mysteries to feel different from dungeon crawls.

So the only problem I'm actually seeing for subsystem diversify is cognitive load. I'm falling to grok where the T2T dissonance - of the sort where the player has no concept of what his character can do until they know who will be GM this session - is inherent to subsystem diversify.

-----

I'm fortunate to game with a number of people who have excellent 3.x system mastery. But, even when I know the rules, or just outsource to the players whenever possible, 3e is still a beast to run compared to earlier editions. I still haven't put my finger on why, exactly, that is, given that earlier editions had such diverse subsystems, while 3e introduced such unified mechanics.

---

As GM, I personally find "just make something up" to require a higher cognitive load than "refer to the rules".

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Well, just because a system is rules heavy doesn't mean everything requires a roll. A general rule of thumb for all RPGs is to only roll the dice when the outcome is uncertain. The brawny barbarian PC can win a tug of war against a local peasant through narration. Hell, as a DM of D&D 3.5 I've narrated entire fights where the PCs cleverly found a way to guarantee their victory. Also, the arm wrestling problem seems specific to a lack of rules about arm-wrestling, combined with the lack of a bell curve in D&D's central mechanic, not really the total amount of rules. Skills in 3.5, for instance, are far less likely to generate a "novice beats expert" outcome than 5e, which is rules light when it comes to non-combat stuff.

[Quertus]

[Of course, I would never play a rules-heavy game with a GM I didn’t trust, either. I would never play any game with a GM I didn’t trust, and I cannot understand why anybody else would.]

Play with a GM you trust, and then trust your GM.

See, of the many, many GMs I've had (dozens? Hundreds? I've lost count), only one had never left me scratching my head wondering what drugs they were on. Only one didn't have moments of disconnect with reality (as I perceive it, at any rate). Only one would I trust their rulings to make sense. And that GM isn't me.

I have a hard time imagining anyone actually getting to game if trusting their GM to be sane was actually a prerequisite. :smallannoyed: I'd certainly never let myself behind the GM seat were that the case. :smalltongue:

[1337 b4k4]

Using different subsystems makes it difficult to keep all the rules in your head. Sure. But... the existence of different RPGs with different mechanics would, when played at different tables, have exactly the same effect.

Sure, which I think goes a long way to explaining why people pick and stick with a system, regardless of how good or bad it is at doing what they're attempting to do. Why do so many people try to make D&D play the types of games it wasn't designed for? Because the cognitive load of stretching your system to its breaking point for many people is still less than switching systems entirely. I think the perceived load level (if not the actual load level) also gets worse the more you view the books and rules as authority and "the one true way". GURPS got a lot "lighter" for me, when I realized that despite the books never making it particularly clear, it was a very modular system. Each chunk of detail built on the previous level, so if I didn't want a given amount of detail (e.g. hit locations) then I could just drop it and the whole thing would still more or less work.

If you believe you have to use all the rules in the book and use them the right way or you're "doing it wrong", then stretching D&D to play out games it was never really intended to is still better than trying to learn Eclipse Phase or Shadow Run


Lots of different subsystems used at the same table? Well, that sounds an awful lot like Shadowrun - or most old-school games, actually. Usually, each character - and, by extension, each player - would specialize in a subset of the rules set.

And this was a primary complaint and a driving force behind d20. While I personally think that to some degree it was overblown, it was also offset by each system being much smaller than later subsystems. So think of it like a two variable equation with different weighting on the two variables. You can balance out the result by fine tuning one or the other, but sometimes you have to make more adjustments to one to get the same result.



I'm fortunate to game with a number of people who have excellent 3.x system mastery. But, even when I know the rules, or just outsource to the players whenever possible, 3e is still a beast to run compared to earlier editions. I still haven't put my finger on why, exactly, that is, given that earlier editions had such diverse subsystems, while 3e introduced such unified mechanics.

I had the same thought when I was writing it up. D&D 3.x is a high load system in my head, but my description seems to leave it out. I propose it might be because our brains treat the skills and feats and spells as individual subsystems of their own. It's great that you have 10 ranks in Knowledge-Taco Seasonings, or Diplomacy or Jump, but what does that actually mean? Each skill has it's own "subsystem" of rules that make each roll have a different and sometimes very different outcome. For example, a DC 10 check in jump means you did a 10 foot running jump. In Diplomacy, at least with the table in the D20 SRD, it does absolute bupkis. In Knowledge it means you answered a "really easy question" in your field of knowledge ("No, seasoning your taco with cheezwiz and anchovies will not appeal to the average customer"). And note that the nominal DC table says DC 10 is an average difficulty. Which I guess fits for the jump, doesn't really help for the diplomacy check and depending on how restrictive you interpret "in your field of knowledge" means knowledge skills are harder than the average skill check. In any case, knowing what a DC 10 result looks like in one skill is unlikely to give you insight into how it would look in another skill (save for similarities between say two different knowledge skills)

And that's just 3 skills. Then you have feats, where armor proficiency just allows you to use it without penalty, where cleave gives you extra attacks, Deft Hands gives you a +2 on certain checks, and Dodge gives you a +1. And let's not get started on the paragraphs of text that some spells can be (I'm looking at you magic jar).

And again it's not like some of this (in particular spells) didn't exist in other editions of D&D (and still does to this day), but something about the combination of that, the skills, the feats, the MASSIVE monster statblocks and the general attitude towards the Rules as Law, and I think that might be why D&D 3.x's perceived if not actual cognitive load is so high, despite the d20 unification.


As GM, I personally find "just make something up" to require a higher cognitive load than "refer to the rules".

In general I would agree, if it was "just make something up". On the other hand, I find a general guideline with some evocative fluff to be a much lighter load than a long spelled out checklist of hard results. Also, one of the ways to reduce that cognitive load in a more vague system is to share it. My players think I'm great at running sessions from the seat of my pants when we have nothing else prepared. My secret is I just keep asking them for details that their character "knows" and let them build things for me if I don't have an idea of what I want to do.

My players fought a vine monster, there was supposed to be bad news after their supposed victory, but I had no idea what to go with, I was thinking your standard "collapsing walkways" trop as the vine monster had weaved itself through the structure of the building. But I asked "what do the elves always warn their children about vine stalkers Talania?" and got back "there's always a bigger head". Suddenly my standard TV trope monster is now instead a hydra like creature, but made out of plants and the heads keep getting bigger! Split the cognitive load, give the players a chance to plant the idea seed and then run with it as a GM. And all I had from the rules was how knowledge checks work and some vague references in the monster entry to "there's more to these creatures than there seems".

Interestingly having been on both sides of that approach, I've also found that despite it being a shift of the cognitive load to the players, it's not a 1:1 shift. It's more like reduce the GM load by 2-4 for every 1 that you increase the player load. Some of that I'm sure is that players outnumber the GM by often that same ratio, but also I think it's because it's not something the players are doing often, and it's not a "system" in the game for them, so it doesn't feel like a load (provided the GM isn't just dumping all the world creation on them)

As a side note playing that way also taught me that if you're the type of GM that loves to see your players in tight spots and fighting against all odds, let your players pick their "punishments". They're likely just as genre savy as you, and likely harder on themselves than you think, and because they chose the form of the destructor, they never really get grumpy that the bigger fish showed up, because its what they asked for.

[Max_Killjoy]

The way that some systems treat each little thing as its own unique subsystem, and tries to spell out each of those to minute exactitude, results in the worst of both worlds. Rules that try to be exact but are internally inconsistent -- Skills where having a +9 in one thing is the bare minimum but it's overdoing it for another thing, where the same TN represents wildly different "in-fiction" levels of difficulty depending on what you're trying, etc -- are just as bad as rules that give no idea whatsoever as to how they relate to the "in fiction" conditions and leave it all up to the GM to decide.

You can't actually learn how the rules work, because there is no "how the rules work", just "how this rule works, and how this rule works, and how..."

So eventually when you do have to extrapolate or improvise something -- and you will -- there's nothing to base it on, no pattern, no framework, no existing consistency.

[Pex]

Hmm, you got me thinking. The entire time I've been writing my responses here, I've had a hard time picking the words I want to use, because while there are a lot of parallels we're not really talking rules heavy vs rules light here. For example, the car game "go fish" is extremely rules light, but the rules are very clearly defined. Same with tic-tac-toe. On the other side of the spectrum, GURPS is very rules heavy, but they're all also very well defined rules. So it's not really the volume of the rules that is an issue, or for that matter I don't think (for me) its the vagueness or the definition. To me, it's really the cognitive load that determines whether or not a like a set of rules. I love GURPS because despite how heavy it is, it's also very boxed together and contained, so once you've invested in learning the system, you can make inferences about the rules you can't remember, and even if you're making something up completely agains the rules, if you make those inferences from the rules you know, it will likely fit. Rules light games, even with vague rules have sort of the same thing. If the rules are vague, but can be extrapolated from easily, then anything you have to do that isn't covered exclusively by the rules is likely to fit what you already know and fall within expectations. Dungeon World is a lot like this.

On the other hand, a rules heavy game with a lot of clearly defined rules that you can't extrapolate from results in that sort of "table to table dissonance" that rules heavy tries to avoid. I mean, as much as I generally don't have a problem with separate mechanical systems, imagine if in 3x D&D instead of class advancement, skills and combat as the major systems, you had combat, class advancement, stat advancement, crafting, spell casting, item use, physical skill use, intellectual skill use and people skill use all as distinct mechanical systems. No matter how strongly and clearly defined, the cognitive load of such a system would mean no one would actually use the rules consistently from table to table because it would just depend on what each table was likely to have. Going from a combat heavy to a intrigue heavy to a puzzle solving tomb robbing heavy table would be almost as bad as if the GM was just making stuff up anyway because in order to actually know what to expect you'd have to keep so much in your head.

So it's not rules heavy or rules light, or the total volume of the books, it's how much cognitive load I have to keep. I think this also explains why player vs GM perspective on this stuff often differs. Most GMs I know while they appreciate what 3.x was trying to do, don't really like to GM 3.x D&D. Not that it's bad, but the amount of stuff you have to keep track of was more than they're comfortable with. Players on the other hand seemed to like it a lot, and I don't think it was just the "power to the players" attitude. I think it was like you said, if I know my jump skill is X, then I know I have to roll a Y every single time for every single jump to do what I want. That's a very light cognitive load on the player.

But a game that has a lower cognitive load on the GM ("oh just make whatever up") could be much higher on the player (how do I know what I can do and how likely I am to succeed at anything if I don't even know what I can do until I get there). In think this might be why Dungeon World despite being closer to the vague side, works out really well for players. Because the moves are less focused on specific actions and more general things and the general expected outcome. They didn't try to just make the rules governing D&D style skills more vague, they flipped it from "doge is a thing, ask your GM how to do it" like some attempts at lightening have gone and turned it instead into that Defy Danger move, where if you're doing something (anything at all) to avoid a danger, describe it and roll the appropriate skill. And while the specifics about the outcome are still vague, the broad strokes on what level of success you can expect are strongly defined. You will NEVER get a hard bargain if you succeed completely and you WILL avoid that damage, now whether that means that your dodge busted the attacker's weapon, got you out of the fight completely, caused the enemy to trip or whatever isn't defined, but that doesn't seem to be important cognitive load for a player in Dungeon World because the degree of success and therefore the immediate consequence for the character is what matters more because of the way the system is set up. I think I'm rambling now, but it's something that clicked when I was reading your response. Vague or well defined doesn't bother me so much as "how much effort do I have to put in to be able to make the decisions I care about".



You solved the definition of the 5E dilemma. I noticed a lot of the people who praise 5E vagueness, not just the skill system, do so from a DM perspective. I made an issue of getting frustrated as a DM constantly having to come up with skill DC numbers, but I was in a small minority on that issue. DMs who praised 5E skills didn't care about that. They don't have to think so hard over the entire game so coming up with numbers has no impact. As a player perspective, I only need be concerned about my character, and I want to know what I can do. I have the room in my head for the details which I'm not getting in 5E. Some of those details change depending on who is DM that day which is what frustrates me. In Pathfinder, those details are constant. I'm satisfied. On the DM side, they have a smorgasbord of stuff. It is no wonder some of them will limit source books, while others will say "to heck with it" and play something else. There are DMs who like the smorgasbord of which I played with a good number over the years, including 3E and its splatbooks.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The way that some systems treat each little thing as its own unique subsystem, and tries to spell out each of those to minute exactitude, results in the worst of both worlds. Rules that try to be exact but are internally inconsistent -- Skills where having a +9 in one thing is the bare minimum but it's overdoing it for another thing, where the same TN represents wildly different "in-fiction" levels of difficulty depending on what you're trying, etc -- are just as bad as rules that give no idea whatsoever as to how they relate to the "in fiction" conditions and leave it all up to the GM to decide.

You can't actually learn how the rules work, because there is no "how the rules work", just "how this rule works, and how this rule works, and how..."

So eventually when you do have to extrapolate or improvise something -- and you will -- there's nothing to base it on, no pattern, no framework, no existing consistency.

I'd say that systems that claim to cover everything you need and then fail to do so are worse than those that are honest about how decision-making authority is delegated in the first place. If DM-decided "circumstance modifiers" are a thing then the difference between that system and one that says that the TN is up to the DM's judgement is that the second system is honest and the first is not.

Especially since, as you say, the second system can actually provide a framework and guidance for the DM to make those decisions. The first can't without making the fig-leaf of objective TNs transparent.

The core of this is that printed rules make very poor weapons and armor, despite that being one of their more common uses by those that want to dispute. Weapons because you're trying to compel someone else to do things your way (instead of, you know, using your words); armor because you're trying to deflect the blame for an anti-table action onto something else. This can be both either or both sides--player vs DM, player vs player, or DM vs player. Either way, using rules this way is an anti-table action; there is no one else to blame.

Most RPG rules are different in intent than boardgame rules or rules for competitive sports. They exist to provide a framework for resolving common actions and for enhancing the fun of all parties. They're a set of defaults, from which deviation is expected. The only true rules are those set by the table, whether collectively or whether that authority is delegated to a subset of the participants. The exception comes in cases where conflict between players is expected (Apocalypse World, for example) or where table-hopping with the same character is a normal thing (organized play). Those have extra rules to remove some discretion from the table and tend to have pathological reactions when those rules aren't followed.

[ImNotTrevor]

Except for absolutely new players who never played the game before and need to learn how to play, Session 0 should not require those who have played and know how to play to forget everything they know about how to play and relearn step by step how this DM plays the game.
I agree. That's not what Session 0 is for. I never claimed Session 0 solves all problems. I said grownup conversation solves nearly all problems. Including all the ones you raise here. Session 0 is for establishing expectations and getting everyone on the same page.



Once those new players learn how to play, how are they going to react when they play their second game but that DM plays it differently using the same vague rules but interpreted differently?
Probably by taking a second to get clarification. I've been those players. It's not that hard to say "Hold on, can you explain how you came to that decision?"
And once the GM explains, I'm usually good to go. If it's nonsensical, I'll ask a few followup questions.

You know. Conversation.



This sounds like a problem no system I've ever played has had. Not FATE or Apocalypse World, certainly.

I'm beginning to think that you mean Vague as in:
Poorly written, unclear
Whereas I mean Vague as:
Highly abstracted, covering many interactions.

For instance in Fate Accelerated the Attack action is highly abstracted, and attacks can be things like:
Arguments put forward in a conversation (attacking their intellectual position)
Physical blows (attacking their body)
Clues being found (attacking the hiddenness of a secret. Yes. You can do this.)
Gaining distance against a pursuer (attacking their ability to follow you)

What might happen is an action sits between Attacking or Creating an Advantage. (Throwing sand in someone's eyes, for instance.) At that point just make it clear which one you're going for, and if the DM isn't convinced, do something a little different or go with their interpretation. (You might not attack this turn, but if you get that Advantage then you can have an easier time attacking next turn, so you're not exactly screwed. You're just banking a bonus for the future instead of dealing damage now, which could mean bigger damage later. Not really a loss.)

And before someone says something stupid like "what if they consider punching someone in the face to not be an attack", if that's the case then your GM has never been outside and you should run. So far. Don't look back.

But, if it ever does happen, I hope the player lets me know their expectations aren't being met so we can talk about it and fix the problem.

ACTUALLY I did have this problem exactly once. Kinda.

In Apocalypse World 2e, there is a class called the Waterbearer. Their rules are occassionally vague as in "unclear." This is on purpose, though, which can be figured out by reading the class. It's meant to be spacey and weird. I told the player we'd have to talk about it if and when it came up, they knew this going in and were prepared.

About 4 sessions in, she tries to use a move that involved "leading others in a ritual" by just... talking to people. I asked her what the ritual was. She said she wasn't doing a ritual, so I responded the move couldn't activate without one. (Ironically, this is one of the clearest rules.) I just told her to do the same general thing, but more Ritual-y, and the move would activate. We talked for another few seconds about our expectations of what a Ritual looks like, and came to a quick agreement.
So she did basically the same thing but with everyone gathered in a particular tent, with incense, and special prayers going on. She only had to describe that as happening.
Now the move worked and we moved on. It took about a minute and we never had the problem again.

We solved the problem with Conversation.
Miraculous what talking like grownups can do.

[QUOTE]
Suppose he climbed a tree in the previous game just because he wanted to but now in this game he needs to roll using a game statistic he didn't invest in to climb trees because he didn't know he needed to? Who asks about climbing trees in Session 0? Why should it be asked about for every DM a person plays with?

It shouldn't. But if it comes up, talk about it. I highly doubt there are many GMs who will be an A-hole about tree climbing.
"Hey, I built my character with X expectation, but apparently I can't do that with my current build. How can we resolve that so I can play my character how I want to?"

Most GMs, being grownups and largely reasonable people, will meet you halfway and work something out. Maybe not until after the session, but they'll help.

If your GM is an A-hole about it, then you know this group will be awful regardless of the system because the GM is an A-hole.

Problem solved by:
Puppies!

Jk it's conversation.


Apparently the people on these forums are allergic to, like, having calm discussions with people where you make sure they understand your concerns and problems so that a solution can be found. I dunno how that would cause hives but... they must be awful itchy.

[Lalliman]

The crucial fact about different ways to play is that they really are different. And most of the problems come from playing one way as if it were another.
(...)
Play with a GM you trust, and then trust your GM.
I agree with this comment wholeheartedly. You said what I would've if I was more eloquent.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'd say that systems that claim to cover everything you need and then fail to do so are worse than those that are honest about how decision-making authority is delegated in the first place. If DM-decided "circumstance modifiers" are a thing then the difference between that system and one that says that the TN is up to the DM's judgement is that the second system is honest and the first is not.

Especially since, as you say, the second system can actually provide a framework and guidance for the DM to make those decisions. The first can't without making the fig-leaf of objective TNs transparent.

The core of this is that printed rules make very poor weapons and armor, despite that being one of their more common uses by those that want to dispute. Weapons because you're trying to compel someone else to do things your way (instead of, you know, using your words); armor because you're trying to deflect the blame for an anti-table action onto something else. This can be both either or both sides--player vs DM, player vs player, or DM vs player. Either way, using rules this way is an anti-table action; there is no one else to blame.

Most RPG rules are different in intent than boardgame rules or rules for competitive sports. They exist to provide a framework for resolving common actions and for enhancing the fun of all parties. They're a set of defaults, from which deviation is expected. The only true rules are those set by the table, whether collectively or whether that authority is delegated to a subset of the participants. The exception comes in cases where conflict between players is expected (Apocalypse World, for example) or where table-hopping with the same character is a normal thing (organized play). Those have extra rules to remove some discretion from the table and tend to have pathological reactions when those rules aren't followed.

A system where TNs (or other difficulty levels) are entirely up to the GM's discretion isn't any more able to provide a framework than a system with wildly inconsistent TNs or a myriad of subsystems.

In a "GM's judgement" system... what's a "hard jump"? As a player, I have no idea how hard it will be for my PC to make a jump until the GM makes a judgement about how hard it will be. When I'm creating my character, I have no idea how much I need to invest in "Jump" (or whatever) to be able to make hard jumps. When my PC comes to something they need to jump over or on to, I have no idea what my PC is seeing until the GM both describes it AND states the difficulty. There's a disconnect -- just the description tells me NOTHING. And that's just something straightforward and simple for an example.

I simply do not trust RPG systems that have variable TNs and give no good scale for anything, just "oh this number is hard and that number is easy, it's up to you to decide", such that I have no idea what characters are actually capable of when looking at the sheet, other than "this guy is more likely to accomplish a quote-unquote hard task than that guy". And as a GM, I have nothing to point to other than my personal subjective opinion of what's "hard" or not -- I can't fall simply state that the gap is 8 feet, and it takes an X result to jump 8'.

And I can't then compare that scale to anything else, because each situation is entirely subjective.

In the other system, I can't compare it to anything else because the same numerical result that breaks the Olympic record in one Skill gets the character a "eh, maybe" in another Skill, because each is approached entirely separately.

BOTH the minutia-exactitude system and the "it's all up to your GM" system fail to provide any sort of framework to build off of.

[Rhedyn]

Vague rules are flaws. Some systems earn their flaws. But vague rules are always cop-outs and bad design. A clear rule that isn't more complex or less comprehensive than the vague rule, would be objectively better.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A system where TNs (or other difficulty levels) are entirely up to the GM's discretion isn't any more able to provide a framework than a system with wildly inconsistent TNs or a myriad of subsystems.

In a "GM's judgement" system... what's a "hard jump"? As a player, I have no idea how hard it will be for my PC to make a jump until the GM makes a judgement about how hard it will be. When I'm creating my character, I have no idea how much I need to invest in "Jump" (or whatever) to be able to make hard jumps. When my PC comes to something they need to jump over or on to, I have no idea what my PC is seeing until the GM both describes it AND states the difficulty. There's a disconnect -- just the description tells me NOTHING. And that's just something straightforward and simple for an example.

I simply do not trust RPG systems that have variable TNs and give no good scale for anything, just "oh this number is hard and that number is easy, it's up to you to decide", such that I have no idea what characters are actually capable of when looking at the sheet, other than "this guy is more likely to accomplish a quote-unquote hard task than that guy". And as a GM, I have nothing to point to other than my personal subjective opinion of what's "hard" or not -- I can't fall simply state that the gap is 8 feet, and it takes an X result to jump 8'.

And I can't then compare that scale to anything else, because each situation is entirely subjective.

In the other system, I can't compare it to anything else because the same numerical result that breaks the Olympic record in one Skill gets the character a "eh, maybe" in another Skill, because each is approached entirely separately.

BOTH the minutia-exactitude system and the "it's all up to your GM" system fail to provide any sort of framework to build off of.

Then what does a framework look like? And does it matter if you're thinking in terms of task resolution or outcome resolution? Because those are quite different as to the mental models involved, at least to me.

As I see it, you've got a few options:

a) Fixed TN. This maximizes player information., but then every single action is just as hard as any other action. Which really makes no sense to me in terms of the in-universe fiction. Varying the modifiers based on circumstances is exactly isomorphic to varying the TN.

b) Varying TN, no circumstance modifiers. Then only things explicitly stated in the printed rules can exist, which shatters any verisimilitude I can have. Because not all 10' jumps are the same as all other 10' jumps. This also gets really dependent on exact descriptions and frequently requires table look-ups, but is "fair."

c) Varying TN, circumstance modifiers. Capable of modeling the most things and coming closest to modifying the in-game reality, but also subject to variation based on the people involved. "DM's judgement" is an extreme example of this.

I prefer to use the mechanics as a tool. The players describe what they want to do in fiction, the DM (with the players) decides how to resolve it. They may invoke mechanics as part of this, but do not need to and can expressly deviate if that makes more sense in the fiction. The rules exist as a toolkit to be used, not a set of constraints on what's possible.

As a side note--most of the mechanics people are talking about are ambiguous, not vague. Vagueness is about having no clear readings; ambiguity is the presence of multiple clear readings and not being certain which one applies. "DM decides" is completely clear--whatever the DM says goes. It's not certain. It's also the style of many, if not most, laws. "As the <person in charge> shall direct" or "If the <decider> finds that..." Once the person to whom decision authority has been delegated makes a decision, the rules are fixed, the same as if they had been written that way in the first place.


5e D&D does not have a skill system per se. It has an ability check system, in which certain classes of checks may add proficiency bonus if it fits the fiction. Many checks are just straight up 1d20 + ABILITY MOD vs TN. There is the expectation that one should only make a check for the minority of interactions--most things just happen. Checks are only needed to determine outcomes that are in significant doubt where failure is interesting.

In essence there are 5 TN that account for 99% of all checks--
* DC Yes: the action just happens with no check. In my experience, this is the default. Many sessions go by with only actually rolling < 10 ability checks that aren't forced by other mechanics (such as spells or grappling) across the whole table.
* DC 10: These things should be a toss-up for a person with no particular training, talent, or other focus (+0 MOD).
* DC 15: The default for actual checks. These should be a toss-up for someone who has decent ability in the field (or exceptional ability for raw ability checks, +5 MOD total)
* DC 20: These are impossible for a "normal" (+0 or even +5) person to do reliably, and are a toss-up for someone with very strong ability in the field (+10 MOD, proficient checks only; non-proficient checks don't go above +5 normally).
* DC Nope: These are things that are impossible. No roll, just fail.

Of these, DC 10 and DC 15 make up the dominant majority. You can interpolate between them, but there's no need to.

While there are possibilities for DCs 5, 25, and 30, those are vanishingly rare. DC 5 is too easy (usually better to just succeed), while DC 25 or 30 are impossible for normal people and are generally reserved for extra special cases.

Note that climbing, jumping, and swimming (the most common examples used) don't use this system at all except in unusual circumstances. You can jump a fixed distance (different for vertical and horizontal and running vs stationary) based on your STR score. You can climb at half speed, but it takes both hands and feet. You can swim (yes, even in armor) at half speed.

Circumstances are accounted for with advantage/disadvantage which only change the distribution, not the extrema. The TNs don't change.

[Lalliman]

Vague rules are flaws. Some systems earn their flaws. But vague rules are always cop-outs and bad design. A clear rule that isn't more complex or less comprehensive than the vague rule, would be objectively better.
"That isn't more complex" is the operative phrase here. Obviously, having a vague rule that could've just as easily been made less vague (e.g. "this spell teleports you a moderate distance" vs "this spell teleports you 30 feet") is poor design, unless perhaps for the niche purpose of making a game that runs on narrative causality. But these kind of occurrences are very rare. Usually the trade-off is between having a vague rule that is concise or a clear rule that is complex and lengthy. Saying that difficult jump is DC 20 is easy to remember but highly unclear, while having a a list of DCs based on the distance of the jump, the amount of space for a running start, the condition of the ground from where you jump and land, and the amount of weight you're carrying is clear, but tedious to remember. This is where the controversial trade-off lies.

[Benthesquid]

If I'm playing in good faith, with other players and a GM who I like and trust (or Gming in good faith for players I like and trust) I absolutely like interpretation heavy systems. Somehow, it doesn't usually get bogged down in rules arguments- in my experience that's more common with rigid rules systems (even then, less arguments than confused pauses as the GM looks up several pages worth of rules, interactions and exceptions).

[Rhedyn]

"That isn't more complex" is the operative phrase here. Obviously, having a vague rule that could've just as easily been made less vague (e.g. "this spell teleports you a moderate distance" vs "this spell teleports you 30 feet") is poor design, unless perhaps for the niche purpose of making a game that runs on narrative causality. But these kind of occurrences are very rare. Usually the trade-off is between having a vague rule that is concise or a clear rule that is complex and lengthy. Saying that difficult jump is DC 20 is easy to remember but highly unclear, while having a a list of DCs based on the distance of the jump, the amount of space for a running start, the condition of the ground from where you jump and land, and the amount of weight you're carrying is clear, but tedious to remember. This is where the controversial trade-off lies.
There is always ways to make rules that haven't been thought of yet.

Yet you get people that think they want vague rules, when really they want less complex and more comprehensive rules, which is not directly tied to vagueness.

I can make the most simple, most comprehensive game in the market right now. The system has one rule, "ask your DM".
That system covers all concepts and character ideas in every genre. And I can defend it with the same vapid excuse others make. "A good DM will shine in this system. A bad DM would have been bad in any system, so a bad experience with a bad DM is not this systems fault."

Note: "ask your DM" is free and fully compatible with any other RPG by following the conversion guide. "The person running the rpg is that game's version of the DM. Ask that person."
I know the conversion guide is a tad complex but we needed this complexity to be compatible with the vast array of ttRPGs on the market.

[Benthesquid]

That system covers all concepts and character ideas in every genre. And I can defend it with the same vapid excuse others make. "A good DM will shine in this system. A bad DM would have been bad in any system, so a bad experience with a bad DM is not this systems fault."

What you're describing would in fact appear to be free form roleplay. Which I've done and enjoyed. So... yes? That's a decent system, if that's what you're looking for.

[Rhedyn]

What you're describing would in fact appear to be free form roleplay. Which I've done and enjoyed. So... yes? That's a decent system, if that's what you're looking for.
Well your running of the system isn't really a game anymore, which makes you one of those bad DMs for not being able to develop rules at your table.

Free form roleplaying is fine, but I described a vague RPG not a vague RP.

[Benthesquid]

Well your running of the system isn't really a game anymore, which makes you one of those bad DMs for not being able to develop rules at your table.

Free form roleplaying is fine, but I described a vague RPG not a vague RP.

Okay, now I'm thinking I don't understand what you're saying. If I and a group of friends sit down at a table and embark upon a collaborative storytelling exercise, in which there are no rules except that one of us (myself in this scenario) resolves any questions as they arise, in what sense is that not a game?

If I and my friends all enjoy the exercise, in what sense am I a bad DM?

[flond]

Vague rules are flaws. Some systems earn their flaws. But vague rules are always cop-outs and bad design. A clear rule that isn't more complex or less comprehensive than the vague rule, would be objectively better.

This is trivial to disprove though?

All pc attacks are failures and all npc attacks are successes is not at all vague and comprehensive to all combats, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to use it over even variable tns.

[JoeJ]

Or you look them up when it's not your turn, so, come your turn, you're ready with the relevant details, and the game keeps flowing smoothly.

While you're busy looking up rules you're not paying attention to the game. You won't be able to take out-of-turn actions (like attacks of opportunity in 3.PF and a great many reactions in 5e). You're also not noticing how the actions of others, both allies and enemies, affect your character. Even when those actions make what you were thinking of doing no longer useful (or possible).

There's also the time factor. If a game is at all fast paced you won't have time to look anything up before it's your turn again.

[Florian]

a) Fixed TN. This maximizes player information., but then every single action is just as hard as any other action. Which really makes no sense to me in terms of the in-universe fiction. Varying the modifiers based on circumstances is exactly isomorphic to varying the TN.

Fixed TN has the marked benefit that players are able to resolve a lot of actions by themselves, with no need for the gm, something that speeds up gameplay accordingly.

Take a look at SotDL: 1d20+mod vs 10, with boons and banes (+1d6 or -1d6) for outside effects, ease or difficulty beyond that. The later still make it feel like an associated mechanic.

[Talakeal]

@Milona: Welcome to the forum! :smallbiggrin:

My last DM was contemplating switching to the 13th Age skill system when I left the group, and I was dreading the unending arguments that I knew the skill system would cause.


It's hilarious to me that virtually all complaints (aside from taste, of course) about vague rules and DM issues are solved by having a conversation. You know, like what grownups do when they have a problem.

I like vague rules. I don't swap groups often and usually I GM. If people want to know how I GM, they need not wait long because I explain it early. Any decisions I make, I justify immediately. I make it clear that my players can make a case, but ultimately I'll go with what makes sense to me.
Sometimes they turn me around. Sometimes they don't. This process rarely takes longer than about 30 seconds.

And if you can make the level of abstraction clear for everyone, then there's even fewer problems.

This is why I do a Session 0. Always. Even with the same group. There is ALWAYS a Session 0.

In my experiance people don't like being questioned. Trying to discuss a ruling is really hard to do without it sounding like a challenge, which then turns the discussion into an rgument, which often escalates into an out and out fight.


and the players are also making a poor job, if they are trying so often to outperform each other by pushing the DM. In a good group the DM takes reasonable decisions and the players accept them. If there are problems, some quiet talking can fix them. In such an environment, too many rules get in the way of fun.

In general, that's true for most facets of life. in the workplace or in personal relationships, the more you can trust the other people, the less hard rules you need. Then someone tries to abuse the flexibility, and you have to stop them by making hard rules. And they'll still try to circumvent those rules, but at least the rules give them some limitations.
Basically, in my experience honest and mature people are better off with loose guidelines. Hard rules are needed to keep those who do not fit those critieria from squabbling tooo much.

I dont know if I agree. Trust means a lot of things, and good judgement and honesty dont always go hand in hand.

Also, even smart knowledgable people can be wrong about how the world works, or just disagree.

Also, sometimes realism doesnt jive with the game rules and vice versa. For example, one time I was playing under a good DM who I trusted who also happened to be a science teacher. My druid cast sticks to snakes pre battle as part of an ambush and then descended on my foes. The DM riles that despite what the rules say, snakes cannot run and could never keep up with me. Thus I charged the enemy without my scaly backup, who were still slowly slithering down the hill behind me, and I got my ass kicked.

I didnt argue as I trusted the DM, and he is right that snakes keeping up with humans is not realistic, but it still felt loke a cheap move and I dont think it made the game any more fun.

[2D8HP]

While you're busy looking up rules you're not paying attention to the game...


Well said JoeJ, and glad to see you posting again!

My frustration with the 1977 "bluebook" Basic Dungeons & Dragons rules was that as a DM there were situation that I couldn't adjudicate using the 48 pages of rules.

My frustration with the 1979 Advanced Dungeons & Dragons rules, was that with the hundreds of pages of rules I suspected that in there were rules that applied to whatever situation that I had to adjudicate as DM, but watching me flip through seemingly endless pages wasn't fun for my players.

What I'd like as DM/GM is to quickly know what rules apply, and when to make up a ruling.

Less pages and better indices (type big enough for me to read for example, curse your tiny type Index WotC!) would help.

Contra The Giant's:

"I want a rule system that lets me determine it randomly. It makes it very difficult to "wing" an adventure when there is no system for determining how to assess modifiers to this skill. Is that circumstance worth a -1? A -4? A -15? There's no guidelines given. In short, I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want" (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html)

so many "tools" (rules) that I can't remember or quickly find them is worse for me than my not having those rules and just making something up on the spot, because watching someone else desperately turn pages, or try to decipher opaque text isn't fun for long, consequently I prefer the 48 pages of the bluebook to DM with, or other RPG's entirely to GM (Call of C'thullu is easier than most D&D, and Pendragon while not as easy as CoC, makes up for it with an intriguing setting).

As a player a little more rules than 48 pages is good, because my imagination is sparked more be a catalog than a blank page, but if there's no GM because the heavy rules make it too hard, then I don't get to game which is worse.

What I't like out of a 6e is rules that I may DM/GM well enough so that my players will have fun (and I don't want to flee because, for example, they're firearms in it when worlds without guns is what I RPG to escape!).

As a player I just want a game that I will have fun playing that actually has enough DM/GM's that there's a spot at the table for me.

Easy to understand rules without ambiguity would be nice, but few enough of them so that they can be quickly found and remembered, with everything else clearly DM/GM discretion is my preference.

A frustrating thing for me is that when I last played D&D I would just tell the DM what my character tries after I was asked "What do you do?", and the DM would rule on success or failure, but now the DM's ask me "What do you roll?" forcing me to play a sheet instead of a character.

:annoyed:

And in 5e I don't know!

Are

Acrobatics/Athletics,

Insight/Investigation/Perception,

Nature/Survival

duplicate skills depending on different stats, or do they cover different attempts?

In the old days I'd just say what my PC's would try, but now the majority of DM's want me to tell them, and tell them correctly or else!

What gives?

In the old days only the DM had to know the rules (or pretend to).

Bah!

The new rules have lots of cool options and suggestions, but this new know-and-argue-RAW-all-the-freakin'-time culture that's taken over bugs me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Fixed TN has the marked benefit that players are able to resolve a lot of actions by themselves, with no need for the gm, something that speeds up gameplay accordingly.

Take a look at SotDL: 1d20+mod vs 10, with boons and banes (+1d6 or -1d6) for outside effects, ease or difficulty beyond that. The later still make it feel like an associated mechanic.

Boons and banes are identical to modifying the TN, just on the other side. Unless they're all known in advance (which has the same difficulties as knowing the difficulty), you can't resolve everything by yourself.

And even with a varying TN you can resolve a lot without intervention, as long as the variance in the TN is bounded within the range of possible results. For example, if the range of results is 0, 20 and the TN ranges between 5, 15, any result below 5 is a fail and anything above 15 is a success.

[Psyren]

Vague rules - no. But the occasional vague clause in a rule is perfectly fine in my eyes.

3.5 has a lot of these, often found in some of the most powerful spells in the game. Their primary purpose is as a balancing aid for the GM, and including them makes the game better. Some examples below:


Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to.

(and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD).

You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous. (The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment.)

Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus. Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out.

Deities and unique beings are under no compulsion to come through the gate, although they may choose to do so of their own accord.

And so on, you get the idea. I enjoy clauses like this because they give the GM more wiggle room than simply banning potentially problematic spells entirely.

[BlacKnight]

Also, sometimes realism doesnt jive with the game rules and vice versa. For example, one time I was playing under a good DM who I trusted who also happened to be a science teacher. My druid cast sticks to snakes pre battle as part of an ambush and then descended on my foes. The DM riles that despite what the rules say, snakes cannot run and could never keep up with me. Thus I charged the enemy without my scaly backup, who were still slowly slithering down the hill behind me, and I got my ass kicked.

I didnt argue as I trusted the DM, and he is right that snakes keeping up with humans is not realistic, but it still felt loke a cheap move and I dont think it made the game any more fun.

My standard rule when a player doesn't understand a scene and makes a move basing on wrong information is to rewind the scene and let the player take another decision.
But generally the GM should tell the DC of any roll before the PC attempt the action, he should also advise the player and explain the obvious consequences of his actions, especially when the move is clearly bad like in that case.
If they are uncertain laying down 2 or 3 possible actions, explaining possible outcomes and eventual DC does a great job in making the players understand the tone of the campaign and the general rules.
The problem is when there are too many rules, so the GM can't explain anything in short time and expect the players to know everything. Too bad there are always unwritten rules depending on the GM...





A frustrating thing for me is that when I last played D&D I would just tell the DM what my character tries after I was asked "What do you do?", and the DM would rule on success or failure, but now the DM's ask me "What do you roll?" forcing me to play a sheet instead of a character.

Don't tell me, I've sometimes the same problem with players.
"I roll Investigation !"
"But what is you character actually doing ?"
"Ehm, I don't know"...

[Rhedyn]

This is trivial to disprove though?

All pc attacks are failures and all npc attacks are successes is not at all vague and comprehensive to all combats, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to use it over even variable tns.

Your rules does not cover the PCs succeeded or NPCs failing. Therefore, it is not as comprehensive as "sometimes your attacks hit, ask the DM if they hit. The DM decides if NPCs hit with attacks."

I prefer variable tns, via more complex rules, but that isn't objectively better than vague rules, that's my preference. But if a clear rule is not more complicated nor less comprehensive, then it is objectively better.

[2D8HP]

.....judging by the love of rules light games and the almost universal praise of the 5E skill system it seems like I am in the minority. What am I missing?


:confused:

"universal praise"?

We must be reading different threads


....talk about genre, setting and expectations. When someone says "D&D" and has "Conan" in mind, while the other says "D&D" and has "Pun-Pun" in mind, both smile and agree on "D&D"... and then the game grinds to a halt as you described. When both participants agree on either "Conan" or "Pun-Pun", it´s just a little bit of fine-tuning necessary and that it, no particular need to additional rules to moderate how the game plays.


I think Conan should win.

More importantly, Pun-Pun should lose.

:amused:


...I've sometimes the same problem with players.
"I roll Investigation !"
"But what is you character actually doing ?"
"Ehm, I don't know"...


Can you be my DM?

Please?

[Pex]

Intriguingly, this is exactly my problem with D&D 3.5e, which is rules heavy. If you have 4 more points of INT than I do, that represents a 20% advantage. OK, I can see that - maybe I happen to know a fact you don't.

But if you have 4 more points of STR than I do, that shouldn't represent a mere 20% advantage in a tug of war or arm-wrestling. You should win every time.

The idea that the same mechanic always works is an attribute of rules-heavy systems. In a rules-light system, the GM can simply say that the stronger character wins the arm-wrestling.

As I said above, the problems many people ascribe to a rules-light systems don't come from a poor system; they come from a poor GM.

Play with a GM you trust, and then trust your GM.

It's not a question of trusting the DM. The problem is the rules of the game changing depending on who is DM that day even when every DM you play with is your favorite best DM in the world in his own way.


Then what does a framework look like? And does it matter if you're thinking in terms of task resolution or outcome resolution? Because those are quite different as to the mental models involved, at least to me.

As I see it, you've got a few options:

a) Fixed TN. This maximizes player information., but then every single action is just as hard as any other action. Which really makes no sense to me in terms of the in-universe fiction. Varying the modifiers based on circumstances is exactly isomorphic to varying the TN.

b) Varying TN, no circumstance modifiers. Then only things explicitly stated in the printed rules can exist, which shatters any verisimilitude I can have. Because not all 10' jumps are the same as all other 10' jumps. This also gets really dependent on exact descriptions and frequently requires table look-ups, but is "fair."

c) Varying TN, circumstance modifiers. Capable of modeling the most things and coming closest to modifying the in-game reality, but also subject to variation based on the people involved. "DM's judgement" is an extreme example of this.

I prefer to use the mechanics as a tool. The players describe what they want to do in fiction, the DM (with the players) decides how to resolve it. They may invoke mechanics as part of this, but do not need to and can expressly deviate if that makes more sense in the fiction. The rules exist as a toolkit to be used, not a set of constraints on what's possible.

As a side note--most of the mechanics people are talking about are ambiguous, not vague. Vagueness is about having no clear readings; ambiguity is the presence of multiple clear readings and not being certain which one applies. "DM decides" is completely clear--whatever the DM says goes. It's not certain. It's also the style of many, if not most, laws. "As the <person in charge> shall direct" or "If the <decider> finds that..." Once the person to whom decision authority has been delegated makes a decision, the rules are fixed, the same as if they had been written that way in the first place.

a) It's a game. Realism can only go so far such that ironically you're playing the numbers and not the game. Everything starting out the same is the simplest form for the generic thing existing. The modifiers that apply when a circumstance makes it not generic is the neutral unbiased game rules saying what they are. There's no inherent bias of the moods of differing DMs nor different expectations of difficulty between the player and DM.

b) Agreement here that would be bad as in boring. Having modifiers is not the problem. It's how the modifiers are created and applied that matter.

c) Not what I prefer at all. That's "Mother May I" and might as well ask the DM "What else does my character do".




5e D&D does not have a skill system per se. It has an ability check system, in which certain classes of checks may add proficiency bonus if it fits the fiction. Many checks are just straight up 1d20 + ABILITY MOD vs TN. There is the expectation that one should only make a check for the minority of interactions--most things just happen. Checks are only needed to determine outcomes that are in significant doubt where failure is interesting.

In essence there are 5 TN that account for 99% of all checks--
* DC Yes: the action just happens with no check. In my experience, this is the default. Many sessions go by with only actually rolling < 10 ability checks that aren't forced by other mechanics (such as spells or grappling) across the whole table.
* DC 10: These things should be a toss-up for a person with no particular training, talent, or other focus (+0 MOD).
* DC 15: The default for actual checks. These should be a toss-up for someone who has decent ability in the field (or exceptional ability for raw ability checks, +5 MOD total)
* DC 20: These are impossible for a "normal" (+0 or even +5) person to do reliably, and are a toss-up for someone with very strong ability in the field (+10 MOD, proficient checks only; non-proficient checks don't go above +5 normally).
* DC Nope: These are things that are impossible. No roll, just fail.

Of these, DC 10 and DC 15 make up the dominant majority. You can interpolate between them, but there's no need to.

While there are possibilities for DCs 5, 25, and 30, those are vanishingly rare. DC 5 is too easy (usually better to just succeed), while DC 25 or 30 are impossible for normal people and are generally reserved for extra special cases.

Note that climbing, jumping, and swimming (the most common examples used) don't use this system at all except in unusual circumstances. You can jump a fixed distance (different for vertical and horizontal and running vs stationary) based on your STR score. You can climb at half speed, but it takes both hands and feet. You can swim (yes, even in armor) at half speed.

Circumstances are accounted for with advantage/disadvantage which only change the distribution, not the extrema. The TNs don't change.


It's great those numbers exist. The problem is different DMs assigning different numbers to the same task in different games. When I want to do a task and one DM says "Go ahead" and another DM says "Roll DC 10" and a third says "Roll DC 15", that's the problem.

[ImNotTrevor]

@
In my experiance people don't like being questioned. Trying to discuss a ruling is really hard to do without it sounding like a challenge, which then turns the discussion into an rgument, which often escalates into an out and out fight.


Your personal experience is also, it should be noted, HIGHLY irregular and full of way more BS than most.

And there is a difference between challenging authority and requesting clarification/ seeking mutual understanding.

"That's not how my other GM did it!" Is a bad way to start the discussion.

"I was under the impression that the rule worked like [insert previous understanding here], is that not how you use it?" Is much less likely to cause a fight.

I DO work on a psych unit and teach adolescent boys with behavior problems how to solve their issues with calm words rather than yelling and fists. It's learnable stuff. But people are apparently allergic to being polite.

[Pex]

I dont know if I agree. Trust means a lot of things, and good judgement and honesty dont always go hand in hand.

Also, even smart knowledgable people can be wrong about how the world works, or just disagree.

Also, sometimes realism doesnt jive with the game rules and vice versa. For example, one time I was playing under a good DM who I trusted who also happened to be a science teacher. My druid cast sticks to snakes pre battle as part of an ambush and then descended on my foes. The DM riles that despite what the rules say, snakes cannot run and could never keep up with me. Thus I charged the enemy without my scaly backup, who were still slowly slithering down the hill behind me, and I got my ass kicked.

I didnt argue as I trusted the DM, and he is right that snakes keeping up with humans is not realistic, but it still felt loke a cheap move and I dont think it made the game any more fun.

Next time show him this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRes8tuWytI

[Max_Killjoy]

It's great those numbers exist. The problem is different DMs assigning different numbers to the same task in different games. When I want to do a task and one DM says "Go ahead" and another DM says "Roll DC 10" and a third says "Roll DC 15", that's the problem.


Yeap.

That's a major issue with both the "GM fiat difficulty" systems, AND the "every little task is its own subsystem" systems.

For the former, it's an issue because there's no common basis, it's all subjective.

For the latter, it's an issue because there's no common basis within the system itself, the same TN or die result is a wildly different result depending on what you're trying to do, there's no general scale or pattern.

[erikun]

I prefer abstract rules, but dislike vague rules.

By that, I mean that I prefer rules which allow you to translate a character action - which may not be one in a rigid action category - and translate that into a meaningful result through the rules. That is, "roll a skill to attack, and the amount over defense indicates damage" is an abstract rule because it could be used when a character is firing a gun, or when a character is trying to hit something with a car. Preferably there will also be rules in place to make a distinction between a spitwad and an 18-wheeler, but a rule which can easily translate a player action and get a result from the system, preferably without wading through hundreds of pages of speciality mechanics, is very welcome.

A vague rule would be one which produces an unclear or inconsistent result. If it is unclear what a particular action will do when taken, it's a vague rule. When it's unclear if a character is capable of taking a particular action, then it is a vague rule. And when it is unclear how too parts of the system would work when encountering one another, it is a vague rule interaction. Vague rules just unnecessarily delay the game, cause people to flip through books trying to piece together the answer, and start arguments. Sure, some players will start arguments anyways, but vague rules certainly don't help.

I understand that more complex systems will inevitably run into vague rule interactions, especially in more edge situations, but it still isn't something which I enjoy dealing with.

[Pex]

Yeap.

That's a major issue with both the "GM fiat difficulty" systems, AND the "every little task is its own subsystem" systems.

For the former, it's an issue because there's no common basis, it's all subjective.

For the latter, it's an issue because there's no common basis within the system itself, the same TN or die result is a wildly different result depending on what you're trying to do, there's no general scale or pattern.

That was an issue in 2E. I knew what my character could do in 2E regardless of DM, but for attack rolls I needed to roll high, proficiencies I needed to roll low, and some things only the thief could do rolling percentile or else we needed a house rule based on proficiency system if we were going to allow it. That was irksome but not one of my personal loathings of the system. I was happy enough 3E streamlined everything to roll a d20 + modifier, higher is better. If it's an issue for people no conflict with me.

As an aside, 2E Psionics Handbook was a mess. You needed to roll below a target number based on one of your ability scores minus a number, the ability score dependent on the power used and the number whatever the game designer felt like. If you hit the target number exactly you get a bonus effect to your power. If you roll a Natural 20 you're screwed and depending on the power effectively kill yourself.

[Telok]

As an aside, 2E Psionics Handbook was a mess. You needed to roll below a target number based on one of your ability scores minus a number, the ability score dependent on the power used and the number whatever the game designer felt like. If you hit the target number exactly you get a bonus effect to your power. If you roll a Natural 20 you're screwed and depending on the power effectively kill yourself.

Yeah, 2e psi was quite whack. It was however reasonably precise and clear.

What I've found (I've been playing with less experienced DMs lately) is that vague rules cause issues, complicated rules cause issues, and large numbers of rules cause issues.

New DMs often don't read all the rules, 50' move speed on a monster is not a 50' vertical standing jump distance in the d20 D&D derivatives. New DMs often don't understand the rules they read, the last two version of D&D have complex rules for how hiding and perception interact. New DMs often have difficulty being consistent and flexible in the face of vague rules, 5e does not make it clear that an Athletics DC 15 check is failed 15% of the time by proficent maximum Strength 20th level characters and that means that DCs of 15+ should not be the normal and baseline check for climbing trees or swimming in a lake.

What personally turns me off a game is mixing clear and vague rules. I'm quite happy to play in a vague rules light game, both the DM and I know what to expect and how to act. When there are very precise rules for most things and a few vague rules (especially in a game with lots of rules) I find it unpleasant to have to switch between clear, precise rules and fuzzy 'Can I?' rules. Especially when it happens in the same act and forces the DM to stop the game in order to try and figure out what a rule means.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's rather hard to fix "people don't read/understand/follow rules" by adding more rules. For example, the climbing/swimming rules are right there in the PHB. No check needed unless it's unusually slick/choppy. Can't really get clearer than that.

I would never expect the DC to be identical, even if the situations are described in the same general terms. Close, sure. But not all wooden doors are identical, neither are all ancient scripts. Now if they're literally the same event (running the same module) and they're not following the script... Well, that's the same "text can't fix unwillingness to follow written instructions" problem. Or the DM decided consciously to deviate. Which can happen in any system. CF circumstance modifiers.

And different issues need different levels of ambiguity. Things than can directly lead to character loss need high precision, while social events need either a whole system or lots of flexibility. Because precision and flexibility are two parts of a trilemma: precise, flexible, easy to use. Pick two. Or one if you're not lucky.

[1337 b4k4]

It's not a question of trusting the DM. The problem is the rules of the game changing depending on who is DM that day even when every DM you play with is your favorite best DM in the world in his own way.

While I understand the general sentiment, outside of say tournaments/organized play, how often are people actually switching GMs and how often are they playing settings and worlds similar enough that whether a given door is DC 10 or DC 15 compared to another GM is more relevant than whether or not the characters are competent and capable enough for the world and game style.

That is, I’ve played in multiple campaigns at the same time before and never has it been a concern (or problem) for me that GM 1 adjudicates wooden doors in this way, while GM 2 adjudicates them another way. Which isn’t to say they did the same thing, but rather that specific DC differences were the least of the differences between the games.

[Satinavian]

While I understand the general sentiment, outside of say tournaments/organized play, how often are people actually switching GMs and how often are they playing settings and worlds similar enough that whether a given door is DC 10 or DC 15 compared to another GM is more relevant than whether or not the characters are competent and capable enough for the world and game style.Adventure of the week with rotating GM is a thing.

A quite common thing actually.

[King of Nowhere]

Ultimately the dicotomy starts because you can't have both. No matter how well a system is designed, either it does not take into account all possibilities, or it contains so many tables and subrules that it becomes a nightmare.
It is however a false dicotomy to say that rules-heavy removes argument. In fact, you have lots of arguments about the exact interpretation of specific rules in peculiar settings. If that was not the case, we'd not have a thread oof rules FAQ that is 41 pages long, at its 33rd iteration. Each one of the questions asked there could easily have started an argument at a table that had to be adjudicated by the DM.


My standard rule when a player doesn't understand a scene and makes a move basing on wrong information is to rewind the scene and let the player take another decision.
But generally the GM should tell the DC of any roll before the PC attempt the action, he should also advise the player and explain the obvious consequences of his actions, especially when the move is clearly bad like in that case.

Same for me. If I want to do something non-standard, I always discuss it with the DM first to see if he would accept it. And when I am the DM, same for my players.

[Max_Killjoy]

Then what does a framework look like? And does it matter if you're thinking in terms of task resolution or outcome resolution? Because those are quite different as to the mental models involved, at least to me.

As I see it, you've got a few options:

a) Fixed TN. This maximizes player information., but then every single action is just as hard as any other action. Which really makes no sense to me in terms of the in-universe fiction. Varying the modifiers based on circumstances is exactly isomorphic to varying the TN.

b) Varying TN, no circumstance modifiers. Then only things explicitly stated in the printed rules can exist, which shatters any verisimilitude I can have. Because not all 10' jumps are the same as all other 10' jumps. This also gets really dependent on exact descriptions and frequently requires table look-ups, but is "fair."

c) Varying TN, circumstance modifiers. Capable of modeling the most things and coming closest to modifying the in-game reality, but also subject to variation based on the people involved. "DM's judgement" is an extreme example of this.

I prefer to use the mechanics as a tool. The players describe what they want to do in fiction, the DM (with the players) decides how to resolve it. They may invoke mechanics as part of this, but do not need to and can expressly deviate if that makes more sense in the fiction. The rules exist as a toolkit to be used, not a set of constraints on what's possible.

As a side note--most of the mechanics people are talking about are ambiguous, not vague. Vagueness is about having no clear readings; ambiguity is the presence of multiple clear readings and not being certain which one applies. "DM decides" is completely clear--whatever the DM says goes. It's not certain.


Regardless, I'm not objecting to circumstance modifiers, I'm objecting to having no standard for what those modifiers should be, and/or no standard for what "easy" or "moderate" or "hard" mean across various actions, and/or no standard for what the same numerical outcome means across various attempted actions.




It's also the style of many, if not most, laws. "As the <person in charge> shall direct" or "If the <decider> finds that..." Once the person to whom decision authority has been delegated makes a decision, the rules are fixed, the same as if they had been written that way in the first place.


Those also tend to be terrible laws, amounting to legislators passing the buck on hard or unpopular decisions.

[Max_Killjoy]

It's rather hard to fix "people don't read/understand/follow rules" by adding more rules. For example, the climbing/swimming rules are right there in the PHB. No check needed unless it's unusually slick/choppy. Can't really get clearer than that.

I would never expect the DC to be identical, even if the situations are described in the same general terms. Close, sure. But not all wooden doors are identical, neither are all ancient scripts. Now if they're literally the same event (running the same module) and they're not following the script... Well, that's the same "text can't fix unwillingness to follow written instructions" problem. Or the DM decided consciously to deviate. Which can happen in any system. CF circumstance modifiers.


I don't think anyone is asking for all wooden doors to be identical.

But I do expect the system to give us an idea, in system-mechanical terms, of how hard a typical wooden door is to break down -- especially if breaking down doors is going to happen in a lot of campaigns run with that system.


(And it seems whenever someone says "I wish this system with GM-set TNs would at least give a general idea of what TNs go with what" or "the rules should lay out a better framework for whats easy and whats hard", or similar... it's very common for someone else to respond with "But not all wooden doors are the same"... it's starting to feel like a standardized strawman.)

[Max_Killjoy]

That was an issue in 2E. I knew what my character could do in 2E regardless of DM, but for attack rolls I needed to roll high, proficiencies I needed to roll low, and some things only the thief could do rolling percentile or else we needed a house rule based on proficiency system if we were going to allow it. That was irksome but not one of my personal loathings of the system. I was happy enough 3E streamlined everything to roll a d20 + modifier, higher is better. If it's an issue for people no conflict with me.

As an aside, 2E Psionics Handbook was a mess. You needed to roll below a target number based on one of your ability scores minus a number, the ability score dependent on the power used and the number whatever the game designer felt like. If you hit the target number exactly you get a bonus effect to your power. If you roll a Natural 20 you're screwed and depending on the power effectively kill yourself.

Don't even have to go that far.

I've seen systems with a single unified resolution mechanic -- for example, roll 3d6+attribute+skill. The same total means very different things depending on what the character was trying to do. Trying to climb a wall... 15 is for an "easy" climb. Trying to hack a computer... 25 is "easy" and rolling a 15 means "the FBI is on the way". Trying to cook a meal... 10 is "easy". Etc.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Regardless, I'm not objecting to circumstance modifiers, I'm objecting to having no standard for what those modifiers should be, and/or no standard for what "easy" or "moderate" or "hard" mean across various actions, and/or no standard for what the same numerical outcome means across various attempted actions.


But there are standards. They may not be standards you approve of, but that's a separate matter. I'm a little annoyed at people claiming non-existence when what they mean is that they don't like what exists.

Different actions are different, and may not be comparable. All modifiers only exist in context, and that context is bounded. The more you try to expand the system to encompass everything under the same umbrella the more you get dissonances and straight up dysfunctions. In my experience, the difficulty of various tasks varies quite strongly even when the tasks look similar. And you can always shift the level of abstraction to get a completely different result.


Honestly, I don't want a system that can be analyzed and "optimized" before I take action. The resulting "plan a perfect solution and then execute without risk" game-play bores me. I want a system that encourages taking risks, encourages keeping the action moving.

The requirements (to me) seem to be:

* Actions are rarely if ever do-or-die--the individual consequences of each roll are small even if the cumulative result is large. This means that failures due to bad luck are recoverable.
* Probabilities of success are known, but only in broad terms ("trivial", "easy", "medium", "hard", "impossible"). This combats analysis paralysis.
* Random factors are important whenever a check is called for. The scale of modifiers should rarely trivialize an important roll; if they do, no check should be called.
* Each check (successful or not) should move the scenario forward (meaning that the same tactics can't just be retried). If it can be trivially retried, don't roll.
* Making checks should be very easy for both players and DMs. Table-lookups (or memorizing tables), non-pre-computed math (conditional modifiers)--these annoy me.

My ideal flow goes something like:

1. One person describes a scene and asks "What do you do"?
2. A second person describes the action they want their character to do.
3. Together they decided how to resolve that action. They may invoke rules here, but the fictional layer is primary. If something makes sense and is fun for the table, it happens no matter what the rules say. If it doesn't make sense or would not be a fun outcome for that particular group (e.g. a sneaky one-hit kill on a boss for a group that loves tactical combat), it doesn't happen no matter what the rules say.
4. The first person describes how the scene has changed. GOTO 1.

Most of the time, I want the rules to get out of the way and let me play. I'll call on them when I need help.

Rules and mechanics are merely a prefab set of resolution mechanics that (in theory) are designed to work together. They're exactly as binding as the players want them to be. The rules serve the game, the game does not serve the rules.

I ran a game of 5e D&D with a group of complete newbies recently. Only one had ever played D&D before; the rest were new to TTRPGs entirely. I started with the advice "don't worry about the mechanics. Just tell me what you want your character to do and we'll figure out if it works." The only other mechanical advice I gave was "If I tell you to roll something, use the d20." They jumped right in and were roleplaying excellently within minutes. They used the (pregenerated) characters' personalities, abilities, backgrounds and other features in ways that I hadn't expected.

There was one small combat, but the rest was investigation and talking to people (using ability checks). I signaled difficulty with "that's going to be hard, do you want to still try?" but no numerical DCs were ever given. 90% of the time it was evident from the die roll alone whether they succeeded or failed; only sometimes did I need to actually add in the modifier. The only DCs I used were 10 and 15, with one 20. It ran smooth and system-transparent.

That's my ideal. The rules were there when they needed to be, but were otherwise transparent.

[Max_Killjoy]

But there are standards. They may not be standards you approve of, but that's a separate matter. I'm a little annoyed at people claiming non-existence when what they mean is that they don't like what exists.

Different actions are different, and may not be comparable. All modifiers only exist in context, and that context is bounded. The more you try to expand the system to encompass everything under the same umbrella the more you get dissonances and straight up dysfunctions. In my experience, the difficulty of various tasks varies quite strongly even when the tasks look similar. And you can always shift the level of abstraction to get a completely different result.


No, I mean that there are no standards -- just suggestions, that often amount to what anyone who did at most a few minutes of probability on the die mechanic would get an idea of.

Yeah, on 3d6 getting a 5 or more is "really easy" and getting a 17 or more is "really hard"... thanks, game designer, for that brilliant insight.

Again, variations happen, they happen a lot, but give us a starting point. Give us examples. Of course the GM is going to have to make judgement calls, but give them something to base that judgement on. Going back to the increasingly-annoying wooden door example, I don't think anyone is asking for a system to say "here is exactly how hard it is to break down all wooden doors, no exceptions" --what some of us are saying is "Hey, it would be really useful to know about how hard it is to break down a typical wooden door, so we're not engaged in blind dart throwing, or starting from scratch."

And then there's this, as I noted above, which is another example of what's meant by "no standard":


Don't even have to go that far.

I've seen systems with a single unified resolution mechanic -- for example, roll 3d6+attribute+skill. The same (result) total means very different things depending on what the character was trying to do. Trying to climb a wall... 15 is for an "easy" climb. Trying to hack a computer... 25 is "easy" and rolling a 15 means "the FBI is on the way". Trying to cook a meal... 10 is "easy". Etc.

I shouldn't have to look up each skill to know what "easy" or "hard" is supposed to be on the dice.

And if I have to create a new skill or wing it on something, that sort of system gives me absolutely nothing to work with.

[PhoenixPhyre]

No, I mean that there are no standards -- just suggestions, that often amount to what anyone who did at most a few minutes of probability on the die mechanic would get an idea of.

Yeah, on 3d6 getting a 5 or more is "really easy" and getting a 17 or more is "really hard"... thanks, game designer, for that brilliant insight.

Again, variations happen, they happen a lot, but give us a starting point. Give us examples. Of course the GM is going to have to make judgement calls, but give them something to base that judgement on. Going back to the increasingly-annoying wooden door example, I don't think anyone is asking for a system to say "here is exactly how hard it is to break down all wooden doors, no exceptions" --what some of us are saying is "Hey, it would be really useful to know about how hard it is to break down a typical wooden door, so we're not engaged in blind dart throwing, or starting from scratch."

And then there's this, as I noted above, which is another example of what's meant by "no standard":



I shouldn't have to look up each skill to know what "easy" or "hard" is supposed to be on the dice.

And if I have to create a new skill or wing it on something, that sort of system gives me absolutely nothing to work with.

Standards for incomparables only cause dissonance. How do you compare a check made to persuade a king to send aid to an outlying village to a check to break a door? The only way is by comparing chance of success, which is exactly what 5e's system asks you to do. The core question (and this is in the DMG) is "how hard should this be for a person with a 0/5/10 modifier". The benchmark DCs are calibrated to a 55% chance for each of those modifiers.

This is what I mean about there being guidance, but you not liking it.

And this is as firm as guidance can be--rules are exactly as binding as the players want them to be and no more.

[Max_Killjoy]

Standards for incomparables only cause dissonance. How do you compare a check made to persuade a king to send aid to an outlying village to a check to break a door? The only way is by comparing chance of success, which is exactly what 5e's system asks you to do. The core question (and this is in the DMG) is "how hard should this be for a person with a 0/5/10 modifier". The benchmark DCs are calibrated to a 55% chance for each of those modifiers.

This is what I mean about there being guidance, but you not liking it.

And this is as firm as guidance can be--rules are exactly as binding as the players want them to be and no more.


So a "hard" persuasion to pull off, a "hard" lock to pick, or a "hard" wall to climb, don't need any sort of commonality at all for what "hard" means when the dice are rolled? For one skill "hard" can be a 10, for another it can a 15, and for another it can be a 20?

And when the GM says "that looks like it will be very difficult", or "that shouldn't be too hard", that doesn't need to actually mean anything?

And the same result on the dice could mean anything depending both on how that GM reads that situation and on what the PC is actually trying to do (because every skill/action evidently gets its own special scale of TNs)?

Why even bother having a system, other than to throw some (supposed?) randomness in? What you're describing isn't a standard, it's an ambiguous suggestion.


If a GM repeatedly refused to tell me what I need as result on the dice before I rolled, and just said "roll the dice and I'll tell you whether you succeed or not", I would refuse to play with that GM.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So a "hard" persuasion to pull off, a "hard" lock to pick, or a "hard" wall to climb, don't need any sort of commonality at all for what "hard" means when the dice are rolled? For one skill "hard" can be a 10, for another it can a 15, and for another it can be a 20?

And when the GM says "that looks like it will be very difficult", or "that shouldn't be too hard", that doesn't need to actually mean anything?

And the same result on the dice could mean anything depending both on how that GM reads that situation and on what the PC is actually trying to do (because every skill/action evidently gets its own special scale of TNs)?

Why even bother having a system, other than to throw some (supposed?) randomness in? What you're describing isn't a standard, it's an ambiguous suggestion.


If a GM repeatedly refused to tell me what I need as result on the dice before I rolled, and just said "roll the dice and I'll tell you whether you succeed or not", I would refuse to play with that GM.

I think there was a misunderstanding here on one side or the other. "Hard" for me always means the same DC (plus or minus one or two). 5e sets "hard" == 20 == "a skilled person (+10 modifier) will find this a toss-up." But in fiction, a hard persuasion task is incomparable to a hard lock picking task. They have the same DC, but represent completely different results. And two different hard persuasion tasks may represent very different results--it's hard to persuade a friend to risk their life for you, but it's also hard to persuade an enemy not to turn you in to the authorities.

[Rhedyn]

5e's difficulty system for ability checks is the worsed of both worlds.

It's vague and complex. 6 separate DCs, no real rules to decide which one goes where. Tons of mechanics for players to pick skills, calculate modifiers, ect. And then the DM is expected to just write the DC setting rules, knowing they need to make rules for 6 DCs.

IMHO, no skill system is better than what 5e did. "Ask your DM" is equally vague and less complex.

[Telok]

It's rather hard to fix "people don't read/understand/follow rules" by adding more rules.

I think you missed something. I never said that. I said that in my experience complex and vague rules tend to cause issues for newer DMs and that I dislike systems where rules are written to be both vague and precise at the same time.


5e's difficulty system... vague and complex. 6 separate DCs, no real rules to decide which one goes where...

I realized something earlier today: Those newer D&D 5e DMs I'm currently playing with are seeing "easy", "medium", and "hard" in the rule book but they don't have anything to peg them to. That's been known a while but what's new is that I realized that they're defaulting to asking themselves "What should the DC be to climb a normal tree?" and since 'normal' and 'average' are so often interchangeable they go with what looks 'average' on the chart. Which is the "medium" DC 15, which of course still causes level 20 characters to fail at times.

But D&D 5e does hit my annoyance buttons pretty hard. The athletics skill says that you can jump a distance equal to your strength score in feet (precise) and that you can jump further with an Athletics roll (vague). Since there aren't any good rules for setting that DC nobody ever tries (at least not at my tables, not after the first couple of "ummm, I dunno, roll and I'll tell you"). The intersection of the perception and stealth skills is pretty bad, the former is pretty precise and concrete but that latter has spawned how many threads about what it does and how to use it?

By way of contrast I really like the Paranoia anniversary edition. It's medium-light and quite vague. It's consistently vague, there are no variable DCs just rolling under your skill with a margin of success, and since the entire game is predicated on being silly and funny you don't have to guess how the GM is going to rule on something (hint: it's going to look like the Three Stooges with hand grenades). I mean the entire text of the Ink Spray mutant power is six sentences with no numbers, it's vague but it's also quite clear and gives you enough information to use it easily.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If they're asking "how hard is it to climb a tree", they've already failed at reading. Because climbing doesn't take a check unless it is unusually hard, by specific rules right in the PHB.

The guidance in the DMG is pretty clear about what easy, medium, and hard mean. The only people over seen screw it up are those who still have the 3e "must roll for everything" mentality going.

[DanyBallon]

But D&D 5e does hit my annoyance buttons pretty hard. The athletics skill says that you can jump a distance equal to your strength score in feet (precise) and that you can jump further with an Athletics roll (vague). Since there aren't any good rules for setting that DC nobody ever tries (at least not at my tables, not after the first couple of "ummm, I dunno, roll and I'll tell you"). The intersection of the perception and stealth skills is pretty bad, the former is pretty precise and concrete but that latter has spawned how many threads about what it does and how to use it?


This is a perfect example of what I feel wrong when playing D&D nowadays.

You shouldn't base your actions on ability/skills modifer or DC, but on what your character wants to do.

Way to often a round goes like this:
DM: As you walk on the bridge, you notice that a part as crumbled and there's a 10ft wide open hole preventing from safe crossing. What do you want to to?
Player: I roll Athletic to see if I can jump over. What's the DC?

or
DM: As you walk on the bridge, you notice that a part as crumbled and there's a 10ft wide open hole preventing from safe crossing. What do you want to to?
Player: Oh crap! My character isn't proficient in Athletics, I'll try to find a way around instead.


it should be done like this instead:


DM: As you walk on the bridge, you notice that a part as crumbled and there's a 10ft wide open hole preventing from safe crossing. What do you want to to?
Player: My character step back a few yards and take a run and jump over onto the other side.
DM: With your running distance it's pretty easy to jump over, but there's is some rubbles on the other side making it harder to land safely. Please make a Dexterity check to see if you land without falling prone.
Player: I'm proficient in Acrobatics, may I use my Acrobaticks modifier instead?
DM: Yes sure do! DM secretly set the DC to 15 as he believes that the rubbles, width of chasm, running speed and weather conditions makes it a medium task
Player: rolls 12 + 5 mod 17! do I succeed.
DM: You perfectly land on your feet.
DM: Player 2, you've seen player 1 character jump over the hole and land on his feet without much problem, what are you going to do?
...

[Rhedyn]

Bah at least with no skill system, it's implied that you should just tell the players if they can do the thing they want to do and their characters know that.

Far better than 5e, where it's implied that people have no idea what that can do.

[Max_Killjoy]

This is a perfect example of what I feel wrong when playing D&D nowadays.

You shouldn't base your actions on ability/skills modifer or DC, but on what your character wants to do.


Way to often a round goes like this:
DM: As you walk on the bridge, you notice that a part as crumbled and there's a 10ft wide open hole preventing from safe crossing. What do you want to to?
Player: I roll Athletic to see if I can jump over. What's the DC?

or
DM: As you walk on the bridge, you notice that a part as crumbled and there's a 10ft wide open hole preventing from safe crossing. What do you want to to?
Player: Oh crap! My character isn't proficient in Athletics, I'll try to find a way around instead.


So the character, as a "person" in that "reality", should not do what actual people do, and take their capabilities into account?

The abilities, skills, modifiers, etc, in whatever system, represent the character's capabilities (or at least IMO should represent, or there's no point in having them at all). The player taking the character's capabilities into account is no different from me knowing that I'm not strong enough to dead-lift 100 pounds and trying to find another solution. I might want to lift that object, but it's not going to happen -- basing my actions on what I want instead of what I know I'm capable of will just end in failure.




it should be done like this instead:


DM: As you walk on the bridge, you notice that a part as crumbled and there's a 10ft wide open hole preventing from safe crossing. What do you want to to?
Player: My character step back a few yards and take a run and jump over onto the other side.
DM: With your running distance it's pretty easy to jump over, but there's is some rubbles on the other side making it harder to land safely. Please make a Dexterity check to see if you land without falling prone.
Player: I'm proficient in Acrobatics, may I use my Acrobaticks modifier instead?
DM: Yes sure do! DM secretly set the DC to 15 as he believes that the rubbles, width of chasm, running speed and weather conditions makes it a medium task
Player: rolls 12 + 5 mod 17! do I succeed.
DM: You perfectly land on your feet.
DM: Player 2, you've seen player 1 character jump over the hole and land on his feet without much problem, what are you going to do?
...

Which is another way of saying that the GM should hide information from the player that their PC has.

The character has an idea of what they're capable of, including whether they can make a jump across a gap about that far. Why should the player not stop to consider what the character is capable of?

[Florian]

@Max:

That´re problems with systems that either only know binary results (pass/fail) or have no inbuilt method to determine which is "normal to pass".

For example, look at the HEX system. When calculating each skill, besides min/max, you will also generate a "normal" value. This is the TN (and everything below that), that a character doesn't have to roll to "pass".

[Jay R]

It's not a question of trusting the DM. The problem is the rules of the game changing depending on who is DM that day even when every DM you play with is your favorite best DM in the world in his own way.

Your conclusion is based on the assumption that rules-heavy vs. rules-light has some effect on whether the rules change from DM to DM. That isn't true and won't be true, until all DMs agree to run the exact same version with the exact same expansions, and the game companies agree to stop putting out expansions.

You also have more faith in the blind application of a rule written by somebody who doesn't know the exact situation you're in to the judgemnt call from a DM who does. I don't. Following that logic you get the 3.5e nonsense that in a tug-of-war (STR vs. STR), A character with STR 10 beats one with STR 18 16.5% of the time.

Enjoy the games you like, played the way you like them. But please recognize that your tastes aren't universal requirements.

Your game isn't objectively better, and my game isn't badwrongfun.

[DanyBallon]

So the character, as a "person" in that "reality", should not do what actual people do, and take their capabilities into account?

The abilities, skills, modifiers, etc, in whatever system, represent the character's capabilities (or at least IMO should represent, or there's no point in having them at all). The player taking the character's capabilities into account is no different from me knowing that I'm not strong enough to dead-lift 100 pounds and trying to find another solution. I might want to lift that object, but it's not going to happen -- basing my actions on what I want instead of what I know I'm capable of will just end in failure.

I’m not saying that the chetive and clumsy wizard (STR 8, DEX 9) should be trying to jump over disregarding his abilities, he may try, but his probability of failing are greater. The DM may even ask for an Strength (Acrobatics) check, to jump over, in addition for the Dexterity check for landing safely.
What I’m saying, is that way too often, someone won’t even try because they didn’t max out a skill. People focus to much on numbers, instead of RolePlaying their characters.


Which is another way of saying that the GM should hide information from the player that their PC has.

The character has an idea of what they're capable of, including whether they can make a jump across a gap about that far. Why should the player not stop to consider what the character is capable of?

DM isn’t hiding anything from the players. Unless you do exactly the same task under the same set of condition, would the DC be the same. There is no generic tree that would have a DC 10 for everyone everytime. There is a big misunderstanding of the real meaning of DC tables. Most take the DCs writen in the tables as been set into stone, as their true meaning was to illustrate an order of gradation between different task. I.e. A tree (DC 10) is easier to climb than a brick wall (DC 15) that is easier to climb than a wall of force (DC 30).
In my example, it doesn’t mean that every tree have a climb DC of 10, it only shows that compared to a wall of force, it is much easier to climb a tree.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Here's how I did handle a "you come to a gap in the trail" case. The party was escorting a hugely-pregnant NPC. Disadvantage on DEX/STR checks and DEX/STR mod = -1. I did this as part of my introduction to two separate groups. The description:


A trail across a ridge-line narrows sharply as it crosses a natural, 10' long arched bridge. On either side the rock falls away 30+ feet straight down. The bridge was originally about 5 feet wide, wide enough to cross easily. A recent earthquake has knocked down part of the bridge, making it only about 1' wide in places. The smooth rock and the narrow ledge makes it a MEDIUM challenge to cross.

Note that in both cases at least one person had enough STR to make the jump without a check. If they asked, I told them this (as this was session #1, and they were complete newbies at TTRPGs in general).

How did they handle it?

Group 1
There were two rogues (a wood elf and a halfling), a human fighter and a yuan-ti pureblood paladin. Any of them except maybe the halfling could make the jump, and the halfling wouldn't have likely fallen if she had crossed. Instead, the two martial types decided to throw the halfling across the gap. Note that there are no rules for this. With two of them, given their strength scores and her size and nimbleness, I had one of them roll an EASY (DC 10) Strength check at advantage (representing the help from the other). They succeeded with about a 20 total. I then had the rogue roll a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check--this was a degrees of success check. 10- = succeed with consequences, 10-19 = succeed normally, 20+ succeed with style. She rolled a 1 (for a total of 6, IIRC). So she made the jump with ease, but didn't stick the landing and face-planted. Only ego damage. They then tied a couple ropes to form a brace and one of the strength types held on to the woman as they crossed. No check needed for that part.

Group 2
This was a halfling bard, a tiefling druid, and a high elf wizard. The wizard couldn't jump the gap without a check, but the other two could (barely). IIRC the druid jumped and they made a rope bridge. Since they decided to use one of them as an anchor point, they had to make a Strength check to hold on. I forget what I set the difficulty at, but it wasn't particularly tough since the setup was well braced otherwise.

I wouldn't have even required a check or narrated more than just a comment except for the NPC's presence. If they'd have been running from a fight or there had been another reason for that jump to have been important, then the only reason to role would be to see what minor consequences (lost rope, lost time in a chase, etc) there were. Because "you fall and die" is not an interesting consequence that moves the narrative onward.

The fiction is the most important part. Players don't call for checks. Players say what their character is attempting, and if a check or other mechanical result is deemed important, then the DM (with player input, usually) decides what ability score is used and if a proficiency (and which one--the listed ones are only defaults) will be added, if any. I could call for any of a STR (Intimidation) or a CHA (Intimidation) or an INT (Intimidation) or just a plain CHA check depending on exactly the approach used and the outcome desired. Or no check at all--asking a guard where the nearest inn is doesn't need a check. It just happens. Climbing a tree just happens.

The reason I get a little pedantic about climbing is that it's a shibboleth. People who complain about there not being a fixed DC to climb a tree, or DMs who try to decide what the DC is to climb a tree are showing that they don't understand the system and haven't bothered to even start to learn. It's an instant credibility killer. Just like when someone badly misuses a technical term in order to look smart. It's a red flag that the speaker doesn't know what they're talking about.

That one's in black and white in the PHB. Climbing happens at half speed except in highly unusual circumstances, where the DM may (but does not have to) call for a check.

[Pex]

While I understand the general sentiment, outside of say tournaments/organized play, how often are people actually switching GMs and how often are they playing settings and worlds similar enough that whether a given door is DC 10 or DC 15 compared to another GM is more relevant than whether or not the characters are competent and capable enough for the world and game style.

That is, I’ve played in multiple campaigns at the same time before and never has it been a concern (or problem) for me that GM 1 adjudicates wooden doors in this way, while GM 2 adjudicates them another way. Which isn’t to say they did the same thing, but rather that specific DC differences were the least of the differences between the games.

I'm personally able to play once a week, twice a week if I care to. The DMs I play with can't. I don't play Adventure League. I do know the work involved setting up the game a DM needs to do. I can understand a DM not being to able to play once a week because of real life. They work. Have a wife and kids. Have a social life aside from RPGs. So that I can play once a week I play in different campaigns each individually only meeting once every two or three weeks, so I end up playing no game for one week, two games in another week, one game a week for two weeks, or whatever combination. I'm currently in three 5E games and one Pathfinder game. There were other concurrent 5E games in the past. How skills are resolved was and is different among the games. One game has DCs of 15 and 20 as common. Another uses DCs 10 and 15. A third has "Go ahead" a lot among the 10 and 15. So far at least thankfully only skills have been the problem. In any campaign it was/is done the player chose the creature summoned. One campaign didn't allow great weapon style to work on paladin smites but all the other did/do including the one where I'm the paladin.

I was in a Pathfinder game for a number of years before my current one. Obviously it's a different campaign with different characters and people so they aren't exactly the same, but as far as game play is concerned I'm playing the same game. I know what my character can do and not do. I could play my current character in the old game and the old character in this game, and I wouldn't notice a difference in how I'm playing the game.


But there are standards. They may not be standards you approve of, but that's a separate matter. I'm a little annoyed at people claiming non-existence when what they mean is that they don't like what exists.

Different actions are different, and may not be comparable. All modifiers only exist in context, and that context is bounded. The more you try to expand the system to encompass everything under the same umbrella the more you get dissonances and straight up dysfunctions. In my experience, the difficulty of various tasks varies quite strongly even when the tasks look similar. And you can always shift the level of abstraction to get a completely different result.


Honestly, I don't want a system that can be analyzed and "optimized" before I take action. The resulting "plan a perfect solution and then execute without risk" game-play bores me. I want a system that encourages taking risks, encourages keeping the action moving.

The requirements (to me) seem to be:

* Actions are rarely if ever do-or-die--the individual consequences of each roll are small even if the cumulative result is large. This means that failures due to bad luck are recoverable.
* Probabilities of success are known, but only in broad terms ("trivial", "easy", "medium", "hard", "impossible"). This combats analysis paralysis.
* Random factors are important whenever a check is called for. The scale of modifiers should rarely trivialize an important roll; if they do, no check should be called.
* Each check (successful or not) should move the scenario forward (meaning that the same tactics can't just be retried). If it can be trivially retried, don't roll.
* Making checks should be very easy for both players and DMs. Table-lookups (or memorizing tables), non-pre-computed math (conditional modifiers)--these annoy me.

My ideal flow goes something like:

1. One person describes a scene and asks "What do you do"?
2. A second person describes the action they want their character to do.
3. Together they decided how to resolve that action. They may invoke rules here, but the fictional layer is primary. If something makes sense and is fun for the table, it happens no matter what the rules say. If it doesn't make sense or would not be a fun outcome for that particular group (e.g. a sneaky one-hit kill on a boss for a group that loves tactical combat), it doesn't happen no matter what the rules say.
4. The first person describes how the scene has changed. GOTO 1.

Most of the time, I want the rules to get out of the way and let me play. I'll call on them when I need help.

Rules and mechanics are merely a prefab set of resolution mechanics that (in theory) are designed to work together. They're exactly as binding as the players want them to be. The rules serve the game, the game does not serve the rules.

I ran a game of 5e D&D with a group of complete newbies recently. Only one had ever played D&D before; the rest were new to TTRPGs entirely. I started with the advice "don't worry about the mechanics. Just tell me what you want your character to do and we'll figure out if it works." The only other mechanical advice I gave was "If I tell you to roll something, use the d20." They jumped right in and were roleplaying excellently within minutes. They used the (pregenerated) characters' personalities, abilities, backgrounds and other features in ways that I hadn't expected.

There was one small combat, but the rest was investigation and talking to people (using ability checks). I signaled difficulty with "that's going to be hard, do you want to still try?" but no numerical DCs were ever given. 90% of the time it was evident from the die roll alone whether they succeeded or failed; only sometimes did I need to actually add in the modifier. The only DCs I used were 10 and 15, with one 20. It ran smooth and system-transparent.

That's my ideal. The rules were there when they needed to be, but were otherwise transparent.


In other words player character creation choices don't matter. Roll high, succeed. Roll low, fail. Roll in the middle, it's whatever the DM feels like.


If they're asking "how hard is it to climb a tree", they've already failed at reading. Because climbing doesn't take a check unless it is unusually hard, by specific rules right in the PHB.

The guidance in the DMG is pretty clear about what easy, medium, and hard mean. The only people over seen screw it up are those who still have the 3e "must roll for everything" mentality going.

You don't think it's hard to climb a tree so won't ask for a roll, but another DM may think it is hard to climb a tree and will ask for a roll. That's the problem.

[DanyBallon]

I'm personally able to play once a week, twice a week if I care to. The DMs I play with can't. I don't play Adventure League. I do know the work involved setting up the game a DM needs to do. I can understand a DM not being to able to play once a week because of real life. They work. Have a wife and kids. Have a social life aside from RPGs. So that I can play once a week I play in different campaigns each individually only meeting once every two or three weeks, so I end up playing no game for one week, two games in another week, one game a week for two weeks, or whatever combination. I'm currently in three 5E games and one Pathfinder game. There were other concurrent 5E games in the past. How skills are resolved was and is different among the games. One game has DCs of 15 and 20 as common. Another uses DCs 10 and 15. A third has "Go ahead" a lot among the 10 and 15. So far at least thankfully only skills have been the problem. In any campaign it was/is done the player chose the creature summoned. One campaign didn't allow great weapon style to work on paladin smites but all the other did/do including the one where I'm the paladin.

I was in a Pathfinder game for a number of years before my current one. Obviously it's a different campaign with different characters and people so they aren't exactly the same, but as far as game play is concerned I'm playing the same game. I know what my character can do and not do. I could play my current character in the old game and the old character in this game, and I wouldn't notice a difference in how I'm playing the game.

A ruleset with more precise rules is not a certainty that every game will play the same. I’ve run through Sunless Citadel a great many time both as a player and a DM using the 3.P ruleset, and at no time the game played exactly the same, or would I’ve been sure it would play the same. While we used the same adventure with basicly the same ruleset, and in one game the DM asked us to roll for all task we were trying, in an other, the DM replaced the DC from the book from DC he decided would be best, in an other, the DM just handwaved skill checks at all, as it was slowing the game. In another, character that was specialized in a task, the DM would allow them to autoxsucceed without having to roll, while everyone else would need to, etc.

In many of these game we were the same group of players, but changed who was on the DM chair. The only real constant, was that every time we had fun because, we were enjoying playing together, and personifying characters from our imagination.

You can argue that a lot of these game used houserule, but I’d remind you that the rules written in the core book are only guidelines to play the game, and not strict law that you need to follow. So houseruling is also part of the game just as much as what’s written in the books.



In other words player character creation choices don't matter. Roll high, succeed. Roll low, fail. Roll in the middle, it's whatever the DM feels like.

No, your choice during character creation do matter, because, those strength and weakness you gave your character will still apply whatever the DC is. In some case the difference between a proficient character and a non-proficient one, would be thinner, but it will still exist, and in other occasion the difference will be so large that only proficient character will be able to succeed. So if you decide to be good a task, you’ll alway be better at it, whatever the DC is. And if your not proficient, then you chance of success will always be less than for a proficient character.
This is the kind of consistancy I’m looking for when making a character. I create my character to be better (or worst) at a task than others. I’m not creating characters to beat a specific DC. DC are just numbers thrown in the air and trully mean nothing.

[Pex]

Your conclusion is based on the assumption that rules-heavy vs. rules-light has some effect on whether the rules change from DM to DM. That isn't true and won't be true, until all DMs agree to run the exact same version with the exact same expansions, and the game companies agree to stop putting out expansions.

You also have more faith in the blind application of a rule written by somebody who doesn't know the exact situation you're in to the judgemnt call from a DM who does. I don't. Following that logic you get the 3.5e nonsense that in a tug-of-war (STR vs. STR), A character with STR 10 beats one with STR 18 16.5% of the time.

Enjoy the games you like, played the way you like them. But please recognize that your tastes aren't universal requirements.

Your game isn't objectively better, and my game isn't badwrongfun.

The DC to climb a tree in my current Pathfinder group is 15.

The DC to climb a tree in my previous Pathfinder group was 15.

The DC to climb a tree in my old 3E game was 15.

Different characters, different players, different campaigns, same game system accepting 3E -> Pathfinder, rules don't change.

The DC to climb a tree in my 5E paladin game is 20.

The DC to climb a tree in my 5E hexblade game is "Go ahead".

The DC to climb a tree in my 5E sorcerer game is I don't know no one has tried yet.

The DC to climb a tree in an old 5E sorcerer game was 10.

The DC to climb a tree in an old 5E game that unfortunately didn't keep together was 15.

Different characters, different players, different campaigns, same game system, rules changed depending on who is DM.

Except for the game that didn't work out because I didn't get to know the DM long enough to make a judgment, I trust and enjoyed playing with all of these DMs.





DM isn’t hiding anything from the players. Unless you do exactly the same task under the same set of condition, would the DC be the same. There is no generic tree that would have a DC 10 for everyone everytime. There is a big misunderstanding of the real meaning of DC tables. Most take the DCs writen in the tables as been set into stone, as their true meaning was to illustrate an order of gradation between different task. I.e. A tree (DC 10) is easier to climb than a brick wall (DC 15) that is easier to climb than a wall of force (DC 30).
In my example, it doesn’t mean that every tree have a climb DC of 10, it only shows that compared to a wall of force, it is much easier to climb a tree.

Why isn't it tree (DC 15) and brick wall (DC 20)? What made you say tree (DC 10) and brick wall (DC 15) that would make another DM who did DCs 15 and 20 to be playing wrong? What about the DM who says the tree is DC go ahead (like PhoenixPhyre) and the brick wall is DC (10). Are you going to say PhoenixPhyre is playing the game wrong because he says you don't need to roll to climb a tree or should PhoenixPhyre be saying you're playing the game wrong because you want a roll of DC 10? Perhaps the rule changes depending on who is DM that day?

[DanyBallon]

The DC to climb a tree in my current Pathfinder group is 15.

The DC to climb a tree in my previous Pathfinder group was 15.

The DC to climb a tree in my old 3E game was 15.

Different characters, different players, different campaigns, same game system accepting 3E -> Pathfinder, rules don't change.

The DC to climb a tree in my 5E paladin game is 20.

The DC to climb a tree in my 5E hexblade game is "Go ahead".

The DC to climb a tree in my 5E sorcerer game is I don't know no one has tried yet.

The DC to climb a tree in an old 5E sorcerer game was 10.

The DC to climb a tree in an old 5E game that unfortunately didn't keep together was 15.

Different characters, different players, different campaigns, same game system, rules changed depending on who is DM.

Except for the game that didn't work out because I didn't get to know the DM long enough to make a judgment, I trust and enjoyed playing with all of these DMs.

And what did you get from knowing that the DC will always be 15 in your 3.P games? Except for metagaming the possibility not to try something, there is absolutely no value in knowing the DC before hand.
Characters wouldn’t be adventurers if they only do what they are sure to succeed. They are adventurers because they take risk. :smallbiggrin:

[DanyBallon]

Why isn't it tree (DC 15) and brick wall (DC 20)? What made you say tree (DC 10) and brick wall (DC 15) that would make another DM who did DCs 15 and 20 to be playing wrong? What about the DM who says the tree is DC go ahead (like PhoenixPhyre) and the brick wall is DC (10). Are you going to say PhoenixPhyre is playing the game wrong because he says you don't need to roll to climb a tree or should PhoenixPhyre be saying you're playing the game wrong because you want a roll of DC 10? Perhaps the rule changes depending on who is DM that day?

You failed to get my point, the exact number doesn’t matter at all. The number is only there to give you an order of difficulty. I could have said that climbing a tree is DC 1, a brick wall is DC 2 and a wall of force is DC 3. The only thing that matter is that climbing a tree is generaly easier that climbing a brick wall, which is easier than climbing a wall of force. This is what the DCs tables represent and that almost every one don’t get as they assume that those numbers are set into stone. They aren’t, thay are just examples to give you idea of what an easy task could be, and what a tiny bit harder task is, and so on

[2D8HP]

...If a GM repeatedly refused to tell me what I need as result on the dice before I rolled, and just said "roll the dice and I'll tell you whether you succeed or not", I would refuse to play with that GM.



....Roll high, succeed. Roll low, fail. Roll in the middle, it's whatever the DM feels like.....


It may be do your tastes, but FWLIW "GM fiat" is in the tradition of the first Gamemaster of the first fantasy role-playing game:

"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Tell me what you're character is doing. I'll tell you what dice to roll" - Dave Arneson (http://boggswood.blogspot.com/2016/?m=1)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Pex, a 5e DM that says you need to roll anything to climb an average tree is not following the explicit rules in the book already. No amount of rules would fix that. Because they either didn't read, didn't understand, or refuse to follow what's already written. This is why it's a shibboleth for me--someone who makes a big deal out of this doesn't understand the system and is blaming the system for something that's not its fault.

Just like an old-school programmer can program FORTRAN in any language, a player (or DM) can play 3e in any system. Doing so in 5e is the same mistake as using a chainsaw to dig a post hole. It may work, in theory, but it's damaging to the tool and doesn't produce the best results and mostly just causes frustration. Chainsaws are not better or worse than post-hole diggers in general, they're just more or less fit for a specific purpose. Same goes for playing any system using the preconceptions from any other system. It's bound to cause needless friction.


It may be do your tastes, but FWLIW "GM fiat" is in the tradition of the first Gamemaster of the first fantasy role-playing game:

"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Tell me what you're character is doing. I'll tell you what dice to roll" - Dave Arneson (http://boggswood.blogspot.com/2016/?m=1)

Since you're the one with the most old-edition lore, I heard that in one of the first game manuals for OD&D Gygax included a comment to the effect of "don't ask us for rules or lore clarifications. Why have us do any more of your imagining for you?" Is this a valid quote, do you know? If so, do you know the original quote? True or not, this exemplifies my attitude toward rules sticklers.

[Talakeal]

And what did you get from knowing that the DC will always be 15 in your 3.P games? Except for metagaming the possibility not to try something, there is absolutely no value in knowing the DC before hand.
Characters wouldn’t be adventurers if they only do what they are sure to succeed. They are adventurers because they take risk. :smallbiggrin:

I wouldn't say that is "meta-gaming" at all. Before I moved to NM I went tide-pooling all the time, and a lot of it involved climbing over slippery vertical rock surfaces. Before climbing a rock I would always gauge the risk of falling vs. the probability of getting someplace, and if I thought the climb was likely to be beyond my skill I wouldn't even attempt it, the risk of injury is too great.

IMO PCs should judge the world in a similar manner, and assuming that they should just give it a try because "I am a hero," feels far more meta-gamey to me than weighing the risks vs rewards of the proposition.


The reason I get a little pedantic about climbing is that it's a shibboleth. People who complain about there not being a fixed DC to climb a tree, or DMs who try to decide what the DC is to climb a tree are showing that they don't understand the system and haven't bothered to even start to learn. It's an instant credibility killer. Just like when someone badly misuses a technical term in order to look smart. It's a red flag that the speaker doesn't know what they're talking about.

That one's in black and white in the PHB. Climbing happens at half speed except in highly unusual circumstances, where the DM may (but does not have to) call for a check.

That's not quite what it says though.

The exact quote is "At the DM's option climbing a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds requires a strength (athletics) check.

That isn't really "highly unusual circumstances" and a I could easily see a tree qualifying.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I wouldn't say that is "meta-gaming" at all. Before I moved to NM I went tide-pooling all the time, and a lot of it involved climbing over slippery vertical rock surfaces. Before climbing a rock I would always gauge the risk of falling vs. the probability of getting someplace, and if I thought the climb was likely to be beyond my skill I wouldn't even attempt it, the risk of injury is too great.

IMO PCs should judge the world in a similar manner, and assuming that they should just give it a try because "I am a hero," feels far more meta-gamey to me than weighing the risks vs rewards of the proposition.



That's not quite what it says though.

The exact quote is "At the DM's option climbing a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds requires a strength (athletics) check.

That isn't really "highly unusual circumstances" and a I could easily see a tree qualifying.

Can you judge things to a 5% accuracy? Not if you're most people. Most can tell in several bins of difficulty--trivial, easy but with risk, moderate risk, substantial risk, basically no chance. AKA very easy, easy, medium, hard, very hard/impossible.

Presented after saying that climbing costs double movement, that passage strongly implies that climbing checks should be the exception. The DM *may* require a check, in these types of circumstances.

The printed adventures bear this out--the DC to climb a slippery, wet cliff near a waterfall is like 17 in one adventure.

Having a check also nerfs one of the thief rogue features, which removes the movement penalty from climbing but does not modify checks.

Kids can climb trees easily. Fit people can climb trees without good limbs as long as the trees can hold them. So why should adventurers, who are already competent, have a good chance of failing? And what does it gain the game to fail and have to try again? Nothing except wasted table time.

[Rhedyn]

Can you judge things to a 5% accuracy? Not if you're most people. Most can tell in several bins of difficulty--trivial, easy but with risk, moderate risk, substantial risk, basically no chance. AKA very easy, easy, medium, hard, very hard/impossible.

Presented after saying that climbing costs double movement, that passage strongly implies that climbing checks should be the exception. The DM *may* require a check, in these types of circumstances.

The printed adventures bear this out--the DC to climb a slippery, wet cliff near a waterfall is like 17 in one adventure.

Having a check also nerfs one of the thief rogue features, which removes the movement penalty from climbing but does not modify checks.

Kids can climb trees easily. Fit people can climb trees without good limbs as long as the trees can hold them. So why should adventurers, who are already competent, have a good chance of failing? And what does it gain the game to fail and have to try again? Nothing except wasted table time. You are wrong here. It's up to the DM. There is some guidance in the PH, but "few" is ambiguous.

Now if this was basic D&D where there was no general climb skill, then you can assume normal climbing can be done by anyone and thieves only have to roll for things that are normally not climbable.

This is a case where 5e added both complexity and vagueness to the rules. Not having climb relate to an ability check would have been more clear, but then one DM couldn't make climbing a rope DC 30 for his low fantasy malnourished princess one shot and another DM couldn't make climbing up clouds a DC 5 for his metaphysical deity game.

5e's intent is that any DM can run it like their favorite version of D&D because this edition was their last shot before the line got killed and that may still be the case for the suits at Hasbro. So they went for an "all things to all people" approach.

I personally think this approach makes the game garbage because you could just play the DM's favorite version of D&D and it would be vastly better and less confusing.

[kitanas]

@ pex: would it be enough to know how competent you are if the rule was that you could always ask for the DC and get an answer, and what is the functional difference between the current 5e system and a series of tables and modifiers that create a DC range between 5-30?

[2D8HP]

....Since you're the one with the most old-edition lore, I heard that in one of the first game manuals for OD&D Gygax included a comment to the effect of "don't ask us for rules or lore clarifications. Why have us do any more of your imagining for you?" Is this a valid quote, do you know? If so, do you know the original quote? True or not, this exemplifies my attitude toward rules sticklers.


It's from Dungeons &Dragons vol. 3: The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures (1974)
page 36, which I'll quote some more from for context:

"AFTERWARD:
There are unquestionably areas which have been glossed over. While we deeply regret the necessity, space requires that we put in the essentials only, and the trimming will oftimes have to be added by the referee and his players. We have attempted to furnish an ample framework, and building should be both easy and fun. In this light, we urge you to refrain from writing for rule interpretations or the like unless you are absolutely at a loss, for everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way! On the other hand, we are not loath to answer your questions, but why have us do any more of your imagining for you? Write to us and tell about your additions, ideas, and what have you. We could always do with a bit of improvement in our refereeing."

[JoeJ]

The DC to climb a tree in my current Pathfinder group is 15.

The DC to climb a tree in my previous Pathfinder group was 15.

The DC to climb a tree in my old 3E game was 15.

Different characters, different players, different campaigns, same game system accepting 3E -> Pathfinder, rules don't change.

You climbed the same tree in three different games?



Why isn't it tree (DC 15) and brick wall (DC 20)? What made you say tree (DC 10) and brick wall (DC 15) that would make another DM who did DCs 15 and 20 to be playing wrong? What about the DM who says the tree is DC go ahead (like PhoenixPhyre) and the brick wall is DC (10). Are you going to say PhoenixPhyre is playing the game wrong because he says you don't need to roll to climb a tree or should PhoenixPhyre be saying you're playing the game wrong because you want a roll of DC 10? Perhaps the rule changes depending on who is DM that day?

That's not a different rule, it's a different tree.

[Pex]

And what did you get from knowing that the DC will always be 15 in your 3.P games? Except for metagaming the possibility not to try something, there is absolutely no value in knowing the DC before hand.
Characters wouldn’t be adventurers if they only do what they are sure to succeed. They are adventurers because they take risk. :smallbiggrin:

The ability to make an informed choice in how I create my character. I know if I want to be able to climb trees reliably I need a total of +5 climb modifier and Take 10. This goes for any skill. My arcanist in my current Pathfinder game wants to make alchemical items. Knowing the DCs of the various items tells me how many ranks I need to do so. It's my character, my choice. No need to depend on the DM making it up how hard he thinks an alchemical item should be to make where as neither of us have a clue about alchemy in real life. The DM doesn't need to concern himself about the minutiae of the numbers.


Pex, a 5e DM that says you need to roll anything to climb an average tree is not following the explicit rules in the book already. No amount of rules would fix that. Because they either didn't read, didn't understand, or refuse to follow what's already written. This is why it's a shibboleth for me--someone who makes a big deal out of this doesn't understand the system and is blaming the system for something that's not its fault.



You're missing the forest for the tree, pun intended. It's not about the specific ability to climb a tree. It's about any skill use. Anything I want to do I have no clue I can do it until the situation happens in game. When I do know, when that situation happens in another DM's game it will be a different result. The choices I make for my character are irrelevant because the ease or difficulty changes for every game. Nothing is consistent. Skill use is the most common example. Fortunate for me it hasn't been a problem for class abilities, but it has been for others in the 5E Forum.

I'm not counting opposed rolls in this, such as Perception vs Stealth. That is its own thing.


@ pex: would it be enough to know how competent you are if the rule was that you could always ask for the DC and get an answer, and what is the functional difference between the current 5e system and a series of tables and modifiers that create a DC range between 5-30?

No because it still depends on who is DM that day. I already know now that climbing trees is DC 20 in my paladin game and DC Yes in my hexblade game. My 10 ST non-proficient in Athletics 3rd level hexblade can climb as many trees as he wants. My 18 ST proficient in Athletics 9th level Sorcadin only has a 60% chance to climb a tree.


You climbed the same tree in three different games?

That's not a different rule, it's a different tree.

Every long sword deals 1d8 damage. Every Fireball deals 8d6 damage. Every cleric of any deity can cast Bless if he chooses.

[JoeJ]

Well said JoeJ, and glad to see you posting again!

Thank you. :smallsmile:


Are

Acrobatics/Athletics,

Insight/Investigation/Perception,

Nature/Survival

duplicate skills depending on different stats, or do they cover different attempts?

They aren't duplicates, but they overlap enough to allow you to choose between different approaches to the same problem. As has already been pointed out, 5e doesn't have skill checks, it has ability checks that you can apply your proficiency bonus to if you have certain skills. But you don't have to have the skill to perform the check. (That's the major difference between skill proficiencies and tool proficiencies.)


In the old days I'd just say what my PC's would try, but now the majority of DM's want me to tell them, and tell them correctly or else!

What gives?

In the old days only the DM had to know the rules (or pretend to).

Bah!

The new rules have lots of cool options and suggestions, but this new know-and-argue-RAW-all-the-freakin'-time culture that's taken over bugs me.

I agree with the Angry GM on that issue. You tell me what you are trying to accomplish and what your approach is. I'll tell you what, if anything, to roll.



Every long sword deals 1d8 damage. Every Fireball deals 8d6 damage. Every cleric of any deity can cast Bless if he chooses.

So? Would it make things easier for you if the DC for climbing every tree was 3d10?

It sounds to me like your complaint is that this tree (https://robertreport.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/pinon_tree.jpg) is treated differently than this tree (https://www.scenicwonders.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/bigstock-Sugar-pine-in-Yosemite-Nationa-23272928.jpg)? In the real world, the difficulty of climbing a tree ranges from of-course-you-can-do-it to impossible without special equipment. Having a single TN for tree climbing utterly destroys verisimilitude.

[Telok]

If they're asking "how hard is it to climb a tree", they've already failed at reading. Because climbing doesn't take a check unless it is unusually hard, by specific rules right in the PHB.

The guidance in the DMG is pretty clear about what easy, medium, and hard mean. The only people over seen screw it up are those who still have the 3e "must roll for everything" mentality going.

So what's "unusually hard"? I've been at a table where the DM had an old back injury, climging anything more than a ladder was considered hard and rated a 15+ check and nobody could jump past the default distance because the DM ruled that you could only jump as far as the book said you could.

Whether or not the D&D 5e skill setup is any good isn't what I care about here. It is an example of an inconsistent set of rules that I've found to cause problems for new DMs because it switches from specific to vague. These people can use D&D 3.x just fine, and they can use Paranoia just fine, and they can use classic Traveller just fine. They even dealt with the Hero system better than D&D 5e. The Hero system is really specific and defined while Traveller and Paranioa have some really vague parts.

I find that consistency, good explanations, and well developed examples are more important than vague/specific.

[Satinavian]

Can you judge things to a 5% accuracy? Not if you're most people. Most can tell in several bins of difficulty--trivial, easy but with risk, moderate risk, substantial risk, basically no chance. AKA very easy, easy, medium, hard, very hard/impossible.I might not be able to judge the difference between 70% and 75% but i very certainly can judge the difference between 5% failure and automatic success. And it certaily does change my everyday behavior. I do riskless stuff all the time but the risky stuff only when it is actually worth the risk.

Presented after saying that climbing costs double movement, that passage strongly implies that climbing checks should be the exception. The DM *may* require a check, in these types of circumstances.Since when has this generic topic morphed to a 5E one ? Most systems don't have a rule for automatic climbing speed. The climbing examble came from Talakeals real life experience about judging risks before attempting to do something after Dannyball posted some fixed DC numbers (to argue for more variation) without mentioning a system but which probably are not from 5E (because they do include a fixed DC of 10 for tree).

Aside from that, yes, a DM *may* require a check. And i would very much want to know if a check is required, how difficult it would roughly be and what kind of failure consequences would be likely before i decide if i even attempt to climb. That is independend from how rare the checks actually are.


Fit people can climb trees without good limbs as long as the trees can hold them.Are all adventurers in all games 'fit people' ? Isn't that exactly what the numbers on the character sheet are for to decide ?

[Pelle]

You don't think it's hard to climb a tree so won't ask for a roll, but another DM may think it is hard to climb a tree and will ask for a roll. That's the problem.

Well, it's your problem. If you are changing DM/campaign/game all the time it is understandable that you want to play with the same rules all the time. But the benefit of a flexible system is that you can adjust the rules so that they work best for your specific game. Obviously, not asking for a roll when climbing a tree is best for group 1, and asking for a roll with DC # is best for group 2. Otherwise, the DM/group would have done it differently! That's not a problem for the group, that's a benefit! If you are forced to run the game one specific way, it will limit the types of games you can run with the same system.

[Pelle]

If a GM repeatedly refused to tell me what I need as result on the dice before I rolled, and just said "roll the dice and I'll tell you whether you succeed or not", I would refuse to play with that GM.

What do DCs decided by the DM have to do with refusing to tell the players what they need to roll? [keeps reading the thread... nwm] Of course you should know the DC if your character would know! "Jumping this gap looks hard" implicitly telling the DC, or explicitly "Jumping this gap looks hard, DC 20". That is just describing the environment, which the DM always should do. However, if the character wouldn't know, I don't think the player should know the DC, but that is the same for systems with tabulated DCs as well.

Anyways, knowing the DC and consequences of winning/failing before rolling makes for a better moment at the table IMO, tensionwise.

[Pelle]

If I come over to your house to play Monopoly, I expect to understand how the dice, turns, and money work. I don't want to relearn that for every table!

If you go to board game night, would you expect to play the same game every week as well? "Tonight we will play Caverna. It is similar to Agricola which we have played a lot before, but there are some differences that you will have to learn. Both are fun though!" is this a problem as well?

I guess it depends on your expectations. At least to me, ex. D&D edition X is just the system. Each individual campaign is the game, and will use the system rules differently depending on what is suited for it. Even when playing with the same DM, I don't expect the rules to be the same for a new campaign. Although they should preferably be kept the same throughout, and it is nice to know most beforehand.

[DanyBallon]

I wouldn't say that is "meta-gaming" at all. Before I moved to NM I went tide-pooling all the time, and a lot of it involved climbing over slippery vertical rock surfaces. Before climbing a rock I would always gauge the risk of falling vs. the probability of getting someplace, and if I thought the climb was likely to be beyond my skill I wouldn't even attempt it, the risk of injury is too great.

IMO PCs should judge the world in a similar manner, and assuming that they should just give it a try because "I am a hero," feels far more meta-gamey to me than weighing the risks vs rewards of the proposition.


And you would be able to just do so, as the DM when describing the scene will give you enough detail to guess if it's too risky or not. Just like in real life, most of the time from your experience and the conditions you see you be able to evaluate correctly if you can climb or not, but sometime you'd think that it will be easy only to find out it was harder than it seemed, or that you would back off, but if you tried, you'd see that there was some handhold that wasn't visible from the ground.

So when the DM describe a 10 feet gap in the bridge and tell you that it seems easy to jump over, you have a pretty good idea that you will succeed if you try. Or if the DM describe the tree you want to climb as being very slick and slippery, you'd get that unlike most of the trees you climbed without any problem before, this one may be harder.


The ability to make an informed choice in how I create my character. I know if I want to be able to climb trees reliably I need a total of +5 climb modifier and Take 10. This goes for any skill. My arcanist in my current Pathfinder game wants to make alchemical items. Knowing the DCs of the various items tells me how many ranks I need to do so. It's my character, my choice. No need to depend on the DM making it up how hard he thinks an alchemical item should be to make where as neither of us have a clue about alchemy in real life. The DM doesn't need to concern himself about the minutiae of the numbers.

If you want to be good creating alchemical items, just put ranks in the appropriate skill, you'll definitely be better than one that didn't. You may not succeed every time, but you will do way more often that someone with less rank that you. That's all you need to know when creating a character. Numbers are for the DM to know if you succeed at the task you describe you want your character to do.



Since when has this generic topic morphed to a 5E one ? Most systems don't have a rule for automatic climbing speed. The climbing example came from Talakeals real life experience about judging risks before attempting to do something after Dannyball posted some fixed DC numbers (to argue for more variation) without mentioning a system but which probably are not from 5E (because they do include a fixed DC of 10 for tree).
In fact I just pulled numbers from thin air, to show that DC numbers means nothing outside showing a gradation of difficulty based on task we are knowledgeable in real life. Most of us understand that climbing a tree is easier than climbing a brick wall, or that reading a children book in your language is easier than reading a book about complex geometry in a foreign language. And this is true whether you play 3.x, Pathfinder, 4e or 5e. The problem is that some players seeing there was given DC examples, instead of using them as the intent (relative values showing a gradation in difficulty), they took the numbers printed as absolute value that will always be the same.

[PhoenixPhyre]

1) I might not be able to judge the difference between 70% and 75% but i very certainly can judge the difference between 5% failure and automatic success. And it certaily does change my everyday behavior. I do riskless stuff all the time but the risky stuff only when it is actually worth the risk.

2) Since when has this generic topic morphed to a 5E one ? Most systems don't have a rule for automatic climbing speed. The climbing examble came from Talakeals real life experience about judging risks before attempting to do something after Dannyball posted some fixed DC numbers (to argue for more variation) without mentioning a system but which probably are not from 5E (because they do include a fixed DC of 10 for tree).

3) Aside from that, yes, a DM *may* require a check. And i would very much want to know if a check is required, how difficult it would roughly be and what kind of failure consequences would be likely before i decide if i even attempt to climb. That is independend from how rare the checks actually are.

4) Are all adventurers in all games 'fit people' ? Isn't that exactly what the numbers on the character sheet are for to decide ?

1) But that's encoded already in the difficulty. No one's claiming that the DM should hide all that information--they're saying that requiring that the DM give the specific TN (and all the steps needed to get there?) is meta-gaming. Something that has no chance of interesting failure shouldn't be rolled. Nigh-impossible things should be flagged before you attempt. But a descriptive difficulty is plenty sufficient, as that's what you get in real life (if even that--most people are crap at understanding their actual capabilities).

2) This particular sub-thread (and the whole stinking thread, to be accurate) has been about claiming that 5e's "skill system" is crap. Pex has been on that rant now for...a very long time. And that's the particular part I was pushing against. And 5e does have an auto-climb rule.

3) And any decent DM in any decent system should flag those things before hand. Doing otherwise would be playing gotcha games, which I despise. That's system independent.

4) 5e presumes competence unless you specifically demonstrate otherwise. Characters are presumed to be capable of all the basic tasks of adventuring--anything a normal person in the setting can do reliably, an adventurer can do without rolling a check. Checks are for the extraordinary, the things that people can't do reliably. That's what makes rogues (and to a lesser degree bards) outstanding with skills--they get actual class features that say "you can do reliably what no one else can and can reach heights of skill (with less reliability) that are superhuman." For everyone else, checks are supposed to carry a large chance of failure. Otherwise they shouldn't be rolled at all and should automatically either succeed (most of the time) or fail (if the task truly makes no sense in the fiction). The fiction always controls--if something makes sense to happen (or makes no sense not to happen), it just happens. Rules and mechanics notwithstanding.

3e, for an example on the other side, has a baseline of incompetence--someone with 0 skill ranks (or for interesting things anything less than max skill ranks) can't do even basic tasks. That screws over those who either have poor class skill lists or who don't get enough points to do their designed job, let alone anything else (poor fighters). With the culture of "everything has a defined DC" the game has, they had to include bandaids like Take 10 or Take 20 so that the setting maintains a semblance of normality--otherwise the farmers can't farm.

[Pex]

You failed to get my point, the exact number doesn’t matter at all. The number is only there to give you an order of difficulty. I could have said that climbing a tree is DC 1, a brick wall is DC 2 and a wall of force is DC 3. The only thing that matter is that climbing a tree is generaly easier that climbing a brick wall, which is easier than climbing a wall of force. This is what the DCs tables represent and that almost every one don’t get as they assume that those numbers are set into stone. They aren’t, thay are just examples to give you idea of what an easy task could be, and what a tiny bit harder task is, and so on

The numbers matter. I feel confident that any DM I play with would agree a tree is easier than a brick wall to climb, but one DM will go DC 10 for the tree and DC 15 for the wall, another will do DC Yes for the tree and DC 20 for the wall, another could do DC 20 for the tree and DC 25 for the wall. That's the problem. The ability of my character to climb a tree or brick wall depends on who is DM that day, not my choice for my character on how well I want to climb trees and brick walls.






So? Would it make things easier for you if the DC for climbing every tree was 3d10?

It sounds to me like your complaint is that this tree (https://robertreport.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/pinon_tree.jpg) is treated differently than this tree (https://www.scenicwonders.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/bigstock-Sugar-pine-in-Yosemite-Nationa-23272928.jpg)? In the real world, the difficulty of climbing a tree ranges from of-course-you-can-do-it to impossible without special equipment. Having a single TN for tree climbing utterly destroys verisimilitude.

How much damage does a longsword do in the real world? A Fireball? How does a Bless work?

It's a game. DC 15 climb trees is an abstraction. Are you as DM going to say this tree id DC 15, the next one is DC 14, that one is DC 25, that one is Yes the one over here is No for every single tree in the gameworld? DC 15 is a starting point. It's generic. It's minutiae. It reflects the difference that the 1st level 12 ST Rogue who put a rank into climb (with class skill bonus) can climb trees with ease when not distracted by combat because he knows how to climb while the 1st level 12 ST Cleric who wants to climb a tree needs to make an effort, i.e. has to roll to succeed because Take 10 is not enough. When a particular tree the DM specifically placed in an encounter which the players don't know he did that is DC Higher Than 15 it's special in someway., When even the rogue fails to climb it at Take 10, he knows in character there's something odd about it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's a game. DC 15 climb trees is an abstraction. Are you as DM going to say this tree id DC 15, the next one is DC 14, that one is DC 25, that one is Yes the one over here is No for every single tree in the gameworld? DC 15 is a starting point. It's generic. It's minutiae. It reflects the difference that the 1st level 12 ST Rogue who put a rank into climb (with class skill bonus) can climb trees with ease when not distracted by combat because he knows how to climb while the 1st level 12 ST Cleric who wants to climb a tree needs to make an effort, i.e. has to roll to succeed because Take 10 is not enough. When a particular tree the DM specifically placed in an encounter which the players don't know he did that is DC Higher Than 15 it's special in someway., When even the rogue fails to climb it at Take 10, he knows in character there's something odd about it.

But that's exactly what 5e says, just with less busy-work and with better results for everyone. The default is DC: yes. If there's a check at all, it's something special. That saves tons of time and gets to the same result, while allowing adventurers to actually be competent at a wide variety of normal things without requiring scarce build resources just to do your job.

So why is one vague and "relearning how to play the game every time" and the other is normal and good?

[Rhedyn]

2) This particular sub-thread (and the whole stinking thread, to be accurate) has been about claiming that 5e's "skill system" is crap. Pex has been on that rant now for...a very long time. And that's the particular part I was pushing against. And 5e does have an auto-climb rule.
But it is "crap". It's the worse skill system of any edition of D&D, including the ones that didn't have skill systems.

In the event of a 6e, the one aspect of the game I expect to receive the biggest overhaul is the skill system.

[Satinavian]

4) 5e presumes competence unless you specifically demonstrate otherwise. Characters are presumed to be capable of all the basic tasks of adventuring--anything a normal person in the setting can do reliably, an adventurer can do without rolling a check. Checks are for the extraordinary, the things that people can't do reliably. That's what makes rogues (and to a lesser degree bards) outstanding with skills--they get actual class features that say "you can do reliably what no one else can and can reach heights of skill (with less reliability) that are superhuman." For everyone else, checks are supposed to carry a large chance of failure. Otherwise they shouldn't be rolled at all and should automatically either succeed (most of the time) or fail (if the task truly makes no sense in the fiction). The fiction always controls--if something makes sense to happen (or makes no sense not to happen), it just happens. Rules and mechanics notwithstanding.

3e, for an example on the other side, has a baseline of incompetence--someone with 0 skill ranks (or for interesting things anything less than max skill ranks) can't do even basic tasks. That screws over those who either have poor class skill lists or who don't get enough points to do their designed job, let alone anything else (poor fighters). With the culture of "everything has a defined DC" the game has, they had to include bandaids like Take 10 or Take 20 so that the setting maintains a semblance of normality--otherwise the farmers can't farm.Personally i think every D&D skill system that i know (starting with some 2nd Ed stuff) is pretty bad.

Yes, take 10 is a bandaid. But it is not a bandaid needed because of the baseline. It is a bandaid needed because span and variance of the skill test model is ridicolously high compared to the span of skill levels for most of the population. In better systems you would get the results you expect if you take skill tests for everyday tasks. If a task is way below your skill level the success should organically follow from the statistics of the test. And you should not jump between 50% and 100% success rate depending on a Take 10 equivalent. Not that risk management rules are bad per se (i kind of like Splittermond here where you can buy higher average outcome with a fumble chance representing risky moves). But a skill system that produces nearly always nonsensical results and thus has heavily to rely on fiat or other ways of avoiding actual tests is a bad system.

That does not mean you should roll everything. You should still avoid rolling things that are utterly uninteresting or obvious. But good rules should match those expected obvious results.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Personally i think every D&D skill system that i know (starting with some 2nd Ed stuff) is pretty bad.

Yes, take 10 is a bandaid. But it is not a bandaid needed because of the baseline. It is a bandaid needed because span and variance of the skill test model is ridicolously high compared to the span of skill levels for most of the population. In better systems you would get the results you expect if you take skill tests for everyday tasks. If a task is way below your skill level the success should organically follow from the statistics of the test. And you should not jump between 50% and 100% success rate depending on a Take 10 equivalent. Not that risk management rules are bad per se (i kind of like Splittermond here where you can buy higher average outcome with a fumble chance representing risky moves). But a skill system that produces nearly always nonsensical results and thus has heavily to rely on fiat or other ways of avoiding actual tests is a bad system.

That does not mean you should roll everything. You should still avoid rolling things that are utterly uninteresting or obvious. But good rules should match those expected obvious results.

That depends on what you believe the rules are for. I don't want rules that think they're a persistent model of the fiction--the fiction is too complex to model with playable rules. You either get a slog of rules or you get dysfunctions everywhere (or more commonly both). In addition, rules that try to model the fiction at any kind of granularity tend to be restrictive--they set expectations that there is only one kind of tree (or that there's a default tree). Neither of which is a true statement.

I want a set of rules that provide a fast, fun, resilient set of guidelines to help me resolve common actions. My ideal is for the rules to only be involved when invoked directly. If you can't go whole sessions without invoking a rule directly or stopping play to figure something out, it's too constraining. The rules are part of the game, not part of the fiction. We use rules to coordinate actions and provide a shared language of action resolution, not to make claims about what's possible in the setting. I should be able to play a game with a bunch of brand new players without ever referencing a rulebook. They should be able to pick it up on the fly.

5e gets close, but isn't perfect. The DMG's guidance on skills and ability checks could certainly stand to be consolidated--there's lots of guidance, it's just scattered around a bit. The designers could have been more explicit about the major changes in underlying philosophy, the whens and whys, from previous editions. That's been the stumbling block I've seen--DMs and players with lots of experience in previous editions or other games that follow the "must roll for everything" philosophy trying to import their prior mechanical experience in, as if 5e were just 3.99e. Which it's not. There are pieces that share the same names but play separate roles. The level of granularity the system was designed for is quite different. The encounter-design philosophy is different. The core intra-tabe dynamic is different.

[Satinavian]

That depends on what you believe the rules are for. I don't want rules that think they're a persistent model of the fiction--the fiction is too complex to model with playable rules. You either get a slog of rules or you get dysfunctions everywhere (or more commonly both). In addition, rules that try to model the fiction at any kind of granularity tend to be restrictive--they set expectations that there is only one kind of tree (or that there's a default tree). Neither of which is a true statement.And i do want to use the rules to model the fiction. To avoid slog of rules, you have the tools "abstraction" and "level of detail".


I want a set of rules that provide a fast, fun, resilient set of guidelines to help me resolve common actions. My ideal is for the rules to only be involved when invoked directly. If you can't go whole sessions without invoking a rule directly or stopping play to figure something out, it's too constraining. The rules are part of the game, not part of the fiction. We use rules to coordinate actions and provide a shared language of action resolution, not to make claims about what's possible in the setting. I should be able to play a game with a bunch of brand new players without ever referencing a rulebook. They should be able to pick it up on the fly.
What constitutes "fun" is very much in the eye of the beholder. As for "fast", rulings instead of rules are not necessarily fast. They spark discussions at least as often as bad rules. And they mean that a player can't really plan his moves off turn because he has to ask the GM about chances and risks for things he might not even try in the end. Imho clear rules that can work without GM input tend to lead to a faster game.
That's been the stumbling block I've seen--DMs and players with lots of experience in previous editions or other games that follow the "must roll for everything" philosophy trying to import their prior mechanical experience in, as if 5e were just 3.99e. I don't advocate "must roll for everything". I advocate "In a good system it should not matter much whether you make a test or use your judgement"

[King of Nowhere]

You're missing the forest for the tree, pun intended. It's not about the specific ability to climb a tree. It's about any skill use. Anything I want to do I have no clue I can do it until the situation happens in game.
This is overly dramatic. Yes, the DC may change somewhat from one table to the other, but I *do* know what I can do from chatacter creation. I invested a lot in jump, so I can jump a lot. How much exactly? that I do not know, but I know that i will succeed almost automatically unless I am trying something insanely difficult. setting the DC a bit higher or lower is not going to change that my character is good at jumping.

Plus, asking for consistency is just impossible. Every task is different. Every tree is different. If you are trying intimidate to persuade an enemy to surrender, you will never get a consistent result because it will always depend on the specific situation: how confident the enemy is that he'll not lose, how motivated he is to take risks to not surrender, what he expects to happen if he surrends, how stubboorn this specific enemy is... the DC is going to change all the time. And this applies to most skills. the only things that can be serialized are crating the same object or breaking the same model of door.

[Max_Killjoy]

I’m not saying that the chetive and clumsy wizard (STR 8, DEX 9) should be trying to jump over disregarding his abilities, he may try, but his probability of failing are greater. The DM may even ask for an Strength (Acrobatics) check, to jump over, in addition for the Dexterity check for landing safely.

What I’m saying, is that way too often, someone won’t even try because they didn’t max out a skill. People focus to much on numbers, instead of RolePlaying their characters.


Well, duh -- why should they try if they aren't good enough to have a reasonable chance of success?

Making sure that the character as a "fictional person" and as a "numerical representation" line up is a good thing, and if they do, then the player understanding the numbers is in line with the character understanding their own capabilities, and thus in line with roleplaying.

This idea that "the math" or "the numbers" are somehow antithetical to roleplaying is based on a mistaken perception of the underlying problems -- it's just a reflection of the false-dichotomy debate between the extreme ends of "game" and "story".




DM isn’t hiding anything from the players. Unless you do exactly the same task under the same set of condition, would the DC be the same. There is no generic tree that would have a DC 10 for everyone everytime. There is a big misunderstanding of the real meaning of DC tables. Most take the DCs writen in the tables as been set into stone, as their true meaning was to illustrate an order of gradation between different task. I.e. A tree (DC 10) is easier to climb than a brick wall (DC 15) that is easier to climb than a wall of force (DC 30).

In my example, it doesn’t mean that every tree have a climb DC of 10, it only shows that compared to a wall of force, it is much easier to climb a tree.


First of all, don't presume this is a 5e debate, or even a general D&D debate, that's only being used as an example. There are many other systems that handle these issues in many different ways.

Second, I'm not asking for a fixed list of universal DCs or whatever for any system, regardless of how it handles this. I'm pushing for any system to lay out "all else being equal, here are examples of typically difficulties or modifiers for things you might do with this ability or skill." I'm not asserting that all trees are the same, I am asserting that all trees are close enough together that there should be a basic starting point that players can expect to start from --and whether or not "climb a tree" is a no-roll automatic or not in any particular system misses the point entirely.

[kyoryu]

This is overly dramatic. Yes, the DC may change somewhat from one table to the other, but I *do* know what I can do from chatacter creation. I invested a lot in jump, so I can jump a lot. How much exactly? that I do not know, but I know that i will succeed almost automatically unless I am trying something insanely difficult. setting the DC a bit higher or lower is not going to change that my character is good at jumping.

Plus, asking for consistency is just impossible. Every task is different. Every tree is different. If you are trying intimidate to persuade an enemy to surrender, you will never get a consistent result because it will always depend on the specific situation: how confident the enemy is that he'll not lose, how motivated he is to take risks to not surrender, what he expects to happen if he surrends, how stubboorn this specific enemy is... the DC is going to change all the time. And this applies to most skills. the only things that can be serialized are crating the same object or breaking the same model of door.

It's also worth noting that some games don't allow you to buy variable levels of skills, really, at least not in the way that D&D does.

In Fate, for instance, by default you get one skill at +4, two at +3, three at +2, and four at +1. You can also add a stunt to situationally (like, maybe a few times a session) give you a +2 on top of that.

So the very real problem of "how much Jump do I need to invest in to be good?" doesn't really exist. If you want to be *really really good* at that kind of stuff, you take Athletics at a +4, and maybe a stunt if you really want to go overboard. But that's the max you can do, so you can't continue to dump extra resources into the skill.

And since the GM *knows* the bounds of skills, it's very easy for them to gauge appropriate difficulties, *especially* since the difficulties have adjectives attached to them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's also worth noting that some games don't allow you to buy variable levels of skills, really, at least not in the way that D&D does.

In Fate, for instance, by default you get one skill at +4, two at +3, three at +2, and four at +1. You can also add a stunt to situationally (like, maybe a few times a session) give you a +2 on top of that.

So the very real problem of "how much Jump do I need to invest in to be good?" doesn't really exist. If you want to be *really really good* at that kind of stuff, you take Athletics at a +4, and maybe a stunt if you really want to go overboard. But that's the max you can do, so you can't continue to dump extra resources into the skill.

And since the GM *knows* the bounds of skills, it's very easy for them to gauge appropriate difficulties, *especially* since the difficulties have adjectives attached to them.

In 5e, most checks are ability checks (which just use the ability modifier). Some checks include proficiency, but you don't buy separate ranks of skills--you just say "I have proficiency in X, so I add a level-dependent bonus to it whenever it's used." So if you want to be good at jumping, you put proficiency in Athletics. For all except the rogues and bards, that's it. No further choices. These values only change when you reach certain level breakpoints and when you decide to bump an ability score (and there's a low cap on the ability scores). So modifiers are between -1 and +11, except for bards and rogues (and 20th level barbarians, but...).

Rogues and bards get a class feature that lets them pick two skills they already have proficiency in and use 2x Proficiency instead of 1x. Rogues get two more of these later; bards don't. Rogues also get a class feature that lets them treat a 9- on the d20 as a 10 on any ability check they're proficient in. Bards get a class feature that lets them add half proficiency to anything they're not proficient in.

So rogues and bards are the ones that can do things other people can't (that's their schtick) and rogues are the ones who can do things reliably (minimum roll at level 20 with +0 ability modifier is 16, with expertise and a max ability score it's 27).

[Rhedyn]

5e skills only do what the DM thinks they can do.

Your class features related to them are meaningless.

[Max_Killjoy]

It may be do your tastes, but FWLIW "GM fiat" is in the tradition of the first Gamemaster of the first fantasy role-playing game:

"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Tell me what you're character is doing. I'll tell you what dice to roll" - Dave Arneson (http://boggswood.blogspot.com/2016/?m=1)


Frankly, what Gygax or Arneson thought 40 years ago means absolutely nothing to me.

"You don't need to know the numbers" strikes me very much as a reflection of a very outdated view of the "proper" roles of GM or player, the same outdated view that gave us "only GMs needed to know the rules" and "this entire book is only for GMs".

[Talakeal]

So rogues and bards are the ones that can do things other people can't (that's their schtick) and rogues are the ones who can do things reliably (minimum roll at level 20 with +0 ability modifier is 16, with expertise and a max ability score it's 27).

IMO this is the fatal flaw of 5e.

If I want to play a character who is actually good st something I have to play a rogue or a bard (or a paladin in the case of saving throws) and if I want to play a character who is actually bad st something or a proffesional first and an asventurer second I should just find a different game.

Likewise as a DM it is impossible to make a challenge which a skilled person can do reliably but which an average joe has little to no chance to succeed at, which happens irl all the time for highly complex tasks.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Frankly, what Gygax or Arneson thought 40 years ago means absolutely nothing to me.

"You don't need to know the numbers" strikes me very much as a reflection of a very outdated view of the "proper" roles of GM or player, the same outdated view that gave us "only GMs needed to know the rules" and "this entire book is only for GMs".

As long as you realize that that's pure personal taste, not some objective fact.

There is no "proper role of the GM or player" as a universal truth. There are a whole spectrum of valid answers. Preference is not truth.

[PhoenixPhyre]

IMO this is the fatal flaw of 5e.

If I want to play a character who is actually good st something I have to play a rogue or a bard (or a paladin in the case of saving throws) and if I want to play a character who is actually bad st something or a proffesional first and an asventurer second I should just find a different game.

Likewise as a DM it is impossible to make a challenge which a skilled person can do reliably but which an average joe has little to no chance to succeed at, which happens irl all the time for highly complex tasks.

First, that's entirely preference. It's just like saying that GURPS is fatally flawed since GURPS doesn't do non-gritty combat very well. A shovel is not better than a pitchfork--it's just different.

D&D has always been about adventurers who go places and do things that others can't. It's always been about strong archetypes. Not liking this is not the same as it being flawed.

And you can totally do a challenge that would be very difficult for an average joe but possible reliably for someone skilled--there's even an example straight in the PHB. Picking a lock is impossible without proficiency in thieves tools; for someone with proficiency it's a DC 15 (by default) DEX (thieves tools) check.

Ability checks are to model a small subset of adventuring things, by design. If a player wants to do a very specific dance he doesn't know? He fails. If he does know the dance? It's probably going to be a Charisma (Performance) check, but only to see how the audience reacts. If a player has "is a skilled belly-dancer in X culture" as part of the established fiction, then he's only going to have to even roll for belly-dancing in an unusual case with interesting consequences for failure. Someone who doesn't have that background might be able to do it, once, by sheer luck. The core is that the fiction controls, not the mechanics. The mechanics are to support the game interface, not to control the fiction.

[Max_Killjoy]

This is overly dramatic. Yes, the DC may change somewhat from one table to the other, but I *do* know what I can do from chatacter creation. I invested a lot in jump, so I can jump a lot. How much exactly? that I do not know, but I know that i will succeed almost automatically unless I am trying something insanely difficult. setting the DC a bit higher or lower is not going to change that my character is good at jumping.

Plus, asking for consistency is just impossible. Every task is different. Every tree is different. If you are trying intimidate to persuade an enemy to surrender, you will never get a consistent result because it will always depend on the specific situation: how confident the enemy is that he'll not lose, how motivated he is to take risks to not surrender, what he expects to happen if he surrenders, how stubborn this specific enemy is... the DC is going to change all the time. And this applies to most skills. the only things that can be serialized are crating the same object or breaking the same model of door.


Knowing the range of difficulty for doing something is just as important as knowing the character's score in the related ability/skill/whatever. If the hardest thing to climb is an X difficulty, and the player wants their character to reliably be able to climb the most difficult things, then they need to know what that will take numerically.

I have not noticed anywhere here asserting that every {thing} is identical, or that every {thing} should be identical -- what some of us are asking for is to know what a typical {thing} typically takes typically climb, and what range of variance there is, so that we know how to make our character as good at climbing in the system as they're suppose to be in "the fiction".

I have not noticed anyone here demanding that all NPCs be equally as hard to persuade in all situations no matter what. What I AM saying is that given the personality/attitude of an NPC, the situation, the approach, etc... the players should have some idea of what they're up against mechanically.




It's also worth noting that some games don't allow you to buy variable levels of skills, really, at least not in the way that D&D does.

In Fate, for instance, by default you get one skill at +4, two at +3, three at +2, and four at +1. You can also add a stunt to situationally (like, maybe a few times a session) give you a +2 on top of that.

So the very real problem of "how much Jump do I need to invest in to be good?" doesn't really exist. If you want to be *really really good* at that kind of stuff, you take Athletics at a +4, and maybe a stunt if you really want to go overboard. But that's the max you can do, so you can't continue to dump extra resources into the skill.

And since the GM *knows* the bounds of skills, it's very easy for them to gauge appropriate difficulties, *especially* since the difficulties have adjectives attached to them.


How big is a +1 vs a +4 in that system? That is, compared to the rest of the inputs, how big of a variable between characters is that?

Is there no method for advancement that would allow a skill to be raised from +X to +Y? Or to add another skill at +X during the course of a campaign?


There are other systems that give a fixed range of difficulties, such as HERO, but in that case the base difficulty (the roll X or less TN on 3d6) always comes from the character's Characteristic and Skill, not the situation -- the situation applies modifiers.

[Max_Killjoy]

As long as you realize that that's pure personal taste, not some objective fact.

There is no "proper role of the GM or player" as a universal truth. There are a whole spectrum of valid answers. Preference is not truth.


In this case, the "tell me what your character is doing so I can tell you if you succeed based on things only I know" and "don't you dare read that book/section, it's for the eyes of us elite gamers known as Dungeon Masters, not for the likes of you plebes" attitude strikes me as the one that's asserting the existence of an objectively "proper" role for GM and for other players.

But yeah, I also happen to think that attitude should have died 40-some years ago, forgotten and alone, buried in an unmarked grave.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In this case, the "tell me what your character is doing so I can tell you if you succeed based on things only I know" and "don't you dare read that book/section, it's for the eyes of us elite gamers known as Dungeon Masters, not for the likes of you plebes" attitude strikes me as the one that's asserting the existence of an objectively "proper" role for GM and for other players.

But yeah, I also happen to think that attitude should have died 40-some years ago, forgotten and alone, buried in an unmarked grave.

Be careful with that--you might need a bonfire permit for that burning straw there.

But really, anyone who claims that their way is the only right way is wrong. Full stop. I happen to enjoy not having to think about the numbers. Numbers can be optional for all I care--it's how I gamed for many years with my brother. Others prefer numbers. And they're right as well.

I haven't read anyone saying that the DM should (or must) actively conceal numbers, just that the numbers aren't always important. The hyperbole is entirely your doing here.

Shovels are not forks; they're both useful but for different purposes.

[Max_Killjoy]

Be careful with that--you might need a bonfire permit for that burning straw there.

But really, anyone who claims that their way is the only right way is wrong. Full stop. I happen to enjoy not having to think about the numbers. Numbers can be optional for all I care--it's how I gamed for many years with my brother. Others prefer numbers. And they're right as well.

I haven't read anyone saying that the DM should (or must) actively conceal numbers, just that the numbers aren't always important. The hyperbole is entirely your doing here.

Shovels are not forks; they're both useful but for different purposes.



In response to the bolded part, the below certainly reads like "the players shouldn't know the numbers" to me, especially the part about the DM secretly setting the DC.





This is a perfect example of what I feel wrong when playing D&D nowadays.

You shouldn't base your actions on ability/skills modifer or DC, but on what your character wants to do.

Way to often a round goes like this:
DM: As you walk on the bridge, you notice that a part as crumbled and there's a 10ft wide open hole preventing from safe crossing. What do you want to to?
Player: I roll Athletic to see if I can jump over. What's the DC?

or
DM: As you walk on the bridge, you notice that a part as crumbled and there's a 10ft wide open hole preventing from safe crossing. What do you want to to?
Player: Oh crap! My character isn't proficient in Athletics, I'll try to find a way around instead.


it should be done like this instead:


DM: As you walk on the bridge, you notice that a part as crumbled and there's a 10ft wide open hole preventing from safe crossing. What do you want to to?
Player: My character step back a few yards and take a run and jump over onto the other side.
DM: With your running distance it's pretty easy to jump over, but there's is some rubbles on the other side making it harder to land safely. Please make a Dexterity check to see if you land without falling prone.
Player: I'm proficient in Acrobatics, may I use my Acrobaticks modifier instead?
DM: Yes sure do! DM secretly set the DC to 15 as he believes that the rubbles, width of chasm, running speed and weather conditions makes it a medium task
Player: rolls 12 + 5 mod 17! do I succeed.
DM: You perfectly land on your feet.
DM: Player 2, you've seen player 1 character jump over the hole and land on his feet without much problem, what are you going to do?
...


So no, this isn't a straw man or hyperbole.

If that poster wishes to clarify / correct my reading of their post, we'll see.


See also:



It may be do your tastes, but FWLIW "GM fiat" is in the tradition of the first Gamemaster of the first fantasy role-playing game:

"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Tell me what you're character is doing. I'll tell you what dice to roll" - Dave Arneson (http://boggswood.blogspot.com/2016/?m=1)



And what did you get from knowing that the DC will always be 15 in your 3.P games? Except for metagaming the possibility not to try something, there is absolutely no value in knowing the DC before hand.
Characters wouldn’t be adventurers if they only do what they are sure to succeed. They are adventurers because they take risk. :smallbiggrin:



If you want to be good creating alchemical items, just put ranks in the appropriate skill, you'll definitely be better than one that didn't. You may not succeed every time, but you will do way more often that someone with less rank that you. That's all you need to know when creating a character. Numbers are for the DM to know if you succeed at the task you describe you want your character to do.


Bold added for emphasis.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In response to the bolded part, the below certainly reads like "the players shouldn't know the numbers" to me, especially the part about the DM secretly setting the DC.






So no, this isn't a straw man or hyperbole.

If that poster wishes to clarify / correct my reading of their post, we'll see.

That's not how I read that. I read that as the DM doesn't have to share that information, not that he shouldn't. The two are completely separate, and your accusation was pure "DMs hate players and lord over the poor plebs" hyperbole.

[Max_Killjoy]

That's not how I read that. I read that as the DM doesn't have to share that information, not that he shouldn't. The two are completely separate, and your accusation was pure "DMs hate players and lord over the poor plebs" hyperbole.

See edit above for additional examples just from this thread, of "there's no reason for you to know the DC" or "I'm not telling you the DC". More as I find them.

To me, "you don't need to know the DC" or "you tell me what you're trying to do, and I'll tell you what to roll, and then tell you if you succeed" are by their nature statements that the GM shouldn't tell the players, and the players shouldn't know.

One of them goes so far as to refer to knowing the DC beforehand as "metagaming", and to state that those who care about the odds of success shouldn't be "adventuring" in the first place.

What I'm responding to might not be what you're saying, but don't tell me that no one in the thread is saying it.

[Pex]

Well, it's your problem. If you are changing DM/campaign/game all the time it is understandable that you want to play with the same rules all the time. But the benefit of a flexible system is that you can adjust the rules so that they work best for your specific game. Obviously, not asking for a roll when climbing a tree is best for group 1, and asking for a roll with DC # is best for group 2. Otherwise, the DM/group would have done it differently! That's not a problem for the group, that's a benefit! If you are forced to run the game one specific way, it will limit the types of games you can run with the same system.

It's a problem for some players because they don't play with only one group forever and shouldn't have to relearn how to play the game depending on who is DM. Campaign plot points are different. Party make up is different. That is what makes one group's game different from another. The rules should not be.


If you go to board game night, would you expect to play the same game every week as well? "Tonight we will play Caverna. It is similar to Agricola which we have played a lot before, but there are some differences that you will have to learn. Both are fun though!" is this a problem as well?

I guess it depends on your expectations. At least to me, ex. D&D edition X is just the system. Each individual campaign is the game, and will use the system rules differently depending on what is suited for it. Even when playing with the same DM, I don't expect the rules to be the same for a new campaign. Although they should preferably be kept the same throughout, and it is nice to know most beforehand.

I expect the rules of a boardgame to be the same no matter whether I play it with friends, play it again with friends three months later, at a gaming convention, or a happenstance meeting when I'm on vacation across the country.

[Max_Killjoy]

It's a problem for some players because they don't play with only one group forever and shouldn't have to relearn how to play the game depending on who is DM. Campaign plot points are different. Party make up is different. That is what makes one group's game different from another. The rules should not be.

And if they are different, then it should be a matter of clear house rules and campaign setup, not ambiguity or vagueness in the rules.

(And I say that as someone who likes toolkit rules, like HERO, that are customized for the specific setting and campaign -- but those choices and variations are made clear up front, not buried in the session-to-session course of play.)

[Pex]

If you want to be good creating alchemical items, just put ranks in the appropriate skill, you'll definitely be better than one that didn't. You may not succeed every time, but you will do way more often that someone with less rank that you. That's all you need to know when creating a character. Numbers are for the DM to know if you succeed at the task you describe you want your character to do.




I don't care what anyone else does. I want to know I can make whatever it is I want, and I do need to know it.


1) But that's encoded already in the difficulty. No one's claiming that the DM should hide all that information--they're saying that requiring that the DM give the specific TN (and all the steps needed to get there?) is meta-gaming. Something that has no chance of interesting failure shouldn't be rolled. Nigh-impossible things should be flagged before you attempt. But a descriptive difficulty is plenty sufficient, as that's what you get in real life (if even that--most people are crap at understanding their actual capabilities).

But different DMs have different opinions on whether some task has an interesting failure or not to require a roll or not. That's the problem. I'll never have to roll to climb a tree in your game, but I will have to roll in some other DM's game no matter how insistent you believe no one should ever need to roll to climb a tree. That other DM is not playing the game wrong. He simply has a different opinion than you on the difficulty of climbing a tree. It is that different opinion that causes me to have to relearn how to play the game based on who is DM that day.



2) This particular sub-thread (and the whole stinking thread, to be accurate) has been about claiming that 5e's "skill system" is crap. Pex has been on that rant now for...a very long time. And that's the particular part I was pushing against. And 5e does have an auto-climb rule.

Yes, but I originally did not specify a particular gaming system, though one can infer. I think it was you who was the first to mention 5E by name.


3) And any decent DM in any decent system should flag those things before hand. Doing otherwise would be playing gotcha games, which I despise. That's system independent.

4) 5e presumes competence unless you specifically demonstrate otherwise. Characters are presumed to be capable of all the basic tasks of adventuring--anything a normal person in the setting can do reliably, an adventurer can do without rolling a check. Checks are for the extraordinary, the things that people can't do reliably. That's what makes rogues (and to a lesser degree bards) outstanding with skills--they get actual class features that say "you can do reliably what no one else can and can reach heights of skill (with less reliability) that are superhuman." For everyone else, checks are supposed to carry a large chance of failure. Otherwise they shouldn't be rolled at all and should automatically either succeed (most of the time) or fail (if the task truly makes no sense in the fiction). The fiction always controls--if something makes sense to happen (or makes no sense not to happen), it just happens. Rules and mechanics notwithstanding.

But different DMs have different opinions of competence. They disagree on when some task can be done automatically without need to roll and when a roll is required. When they do require a roll they disagree on what the target number is. That makes the rules depend on who is DM that day.


3e, for an example on the other side, has a baseline of incompetence--someone with 0 skill ranks (or for interesting things anything less than max skill ranks) can't do even basic tasks. That screws over those who either have poor class skill lists or who don't get enough points to do their designed job, let alone anything else (poor fighters). With the culture of "everything has a defined DC" the game has, they had to include bandaids like Take 10 or Take 20 so that the setting maintains a semblance of normality--otherwise the farmers can't farm.

It's not a "band-aid". It's the whole point feature. It's what allows players and DMs to know when a character can autosucceed on some task by an unbiased arbitration. It's the rules' out of game explanation for why PCs or NPCs for that matter can automatically do in game whatever it is they're doing to Take 10 or Take 20. For players it's also a means to not have to roll dice repeatedly. When a character cannot succeed by Take 10, that's also a feature. It means that character is not skilled enough to accomplish that task with ease. He has to make an effort to do that task. That effort is represented by the die roll.


But that's exactly what 5e says, just with less busy-work and with better results for everyone. The default is DC: yes. If there's a check at all, it's something special. That saves tons of time and gets to the same result, while allowing adventurers to actually be competent at a wide variety of normal things without requiring scarce build resources just to do your job.

So why is one vague and "relearning how to play the game every time" and the other is normal and good?

Because different DMs have different tolerance levels of when something is DC Yes and when something needs a roll, so my choices for my character are irrelevant. It depends on who is DM. In 3E/Pathfinder, my choices matter because I build upon a set threshold. I know what resources to put into my character to succeed on some task automatically. It won't matter who is DM.


This is overly dramatic. Yes, the DC may change somewhat from one table to the other, but I *do* know what I can do from chatacter creation. I invested a lot in jump, so I can jump a lot. How much exactly? that I do not know, but I know that i will succeed almost automatically unless I am trying something insanely difficult. setting the DC a bit higher or lower is not going to change that my character is good at jumping.

Plus, asking for consistency is just impossible. Every task is different. Every tree is different. If you are trying intimidate to persuade an enemy to surrender, you will never get a consistent result because it will always depend on the specific situation: how confident the enemy is that he'll not lose, how motivated he is to take risks to not surrender, what he expects to happen if he surrends, how stubboorn this specific enemy is... the DC is going to change all the time. And this applies to most skills. the only things that can be serialized are crating the same object or breaking the same model of door.

Every Fireball cast from a 3rd level spell slot deals 8d6 damage. Every non-magical normal long sword deals 1d8 damage. Every Battle Master maneuver when you first get it lets you roll a d8 and add the number rolled to something. Every 1st level character has +2 Proficiency. Every class feature DC is 8 + relevant ability score modifier + proficiency bonus. Every game. Every DM. (Natural obligatory mention except for that one DM who house rules otherwise, but that's irrelevant.) It's not so far fetched to want skill resolutions to have the same consistency.

[DanyBallon]

In response to the bolded part, the below certainly reads like "the players shouldn't know the numbers" to me, especially the part about the DM secretly setting the DC.

So no, this isn't a straw man or hyperbole.

If that poster wishes to clarify / correct my reading of their post, we'll see.

My point wasn't about hiding information from the player. But not needing to know the DCs beforehand, and making call on the fly.
If you want, the DM could have as well decide to publicly set the DC, the point remains that there is no official DC for every situation that will come up. It's up to the DM to make a call based on the situation and from the actions the player wants to do. In order to facilitate the player in choosing what his character will do, the DM should provide as much information as possible, either within the description or answering the players questions about what his character is seeing, listening, feeling, etc. Descriptors as easy, hard, relatively hard, fairly impossible, etc. are a good way to help the player make his decision. No actual DC are needed.

Using 5e ruleset for the following example. If a player tell the DM that he wants to jump from the floor onto a chair. The DM may just say that it's so easy to do that the character don't need to make any check. Now if the player tell the DM that his character wants to jump onto the bar, the DM may decide that it's harder to do so, and that a Strength (Athletics) check is requiered, but is still quite easy to do for the character and set the DC to 10. In an other scenario the player tells the DM that his character wants to jump onto a chair sitting on top of the bar while landing on a single foot. Either the DM rules out that such a feat is impossible, or tell the player that the he's looking for a very difficult and complex task and ask the player for a Strength (Athletics) check and a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. Both checks using a DC 20.

Let say that this particular character repeated this jumping trick many time (the character spend way too much time in taverns... :smallwink:) the DM may decide to lower both DCs, or that it now only need a Strength or Dexterity check, to represent the experience the character did get trying repeatedly this trick over and over. The DM could as well consider that this specific trick will always use the same checks and DCs, but the proficiency bonus increase will be what represents the character gaining experience.


When I speak about "Numbers are for the DM..." I refer that they are a tool for the DM to figure the outcomes of the actions the players are doing. It's not about taking anything away from the players. It's just that without the DM assigning DC a +5 in a skill means absolutely nothing...

[DanyBallon]

I don't care what anyone else does. I want to know I can make whatever it is I want, and I do need to know it.


So you are basically asking your DM to set DC for any imaginable alchemical items you may think about, and that before you may even think about it?

[Max_Killjoy]

My point wasn't about hiding information from the player. But not needing to know the DCs beforehand, and making call on the fly.
If you want, the DM could have as well decide to publicly set the DC, the point remains that there is no official DC for every situation that will come up. It's up to the DM to make a call based on the situation and from the actions the player wants to do. In order to facilitate the player in choosing what his character will do, the DM should provide as much information as possible, either within the description or answering the players questions about what his character is seeing, listening, feeling, etc. Descriptors as easy, hard, relatively hard, fairly impossible, etc. are a good way to help the player make his decision. No actual DC are needed.

Using 5e ruleset for the following example. If a player tell the DM that he wants to jump from the floor onto a chair. The DM may just say that it's so easy to do that the character don't need to make any check. Now if the player tell the DM that his character wants to jump onto the bar, the DM may decide that it's harder to do so, and that a Strength (Athletics) check is requiered, but is still quite easy to do for the character and set the DC to 10. In an other scenario the player tells the DM that his character wants to jump onto a chair sitting on top of the bar while landing on a single foot. Either the DM rules out that such a feat is impossible, or tell the player that the he's looking for a very difficult and complex task and ask the player for a Strength (Athletics) check and a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. Both checks using a DC 20.

Let say that this particular character repeated this jumping trick many time (the character spend way too much time in taverns... :smallwink:) the DM may decide to lower both DCs, or that it now only need a Strength or Dexterity check, to represent the experience the character did get trying repeatedly this trick over and over. The DM could as well consider that this specific trick will always use the same checks and DCs, but the proficiency bonus increase will be what represents the character gaining experience.


What I'm saying is that those descriptors should mean something consistent, across campaigns and across situations and across skills.

There doesn't need to be an official DC (or difficulty or modifier) for every possible situation -- there needs to be an official in-system framework for determining those things based on the situation.

Trying to cover every possible situation with a specific official number is doomed to fail, will likely be inconsistent across the span of skills and tasks anyway, and also amounts to "giving a man a fish" -- but that's not what I'm asking for, never has been.

Creating a consistent and robust framework, with sufficient examples in each Skill, so that the GM can fairly and impartially set the numbers (TN, modifiers, or both) in whatever situation comes up is equivalent to "teaching a man to fish". And that is what I'm asking for.

The problem (IMO) is that many systems utterly fail to do the latter -- regardless of whether they try to do the former in endless detail OR put it all on the GM's shoulders to decide what is "hard" or "easy", AND what those things mean mechanically in the system. (That is, in the widest-open systems, even if two GMs decide that a task is "hard", one might call the DC a 12 and one might call it a 16.)

[Pelle]

It's a problem for some players because they don't play with only one group forever and shouldn't have to relearn how to play the game depending on who is DM. Campaign plot points are different. Party make up is different. That is what makes one group's game different from another. The rules should not be.


I agree it is a problem for some players, and that is understandable. I do believe it is a bad expectation that you shouldn't have to relearn anything. I want every game to be different, because that means the DM/group is playing the game in a way that is best for that situation. And yes, the rules employed, when to call for checks, determination of DCs, etc should probably be discussed in advance if that is very important to you.



I expect the rules of a boardgame to be the same no matter whether I play it with friends, play it again with friends three months later, at a gaming convention, or a happenstance meeting when I'm on vacation across the country.

Yes, agreed. But to me, ex. D&D 5e is just a system, not a board game. It can be used to play games in many different ways. To me, that flexibility is a positive of the system. Your preference may be different, but if you don't like that a system is flexible, just don't play/buy it. There is no correct or wrong.

[JoeJ]

How much damage does a longsword do in the real world?

It ranges from <1% to 100% of the target's hit points.


A Fireball?

None at all. The real world doesn't have fireball spells.


How does a Bless work?

You pray and the deity of your choice does whatever they think best. If they exist.


It's a game. DC 15 climb trees is an abstraction. Are you as DM going to say this tree id DC 15, the next one is DC 14, that one is DC 25, that one is Yes the one over here is No for every single tree in the gameworld?

Of course I am. Why wouldn't I? But not for every tree in the world, only those very few that a PC wants to climb.


DC 15 is a starting point. It's generic. It's minutiae. It reflects the difference that the 1st level 12 ST Rogue who put a rank into climb (with class skill bonus) can climb trees with ease when not distracted by combat because he knows how to climb while the 1st level 12 ST Cleric who wants to climb a tree needs to make an effort, i.e. has to roll to succeed because Take 10 is not enough. When a particular tree the DM specifically placed in an encounter which the players don't know he did that is DC Higher Than 15 it's special in someway., When even the rogue fails to climb it at Take 10, he knows in character there's something odd about it.

And in the system you're complaining about you do know the difficulty to climb trees because it's the same range as the difficulty to do anything. If your modifier is +29 or better you can climb anything that's climbable, anytime you want. If it's at least +10 but less that +29, then on the best day of your life you can climb anything climbable but it's not a sure thing. If you can keep trying over and over again, however, you'll eventually succeed. If your modifier is less than +10 there are some things that you simply can't climb, even though some other, more skilled person might be able to.

So if you're looking for a target benchmark, a +10 modifier will give you a minimum 5% chance to climb anything that can be climbed at all, on your first attempt. And a guarantee of climbing it if you are able to keep trying. With a Strength of 20 and proficiency in Athletics, you'll hit that at 13th level. With the same Strength plus expertise in Athletics you can do it 5th.


I do get, however, that you prefer having a default TN that the DM changes whenever they like to having the DM set the TN without a default.

[DanyBallon]

What I'm saying is that those descriptors should mean something consistent, across campaigns and across situations and across skills.

There doesn't need to be an official DC (or difficulty or modifier) for every possible situation -- there needs to be an official in-system framework for determining those things based on the situation.

Trying to cover every possible situation with a specific official number is doomed to fail, will likely be inconsistent across the span of skills and tasks anyway, and also amounts to "giving a man a fish" -- but that's not what I'm asking for, never has been.

Creating a consistent and robust framework, with sufficient examples in each Skill, so that the GM can fairly and impartially set the numbers (TN, modifiers, or both) in whatever situation comes up is equivalent to "teaching a man to fish". And that is what I'm asking for.

The problem (IMO) is that many systems utterly fail to do the latter -- regardless of whether they try to do the former in endless detail OR put it all on the GM's shoulders to decide what is "hard" or "easy", AND what those things mean mechanically in the system. (That is, in the widest-open systems, even if two GMs decide that a task is "hard", one might call the DC a 12 and one might call it a 16.)

I'll speak only for 5e, but those descriptor are well defined.

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

There you have it, so every time a DM tell you it's a hard task, then you can expect a DC 20 (I used the word "expect" on purpose, because some DM may decide it's a bit harder than hard but not as hard as very hard and give the task a DC 21, or the other way around, but most DM are just fine using the default 5 increment). Such a system could be easily adapted to 3.P and 4e as well.

What Pex is complaining about, is that one DM may decide that a task is easy, while another DM may decide that the same task is Hard. It's as if every mechanical lock of type A, be it brand new or rusty, would have the same DC, that crafting a potion is always the same difficulty no mater if you have access to better ingredients or not. This works well in computer games or board game, because of the finite environment they are about, but D&D and most RPGs are about limitless options bound only by your imagination. The rules are mostly guidelines to mechanically interpret some aspect like combat, challenge, overcoming traps and the like...

[King of Nowhere]

I don't care what anyone else does. I want to know I can make whatever it is I want, and I do need to know it.

But different DMs have different opinions on whether some task has an interesting failure or not to require a roll or not.
But different DMs have different opinions of competence. They disagree on when some task can be done automatically without need to roll and when a roll is required. When they do require a roll they disagree on what the target number is. That makes the rules depend on who is DM that day.

Every Fireball cast from a 3rd level spell slot deals 8d6 damage. Every non-magical normal long sword deals 1d8 damage. Every Battle Master maneuver when you first get it lets you roll a d8 and add the number rolled to something. Every 1st level character has +2 Proficiency. Every class feature DC is 8 + relevant ability score modifier + proficiency bonus. Every game. Every DM. (Natural obligatory mention except for that one DM who house rules otherwise, but that's irrelevant.) It's not so far fetched to want skill resolutions to have the same consistency.


Knowing the range of difficulty for doing something is just as important as knowing the character's score in the related ability/skill/whatever. If the hardest thing to climb is an X difficulty, and the player wants their character to reliably be able to climb the most difficult things, then they need to know what that will take numerically.


Ok, I agree with this spirit. I have nothing against it. I only fear when it is taken to the extreme and, for the sake of reliablity, you have loads and loads of reference tables and everyhting that is not in them is banned. Because "wanting skills to have the same consistency" reallly does require tables and tables of typical DC and modifiers.

Well, there is a good compromise between "DM does whatever he pleases" and "spend whole session calculating a DC" that goes mostly "find a rough reference and then wing it".

[Pex]

It's a problem for some players because they don't play with only one group forever and shouldn't have to relearn how to play the game depending on who is DM. Campaign plot points are different. Party make up is different. That is what makes one group's game different from another. The rules should not be.



And if they are different, then it should be a matter of clear house rules and campaign setup, not ambiguity or vagueness in the rules.

(And I say that as someone who likes toolkit rules, like HERO, that care customized for the specific setting and campaign -- but those choices and variations are made clear up front, not buried in the session-to-session course of play.)

Accepted.


So you are basically asking your DM to set DC for any imaginable alchemical items you may think about, and that before you may even think about it?

No, that's the game designers' job presuming crafting alchemical items is something that can be done in the game and printed in the rules. Oh, look, that's what Pathfinder does.

Oh, look, that's what 5E does too in Xanathar's Guide with respect to tool use. There's still a personal bother the player can't choose to Take 10 on his own, but at least the DC tables is some help of neutral arbitration of difficulty levels. The rules do reemphasize that the DM doesn't have to require a roll and the character can just do it, but it's still DM whim whether that happens. Me wanting the player to have the ability to choose to Take 10 for these particular tool use options is now a matter of personal preference being disappointed 5E doesn't allow that, not an issue of vagueness since 5E is not being vague here.


I'll speak only for 5e, but those descriptor are well defined.

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

There you have it, so every time a DM tell you it's a hard task, then you can expect a DC 20 (I used the word "expect" on purpose, because some DM may decide it's a bit harder than hard but not as hard as very hard and give the task a DC 21, or the other way around, but most DM are just fine using the default 5 increment). Such a system could be easily adapted to 3.P and 4e as well.

What Pex is complaining about, is that one DM may decide that a task is easy, while another DM may decide that the same task is Hard. It's as if every mechanical lock of type A, be it brand new or rusty, would have the same DC, that crafting a potion is always the same difficulty no mater if you have access to better ingredients or not. This works well in computer games or board game, because of the finite environment they are about, but D&D and most RPGs are about limitless options bound only by your imagination. The rules are mostly guidelines to mechanically interpret some aspect like combat, challenge, overcoming traps and the like...

I expect a well made lock to have a higher DC than a rusty poorly made one. What I object to is the rusty poorly made lock be DC Open in one game, DC 10 in a second game, DC 15 in a third game and DC 20 in a fourth game. The well made lock will always have the higher DC within a game, but it will be DC 10 in the first game, DC 15 in the second game, DC 20 in the third game, and DC 25 in the fourth game. These are for generic locks.

The King's Vault lock and such can be DC 30. For the Adventure Plot Point lock, that DC will be DC Find The Key Nothing Else Works or DC Solve The Riddle or DC Player Creativity Giving Rule Of Cool or whatever.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'll speak only for 5e, but those descriptor are well defined.

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

There you have it, so every time a DM tell you it's a hard task, then you can expect a DC 20 (I used the word "expect" on purpose, because some DM may decide it's a bit harder than hard but not as hard as very hard and give the task a DC 21, or the other way around, but most DM are just fine using the default 5 increment). Such a system could be easily adapted to 3.P and 4e as well.

What Pex is complaining about, is that one DM may decide that a task is easy, while another DM may decide that the same task is Hard. It's as if every mechanical lock of type A, be it brand new or rusty, would have the same DC, that crafting a potion is always the same difficulty no mater if you have access to better ingredients or not. This works well in computer games or board game, because of the finite environment they are about, but D&D and most RPGs are about limitless options bound only by your imagination. The rules are mostly guidelines to mechanically interpret some aspect like combat, challenge, overcoming traps and the like...

IMO "the rusty lock and the new lock have the same difficulty" wouldn't be Pex's position, and it's certainly not my position.

What I'm talking about is:

* that lacking a framework, different GMs may decide that what is effectively the same task (not superficially, but actually) has a widely disparate difficulty.
* that lacking a framework, different GMs may decide that what is effectively the same condition / situation creates radically different modifiers.
* that lacking a framework, the same GM may not be consistent or coherent in how they assign difficulties or modifiers.
* that lacking any in-system consistency or coherence about what "hard" or "easy" or whatever actually mean outside of "has this difficulty", it's harder to gauge what the scale should be in novel situations.

[Knaight]

In my experiance people don't like being questioned. Trying to discuss a ruling is really hard to do without it sounding like a challenge, which then turns the discussion into an rgument, which often escalates into an out and out fight.
This gets back into some of the quirks (and to be honest, dysfunctions) of your group. In this case, it's some weird proclivity to escalate a disagreement into a fight.


This is a perfect example of what I feel wrong when playing D&D nowadays.

You shouldn't base your actions on ability/skills modifer or DC, but on what your character wants to do.

What your character can do and what your character wants to do are two very different things. Lyra Silvertongue and Conan the Barbarian are going to take very different approaches to solving problems, because they have very different skill sets. The same thing applies to D&D adventurers.


For example, look at the HEX system. When calculating each skill, besides min/max, you will also generate a "normal" value. This is the TN (and everything below that), that a character doesn't have to roll to "pass".
Nice to see HEX getting some appreciation here (from someone other than me).

Coming back around to the climbing a tree thing, I think it highlights two very different mindsets on the player side, which are largely incomparable. Pex has been talking about the value of a standard DC for each and every tree, with the differences between trees an irrelevant detail that can be glossed over because it's a game. Said value is real, and it does help define characters in the world without involving a DM, lead to game side similarities between different campaigns, etc.

For me though, and a lot of other people with a similar mindset, the idea that every tree is equivalent and that the difficulty of climbing one should be the same in a pine forest as a redwood forest is a verisimilitude shattering piece of nonsense, the idea that different games under different GMs should be similar tantamount to saying that authors shouldn't have distinct styles and thus flatly ridiculous and frustratingly stifling, as is the idea of a game so tightly defined that it works for this.

[Pex]

IMO "the rusty lock and the new lock have the same difficulty" wouldn't be Pex's position, and it's certainly not my position.

What I'm talking about is:

* that lacking a framework, different GMs may decide that what is effectively the same task (not superficially, but actually) has a widely disparate difficulty.
* that lacking a framework, different GMs may decide that what is effectively the same condition / situation creates radically different modifiers.
* that lacking a framework, the same GM may not be consistent or coherent in how they assign difficulties or modifiers.
* that lacking any in-system consistency or coherence about what "hard" or "easy" or whatever actually mean outside of "has this difficulty", it's harder to gauge what the scale should be in novel situations.

Exactly. You wrote in words what I wrote in DC number examples.

[Max_Killjoy]

What your character can do and what your character wants to do are two very different things. Lyra Silvertongue and Conan the Barbarian are going to take very different approaches to solving problems, because they have very different skill sets. The same thing applies to D&D adventurers.


To expand on that with a rather silly example, let's say it's a campaign set in a fairly grounded/gritty world. A character wants to fly -- like literally just flap their arms and fly. No amount of wanting to is ever going to make that happen -- and they very likely know this. Basing the characters' actions on "what they want" isn't a great hard-and-fast rule.




Nice to see HEX getting some appreciation here (from someone other than me).

Coming back around to the climbing a tree thing, I think it highlights two very different mindsets on the player side, which are largely incomparable. Pex has been talking about the value of a standard DC for each and every tree, with the differences between trees an irrelevant detail that can be glossed over because it's a game. Said value is real, and it does help define characters in the world without involving a DM, lead to game side similarities between different campaigns, etc.

For me though, and a lot of other people with a similar mindset, the idea that every tree is equivalent and that the difficulty of climbing one should be the same in a pine forest as a redwood forest is a verisimilitude shattering piece of nonsense, the idea that different games under different GMs should be similar tantamount to saying that authors shouldn't have distinct styles and thus flatly ridiculous and frustratingly stifling, as is the idea of a game so tightly defined that it works for this.


Maybe I'm misreading Pex here, but, at least from my perspective, what I want isn't a world of identical trees -- I want similar trees to have similar mechanical/numerical representations.

[PhoenixPhyre]

To expand on that with a rather silly example, let's say it's a campaign set in a fairly grounded/gritty world. A character wants to fly -- like literally just flap their arms and fly. No amount of wanting to is ever going to make that happen -- and they very likely know this. Basing the characters' actions on "what they want" isn't a great hard-and-fast rule.

Maybe I'm misreading Pex here, but, at least from my perspective, what I want isn't a world of identical trees -- I want similar trees to have similar mechanical/numerical representations.

Honestly, that seems like a distinction without a difference. Defaults are powerful and sticky. Especially if there's a norm of "use the defaults unless you have a good reason", you'll end up with overwhelming (to me at least) similarity. And that's worse in my book than drown healing.

[Rhedyn]

I'll speak only for 5e, but those descriptor are well defined.

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

There you have it, so every time a DM tell you it's a hard task, then you can expect a DC 20 (I used the word "expect" on purpose, because some DM may decide it's a bit harder than hard but not as hard as very hard and give the task a DC 21, or the other way around, but most DM are just fine using the default 5 increment). Such a system could be easily adapted to 3.P and 4e as well.

What Pex is complaining about, is that one DM may decide that a task is easy, while another DM may decide that the same task is Hard. It's as if every mechanical lock of type A, be it brand new or rusty, would have the same DC, that crafting a potion is always the same difficulty no mater if you have access to better ingredients or not. This works well in computer games or board game, because of the finite environment they are about, but D&D and most RPGs are about limitless options bound only by your imagination. The rules are mostly guidelines to mechanically interpret some aspect like combat, challenge, overcoming traps and the like...
Kind of a useless definitions if I want to know what the DC should be as a DM and I don't build my worlds in an MMO style zone of difficulty.

[Pex]

Coming back around to the climbing a tree thing, I think it highlights two very different mindsets on the player side, which are largely incomparable. Pex has been talking about the value of a standard DC for each and every tree, with the differences between trees an irrelevant detail that can be glossed over because it's a game. Said value is real, and it does help define characters in the world without involving a DM, lead to game side similarities between different campaigns, etc.

For me though, and a lot of other people with a similar mindset, the idea that every tree is equivalent and that the difficulty of climbing one should be the same in a pine forest as a redwood forest is a verisimilitude shattering piece of nonsense, the idea that different games under different GMs should be similar tantamount to saying that authors shouldn't have distinct styles and thus flatly ridiculous and frustratingly stifling, as is the idea of a game so tightly defined that it works for this.

Not quite. Maybe in effect but not in reason. It's not enough to tell the DM when you think a task is Easy set the DC to be 10. Talk about every task being the same. Every task that is Easy in any 5E game is DC 10. The problem is what is easy differs among the DMs, so the same task will have different target numbers. What I want is a common standard. Tell DMs everywhere that climbing a tree is a moderate task, so DC 15. A typical dungeon wall is hard, so DC 20. Now, when a PC wants to climb a brick wall the DM and players can figure it's harder than climbing a tree because it lacks good grips but easier than a stone dungeon wall because there is some grip to grab onto and feet to place, so say DC 17. If it's outside and raining it's slippery so roll with Disadvantage. That's DM adjudication, but it's based off something concrete pun not intended. Another DM might say roll with a -2 penalty instead of Disadvantage for being slippery, but at least everyone knows why the numbers are what they are. It's not going to be DC 15 in one game, DC 20 in another, DC No in a third because it's raining, or whatever.

However, even before Xanathar 5E is not completely without guidelines. The trouble is the few that exist are all over the place instead of consolidated in one or two pages, and they're in the DMG. Players don't have them to reference when creating their characters. For example, the Difficulty Class table is on page 238 of the DMG. It's 6 pages later when you're given an example DC tables (which is what I've been asking for) for Tracking. The next page has an example DC table for Conversation reactions. The next page has Object AC and then hit points soon after. It would have been nice to have all these tables closer together and in the Player's Handbook too if not exclusively so players know what's going on and what target numbers to reach should they want their character to be good at such things.

Alright, so let's make a deal. I can take back my claim that 5E offers no guidelines. There do exist some neutral arbitration DC examples of some stuff. The problem is they're hard to find and players do not get ready access. My opinion is it's unfortunate there aren't such guidelines for all the skills in a readily available place players can reference. You have to acknowledge that 5E does indeed offer those defined DC examples to be consistent among the different DMs and their gaming groups. It's not the default assumption that DMs are supposed to make everything up at their whim because no two things are exactly the same, but the DM is encouraged to do that for some things. It's expected that the generic tracking DC for dirt or grass is 15 for any game with the accompanying modifiers of +5 DC per day day since the creature passed and -5 DC if a trail was left such as blood, but one DM might think climbing a tree is so easy it's DC Yes but another says it's not so DC 15.

In other words, both sides are only getting half of what they want so 5E is annoying us both. Let's team up and complain to the Powers That Be.

[Knaight]

Kind of a useless definitions if I want to know what the DC should be as a DM and I don't build my worlds in an MMO style zone of difficulty.

There's no need for a zone of difficulty or anything like it - you just need to be able to qualitatively reason about specific circumstances. Just because you personally seem to have trouble doing this doesn't mean the definitions are useless. It means that you personally can't use them.


Alright, so let's make a deal. I can take back my claim that 5E offers no guidelines. There do exist some neutral arbitration DC examples of some stuff. The problem is they're hard to find and players do not get ready access. My opinion is it's unfortunate there aren't such guidelines for all the skills in a readily available place players can reference. You have to acknowledge that 5E does indeed offer those defined DC examples to be consistent among the different DMs and their gaming groups. It's not the default assumption that DMs are supposed to make everything up at their whim because no two things are exactly the same, but the DM is encouraged to do that for some things. It's expected that the generic tracking DC for dirt or grass is 15 for any game with the accompanying modifiers of +5 DC per day day since the creature passed and -5 DC if a trail was left such as blood, but one DM might think climbing a tree is so easy it's DC Yes but another says it's not so DC 15.

In other words, both sides are only getting half of what they want so 5E is annoying us both. Let's team up and complain to the Powers That Be.
I'm on board with this. There's a couple of edge cases where 5e suddenly decides to go super specific, there's Xanathar's operating on what are almost different design principles, etc. That particular tracking DC also runs right into many of my issues with 3.5, which is that everywhere a table of discrete DCs is used they usually at least make some sense, but whenever you're applying a formula of some sort it starts to get really stupid really quickly.

Plus, you've argued this stuff with me enough before to know that I don't like 5e; I just like it better than other D&D editions.

[Talakeal]

This gets back into some of the quirks (and to be honest, dysfunctions) of your group. In this case, it's some weird proclivity to escalate a disagreement into a fight.

Maybe so. But this is a phenomenon I have seen in multiple gaming groups as well as in school and work, and in personal relationships with me friends and family; and often times I am not even involved except as a passive observer. Heck, a quick scan of these very forums should show you plenty of instances of honest discussion quickly descending into an out and out flame war before being locked.


First, that's entirely preference. It's just like saying that GURPS is fatally flawed since GURPS doesn't do non-gritty combat very well. A shovel is not better than a pitchfork--it's just different.

D&D has always been about adventurers who go places and do things that others can't. It's always been about strong archetypes. Not liking this is not the same as it being flawed.

And you can totally do a challenge that would be very difficult for an average joe but possible reliably for someone skilled--there's even an example straight in the PHB. Picking a lock is impossible without proficiency in thieves tools; for someone with proficiency it's a DC 15 (by default) DEX (thieves tools) check.

Ability checks are to model a small subset of adventuring things, by design. If a player wants to do a very specific dance he doesn't know? He fails. If he does know the dance? It's probably going to be a Charisma (Performance) check, but only to see how the audience reacts. If a player has "is a skilled belly-dancer in X culture" as part of the established fiction, then he's only going to have to even roll for belly-dancing in an unusual case with interesting consequences for failure. Someone who doesn't have that background might be able to do it, once, by sheer luck. The core is that the fiction controls, not the mechanics. The mechanics are to support the game interface, not to control the fiction.

I know its just my preference, that's why I started my previous post with "IMO". Still, again in my opinion, any RPG that utterly fails are created a reasonable facsimile of a real person is deeply flawed.

[Knaight]

Maybe so. But this is a phenomenon I have seen in multiple gaming groups as well as in school and work, and in personal relationships with me friends and family; and often times I am not even involved except as a passive observer. Heck, a quick scan of these very forums should show you plenty of instances of honest discussion quickly descending into an out and out flame war before being locked.

These forums are an example of internet strangers communicating via text though, some of whom actively dislike each other - a group of friends who routinely meet in person should really be better than that. The cultures people find themselves in can vary highly, but yours are coming across as fairly extremely confrontational and weirdly hostile, from the descriptions of gaming groups and now from how that seems to be a broader cultural standard.

[Rhedyn]

There's no need for a zone of difficulty or anything like it - you just need to be able to qualitatively reason about specific circumstances. Just because you personally seem to have trouble doing this doesn't mean the definitions are useless. It means that you personally can't use them.

I do trouble doing it, but such a "system" is completely useless to me. I can make rules, I don't run systems FOR the rules it wants me to write. It's why I lean on wanting more complexity rather than more vagueness but I am personally more of a fan of mid-crunch systems (which 5e technically is by being rules heavy for combat/spells and rules vacant for basically everything else).

[Knaight]

I do trouble doing it, but such a "system" is completely useless to me. I can make rules, I don't run systems FOR the rules it wants me to write. It's why I lean on wanting more complexity rather than more vagueness but I am personally more of a fan of mid-crunch systems (which 5e technically is by being rules heavy for combat/spells and rules vacant for basically everything else).

All of which is entirely reasonable as a preference, and none of which is a matter of objective design quality. A simple framework just works better for people for whom making those qualitative assessments isn't at all an issue, but dealing with crunchy rules is an imposition for some reason - both of which can be a matter of preference as much as ability.

[JoeJ]

It would have been nice to have all these tables closer together and in the Player's Handbook too if not exclusively so players know what's going on and what target numbers to reach should they want their character to be good at such things.[/COLOR]

What do you mean by reaching target numbers to be good at things? That doesn't really make sense in the context of 5e skill proficiencies. Your ability modifier is determined solely by your ability score, and your proficiency modifier by your level. Skill proficiencies are very broad and they're binary: you either have proficiency or you don't.

[Kane0]

Doesnt bother me at all, unless the DM turns killer and starts saying ‘you can certainly try’ with a twisted grin every time i ask.

[1337 b4k4]

The DC to climb a tree in my 5E paladin game is 20.

The DC to climb a tree in my 5E hexblade game is "Go ahead".

The DC to climb a tree in my 5E sorcerer game is I don't know no one has tried yet.

The DC to climb a tree in an old 5E sorcerer game was 10.

The DC to climb a tree in an old 5E game that unfortunately didn't keep together was 15.

Different characters, different players, different campaigns, same game system, rules changed depending on who is DM.

Except for the game that didn't work out because I didn't get to know the DM long enough to make a judgment, I trust and enjoyed playing with all of these DMs.

Again though, with the caveat that I understand the reasoning behind the objection, how often is this actually a problem. Not "how often are the DCs different between different GMs, but how often is that DC being different a problem? How often have you gone to build a character with one set of expectations, and found that you failed to create the character you wanted? And to clarify, 3.x is well known for "trap options" so I'm specifically asking for "the GMs decisions on the DCs that were in their domain to decide broke your character expectations". And for those times that it was a problem, how big, was it:

1) "hey, I wanted my character to be able to do X, but this build doesn't work with the way you have DCs set, can we change that?"
2) "hey, I wanted my character to be able to do X, but this build doesn't work with the way you have DCs set, I'm going to rearrange/reoll"
3) "hey, I wanted my character to be able to do X, but this build doesn't work with the way you have DCs set, and we can't seem to compromise and it's ruining my fun / this is happening all the time and we're not on the same page at all with DCs and it's ruining my fun

Because to me, and in my experience, trying to hammer down DCs in the rules and enforce them across all tables falls into that 80% work for 20% benefit category of rule design.


5e skills only do what the DM thinks they can do.

Your class features related to them are meaningless.

Nonsense, if you invest in skills, proficiencies or features, you will still be better than someone who didn't regardless of whether the GM sets the DCs at 5 or at 20.


In this case, the "tell me what your character is doing so I can tell you if you succeed based on things only I know" and "don't you dare read that book/section, it's for the eyes of us elite gamers known as Dungeon Masters, not for the likes of you plebes" attitude strikes me as the one that's asserting the existence of an objectively "proper" role for GM and for other players.

But yeah, I also happen to think that attitude should have died 40-some years ago, forgotten and alone, buried in an unmarked grave.

See I read it as more of a "stop worrying about what it says on your character sheet and get in your character's head. I've seen way to many players, new and old alike, get bogged down in the specifics of their character sheet. In 3.x it was a lot of players looking for X on their sheet and if it wasn't there they assumed they couldn't do X. In 4e there was a lot of choice paralysis. Same with GURPS games, I've had players spend their off turn time and even a large chunk of their on turn time pouring over their sheet trying to decide which item was the best bang for their buck coming up. And while I know that some people enjoy that, I've had enough experiences with players being turned off systems and TTRPGs in general because they felt like they had to read/understand and comprehend a sheet that let's face it can be as intimidating as tax paperwork just to begin playing the game.

I know I often come across like a Dungeon World obsessive here, but I've found for these players, taking the DW approach, which boiled down really is "tell me what you want to do, I'll tell you what to roll" is a much better experience for them. To use an analogy, I work in software development. I came in at one job where up until that point, all the client had ever done was work with off the shelf software. Now OTS software has a number of great advantages including knowing exactly what you're going to get and when. But it also has a number of disadvantages, including trapping you into seeing things only through the lens of that software. When I came on board, my team was responsible for designing a new system in house. It took literal MONTHS of working with the client before they finally understood "tell me what you want the system to be able to do, and I'll make it work", because for years they were trying to figure out what feature or combination of features from their OTS package would do what they wanted. Now again, custom software has disadvantages, it takes time to develop, you need to maintain your own IT support, not every software developer is high quality, but it's as equally valid and sometimes a much better solution than OTS software. So it is with TTRPGs, a full and complete and specific rules set has advantages, but it sometimes leads players into thinking too much about how they get the system to do what they want it to do, rather than what they want their character to do.

And I see this in experienced players too. In fact just today I was listening to an AP podcast when one of the players asked the GM "Can I roll a knowledge check to see if I know X?". Now I as a reader, and frankly all of the players know that unless there is absolutely no way in hell the character would ever know X, the person GMing that game always lets their players roll for something like that. So to me the question should have been "What do I know about X". And frankly speaking if you talk about a "mother may I" play style, "Can I roll X" is much more "mother may I" than asking or telling what your character is going to to, and frankly it adds an unnecessary question, because then you still have to ask "What do I know about X". I know it seems like a petty difference, but I think it speaks to different ways of looking at the game and the characters. One looks at the characters as a collection of abilities and tries to pick the ability that makes the most sense in the role, the other looks at the character as a puppet of sorts and tries to pick the action that makes the most sense in the role. And to be clear, I'm in no way suggesting either is obviously better, just pointing out that it's not just new players who play from the sheet instead of telling me what their character does.


Not quite. Maybe in effect but not in reason. It's not enough to tell the DM when you think a task is Easy set the DC to be 10. Talk about every task being the same. Every task that is Easy in any 5E game is DC 10. The problem is what is easy differs among the DMs, so the same task will have different target numbers. What I want is a common standard. Tell DMs everywhere that climbing a tree is a moderate task, so DC 15. A typical dungeon wall is hard, so DC 20. Now, when a PC wants to climb a brick wall the DM and players can figure it's harder than climbing a tree because it lacks good grips but easier than a stone dungeon wall because there is some grip to grab onto and feet to place, so say DC 17. If it's outside and raining it's slippery so roll with Disadvantage. That's DM adjudication, but it's based off something concrete pun not intended. Another DM might say roll with a -2 penalty instead of Disadvantage for being slippery, but at least everyone knows why the numbers are what they are. It's not going to be DC 15 in one game, DC 20 in another, DC No in a third because it's raining, or whatever.

Out of curiosity how would you view a system where DCs were based not on the difficulty of the task per-se but how frequently your character does the task in question. So as a quick example if it's something your character normally does:

At least every week = DC 5
A couple times a month = DC 10
A few times a year = DC 15
Every couple of years = DC 20

So then the DC for "climb that tree" is "How often do you climb trees?" +/- circumstantials?

Would you say something like this is better or worse than a system where in the rules "Climb a tree is DC 10, Climb a dungeon wall is DC 15 +/- Circumstantials"


Maybe so. But this is a phenomenon I have seen in multiple gaming groups as well as in school and work, and in personal relationships with me friends and family; and often times I am not even involved except as a passive observer. Heck, a quick scan of these very forums should show you plenty of instances of honest discussion quickly descending into an out and out flame war before being locked.

As others have pointed out, you pretty much live on top of a real world Hellmouth and so far no Slayers have shown up to take care of the issue. And as for this forum in particular, it's specifically set up (as is most of the internet) for debate, and when someone is wrong on the internet, it can't be allowed to stand. Honor forbids allowing someone to be wrong, and worse if they're badwrong.


All of which is entirely reasonable as a preference, and none of which is a matter of objective design quality. A simple framework just works better for people for whom making those qualitative assessments isn't at all an issue, but dealing with crunchy rules is an imposition for some reason - both of which can be a matter of preference as much as ability.

And I think we're back to the cognitive load I talked about (in this thread? another? I can't remember). For GMs that aren't good at or comfortable making qualitative assessments on the fly, a loose framework is a higher cognitive load than remembering a handful of DC charts.

For DMs that are comfortable with it, having a bunch of DC charts that they either have to memorize for the sake of being consistent with other GMs, or that they have to justify changes for if they don't agree with them is a higher cognitive load than being responsible for making them in the first place.

[Celestia]

In my experience, I find that most problems arise from incongruous expectations. Player A expects X while Player B expects Y and Player C expects Z. Yet, this is never discussed or made clear until a conflict emerges. And by then it's too late.

For years now, I've run play-by-post RPs on another forum with what is perhaps the most rules light system in existence. You post your character attempting an action, I roll a d6, and then I ad hoc a result. Nothing is set in stone, and very little is defined. Not even the d6, itself, is consistent as I frequently fudge rolls for more interesting results. However, I have never had problems with my players because I am very up front about how this game works and what the tone is. They know exactly what they're getting into and don't have any misconceptions or false expectations.

Like most things in life, the key is communication.

[Rhedyn]

All of which is entirely reasonable as a preference, and none of which is a matter of objective design quality. A simple framework just works better for people for whom making those qualitative assessments isn't at all an issue, but dealing with crunchy rules is an imposition for some reason - both of which can be a matter of preference as much as ability.
Ah but 5e is both crunchy and vague. In my opinion, it's a bad framework.

So much so, I would prefer no skill system at all or something like Basic D&D general skills and ability checks. The framework of "you are fit adventures, describe what you want to do and I'll tell you if your character feels like he or she can do it."

5e's framework encourages asking for checks for everything and setting one of 6 DCs. It works better if you pretend it doesn't exist and use it as little as possible, but then you are screwing over rogues, bards, and anyone else that built for skills.

In basic D&D, I know a theif has skills and I know they are suppose to be useful. Climbing up a sheer surface with few hand holds is not a DC 30 or 25 check, it's an 87% chance at level 1 for a theif and the Fighter never be able to do the same.
You can't really reward bards and rogues im 5e for their expertise without a DC of 27 or higher less merely trained people could do the same thing if they get lucky. So high level rogues could consistently do the thing that level 1 Theives could do in Basic D&D.

[Pex]

Again though, with the caveat that I understand the reasoning behind the objection, how often is this actually a problem. Not "how often are the DCs different between different GMs, but how often is that DC being different a problem? How often have you gone to build a character with one set of expectations, and found that you failed to create the character you wanted? And to clarify, 3.x is well known for "trap options" so I'm specifically asking for "the GMs decisions on the DCs that were in their domain to decide broke your character expectations". And for those times that it was a problem, how big, was it:

1) "hey, I wanted my character to be able to do X, but this build doesn't work with the way you have DCs set, can we change that?"
2) "hey, I wanted my character to be able to do X, but this build doesn't work with the way you have DCs set, I'm going to rearrange/reoll"
3) "hey, I wanted my character to be able to do X, but this build doesn't work with the way you have DCs set, and we can't seem to compromise and it's ruining my fun / this is happening all the time and we're not on the same page at all with DCs and it's ruining my fun

Because to me, and in my experience, trying to hammer down DCs in the rules and enforce them across all tables falls into that 80% work for 20% benefit category of rule design.

Good question. It affects me by after all this time playing 5E where my skill proficiency choices don't matter, I stopped caring. I'll pick my proficiencies for whatever flavor I want, and then go play "Mother May I" with the DM. The harder the DM makes things the less I try.

In my Paladin game no one has bothered to climb a tree in the longest time because it's DC 20. It's been so long I wouldn't be surprised if someone did even the DM forgot he made it DC 20 and the player will succeed on DC 15. As for me, I only initiate Paladin stuff. I never actively attempt to do a skill. I always succeed on every Persuasion check because I make DC Paladin. An NPC can say "no", but it's always with the utmost respect. I've communicated as a practical equal with a Black Dragon and a Dracolich. For any other skill I never try unless the DM asks for someone to roll a skill. I don't always but sometimes I do for the heck of it, even for a Knowledge Roll with my -1. If I roll above 15 I succeed on that roll.

For my hexblade game, previously my cleric game, I'll try anything and everything. I'll initiate actions. DCs for that DM's game are Yes to 15. DC 20s are rare. They only exist if we're playing a module and the DC was set at 20 in the module. I get to think outside the box because outside the box works. Recently with my hexblade there were two goblin guards I wanted to get rid of. I cast Mage Hand to slap one of the goblins upside the head. (Needed to make a Stealth roll to not notice the casting.) He thought the other goblin did it. (Needed to make a Deception roll.) He promptly killed the other goblin. I used the Mage Hand to pick up the dead goblin's weapon. The other goblin kept stabbing the body thinking he wasn't staying dead. That was enough distraction for the rest of the party to come over then we killed the remaining goblin. That would not have worked in my Paladin game.





Out of curiosity how would you view a system where DCs were based not on the difficulty of the task per-se but how frequently your character does the task in question. So as a quick example if it's something your character normally does:

At least every week = DC 5
A couple times a month = DC 10
A few times a year = DC 15
Every couple of years = DC 20

So then the DC for "climb that tree" is "How often do you climb trees?" +/- circumstantials?

Would you say something like this is better or worse than a system where in the rules "Climb a tree is DC 10, Climb a dungeon wall is DC 15 +/- Circumstantials"




Interesting idea. Devil in the details. Personal bias I'd want Take 10 availability when not distracted, such as by combat where you have to roll.

[Pelle]

In my Paladin game no one has bothered to climb a tree in the longest time because it's DC 20. It's been so long I wouldn't be surprised if someone did even the DM forgot he made it DC 20 and the player will succeed on DC 15. As for me, I only initiate Paladin stuff. I never actively attempt to do a skill. I always succeed on every Persuasion check because I make DC Paladin. An NPC can say "no", but it's always with the utmost respect. I've communicated as a practical equal with a Black Dragon and a Dracolich. For any other skill I never try unless the DM asks for someone to roll a skill. I don't always but sometimes I do for the heck of it, even for a Knowledge Roll with my -1. If I roll above 15 I succeed on that roll.


I'm a little confused by your preference here, hopefully you can clarify. Do you want every tree to have the same DC no matter what, or just a standard DC for a default tree and then they may individually vary (changing the DC)? The DM in the paladin game might have used DC 20 for just one individual tree in the first place... So is the problem that different trees have different DCs, or that the default is too high, or that it is not consistent for a particular tree?

And do you avoid attempting things in that game because you find the DC too high after asking about it, or do you not ask for each particular DC at all?

The second game sounds fun. Do you think it would be better or worse if the DM instead had to follow strict rules and look up lots of tables to try adjudicate that stuff?



Interesting idea. Devil in the details. Personal bias I'd want Take 10 availability when not distracted, such as by combat where you have to roll.

Well, you more or less already can in 5e, just say "I keep at it until I suceed", since there's no risk involved.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In my Paladin game no one has bothered to climb a tree in the longest time because it's DC 20. It's been so long I wouldn't be surprised if someone did even the DM forgot he made it DC 20 and the player will succeed on DC 15. As for me, I only initiate Paladin stuff. I never actively attempt to do a skill. I always succeed on every Persuasion check because I make DC Paladin. An NPC can say "no", but it's always with the utmost respect. I've communicated as a practical equal with a Black Dragon and a Dracolich. For any other skill I never try unless the DM asks for someone to roll a skill. I don't always but sometimes I do for the heck of it, even for a Knowledge Roll with my -1. If I roll above 15 I succeed on that roll.

For my hexblade game, previously my cleric game, I'll try anything and everything. I'll initiate actions. DCs for that DM's game are Yes to 15. DC 20s are rare. They only exist if we're playing a module and the DC was set at 20 in the module. I get to think outside the box because outside the box works. Recently with my hexblade there were two goblin guards I wanted to get rid of. I cast Mage Hand to slap one of the goblins upside the head. (Needed to make a Stealth roll to not notice the casting.) He thought the other goblin did it. (Needed to make a Deception roll.) He promptly killed the other goblin. I used the Mage Hand to pick up the dead goblin's weapon. The other goblin kept stabbing the body thinking he wasn't staying dead. That was enough distraction for the rest of the party to come over then we killed the remaining goblin. That would not have worked in my Paladin game.


The second game is how it's supposed to work, at least as I read things. The "you must have proficiency in this skill to succeed" mentality doesn't work well in 5e.

I'm sorry that you've had DMs who set screwy DCs. I can totally see how that reduces the fun and turns one against the skill system (even though doing that really requires working against the system as designed, not with it).

[Scripten]

5e's framework encourages asking for checks for everything and setting one of 6 DCs.


This is not only incorrect but explicitly the opposite of what 5E encourages. 5E encourages asking for checks only when both success and failure are meaningful.


In my Paladin game no one has bothered to climb a tree in the longest time because it's DC 20.

Since this DM is not running the system as intended, I'm not sure what can actually be done at this point on the system side? They aren't following what's there already. 5E's ability check system would have to be fundamentally different (and IMO worse) for it to work with that DM. The Hexblade game (now) sounds more like a 5E game run as designed.

I do feel for you, Pex, because it seems like this makes the game less fun for you, which is never a good thing regardless of the cause. That being said, it's not a system problem when your DM doesn't run the system as designed. Your best bet would be to either leave that particular table or to ask your DM to move to a system that is more suited to them.

EDIT: Whoops, didn't notice that you had edited your comment. Changing my response based on how you describe your Hexblade game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is not only incorrect but explicitly the opposite of what 5E encourages. 5E encourages asking for checks only when both success and failure are meaningful.



Since neither of the DMs you are describing are running the system as intended, I'm not sure what can actually be done at this point on the system side? They aren't following what's there already. 5E's ability check system would have to be fundamentally different (and IMO worse) for it to work with your DMs.

I do feel for you, Pex, because it seems like this makes the game less fun for you, which is never a good thing regardless of the cause. That being said, it's not a system problem when your DM doesn't run the system as designed. Your best bet would be to either find different tables or ask your DMs to move to a system that is more suited to them.

I strongly agree with the first point. That quote sounds completely antithetical to both text and play of 5e.

The second point I mostly agree with (especially that it's not a system problem but a DM problem), but I can see the second game working decently (if done right). I play 5e (especially with my school groups) in a pretty loose/open-ended fashion similar to that. Very much "yes and" rather than "no." Unless something is directly forbidden by the rules, I try to find a way to make it have a chance of working. It extends the ability check system, but it doesn't contradict it like the first game does.

[Scripten]

I strongly agree with the first point. That quote sounds completely antithetical to both text and play of 5e.

The second point--I can see the second game working decently (if done right). I play 5e (especially with my school groups) in a pretty loose/open-ended fashion similar to that. Very much "yes and" rather than "no." Unless something is directly forbidden by the rules, I try to find a way to make it have a chance of working. It extends the ability check system, but it doesn't contradict it like the first game does.

Apologies, I edited my post as I hadn't seen Pex's edit before finishing. I misread his second example as using the system differently. I think my post complies with reality more now. :smallbiggrin:

[Max_Killjoy]

I'm a little confused by your preference here, hopefully you can clarify. Do you want every tree to have the same DC no matter what, or just a standard DC for a default tree and then they may individually vary (changing the DC)? The DM in the paladin game might have used DC 20 for just one individual tree in the first place... So is the problem that different trees have different DCs, or that the default is too high, or that it is not consistent for a particular tree?


I can't speak for Pex, but what I want is "typical tree" and "typical conditions/situations that might modify it" as a starting point, not "here's the DC for a hard thing is to do, you decide what's hard and what's easy and so on, good luck and have fun!"




And do you avoid attempting things in that game because you find the DC too high after asking about it, or do you not ask for each particular DC at all?

The second game sounds fun. Do you think it would be better or worse if the DM instead had to follow strict rules and look up lots of tables to try adjudicate that stuff?


Personally, I want to know what sort of chance my character is taking, and the least-contentious, least-ambiguous way to communicate that is to be open about the numbers. And yes, unless my character is a risk-taking maniac or over-confident twit, I'm not going have them try things they're quite likely to fail at.

[Earthwalker]

Replying to the original post I do enjoy games that are vague and open to interpretation maybe not in the sense the OP has put them. I also enjoy games with a lot more cruncher rules with more things nailed down.

Different rules system for different players, groups and games. With their own different set of results. These days I generally prefer to run FATE, but I have a Pathfinder game on the go as well.
One thing I am curious about, some people on the boards have a preference for different styles of games. I have a couple of questions, if you prefer a system that has fixed rules and less interpretation can you see any advantages at all of more open rules ?

Same question but the other way around, if you prefer the open systems can you not see an advantage of the other way of doing things ?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Same question but the other way around, if you prefer the open systems can you not see an advantage of the other way of doing things ?

As someone who prefers open systems, I can see that there are advantages to a more restricted set. I just find those advantages important to my games.

There is value in predictability. I could find enjoyment in a roll-under style--you always know what the target is. There is value in granular task resolution (where every piece of the task is assigned a modifier that adds up to a final number). In an outcome-resolution system (where you're not deciding if you made that throw but if you got across the chasm, for example), a fixed TN system with basically no modifiers works just fine because you're modeling a different thing.

I don't like stacking modifiers, but they're not inherently bad. I do dislike when people use a system out-of-spec and then blame the system when it fails to match expectations or misrepresent what that system expects you to do. Or when they elevate their subjective preferences to objective truths.

[Cluedrew]

In my experiance people don't like being questioned. Trying to discuss a ruling is really hard to do without it sounding like a challenge, which then turns the discussion into an rgument, which often escalates into an out and out fight.As someone who does not live in Bazaro World* this doesn't happen every time but it does happen. There are ways that you can help avoid things escalating, but there are some people & topics (which for some people is everything) that they will not be enough. I had a debate with an engineer last week who was very uncomfortable with the idea that part of their field of study was - historically speaking - magic.

* (I had seen you complain about people using it dismissively, but I had never seen it until now.)

For main topic: I believe these is a sweet spot where you can have rules that are well defined but still general or open ended. For me that is the ideal, because you know exactly what the rule is supposed to do, but it can still be used in a variety of situations.

[Earthwalker]

As someone who prefers open systems, I can see that there are advantages to a more restricted set. I just find those advantages important to my games.

There is value in predictability. I could find enjoyment in a roll-under style--you always know what the target is. There is value in granular task resolution (where every piece of the task is assigned a modifier that adds up to a final number). In an outcome-resolution system (where you're not deciding if you made that throw but if you got across the chasm, for example), a fixed TN system with basically no modifiers works just fine because you're modeling a different thing.


When I have a GM that is making the game more about overcoming challenges and punishing failure more, then yeah I like the predictability. So it is certainly an advantage of fixed rules, as a way to survive.
A lot of things tie into the question the OP raised.



I don't like stacking modifiers, but they're not inherently bad. I do dislike when people use a system out-of-spec and then blame the system when it fails to match expectations or misrepresent what that system expects you to do. Or when they elevate their subjective preferences to objective truths.

For along time as player and GM I would dislike a rule normally without trying it and seeing how the game played out. I would want every new game to be one I had played before we the same expectations of others games without thinking much why some rules are in the game.
Like 20 years of playing and no real clue what rules were trying to do. So for that period I was just the kind of person you describe here (kinda I don't complain much about systems these days)

I do feel I have got better, these days when approaching a new game I try to understand what it is trying to do.

[Pelle]

I can't speak for Pex, but I what is "typical tree" and "typical conditions/situations that might modify it" as a starting point, not "here's the DC for a hard thing is to do, you decide what's hard and what's easy and so on, good luck and have fun!"


Sure, so it sounds like you accept the latter, the DC might change for individual trees. It looked to me like Pex was arguing for that trees are maybe different in the fiction, but should in a gamist way be abstracted to all have the same DC, independent of their size, bark, branches etc. Hence asking for clarification.



Personally, I want to know what sort of chance my character is taking, and the least-contentious, least-ambiguous way to communicate that is to be open about the numbers. And yes, unless my character is a risk-taking maniac or over-confident twit, I'm not going have them try things they're quite likely to fail at.

Cool, me too. When DMing I solve it by trying to be clear in the descriptions of the fictional situation so everyone are on the same page about the difficulties. And I also announce the DC I determine best fit that situation before dice are rolled or when a player ask. I wasn't sure if the player in the example given knew the DCs when choosing not to try, or not bothering to ask for it or not being told it by the DM. If the latter, both the player and DM are at fault IMO.

[DanyBallon]

Replying to the original post I do enjoy games that are vague and open to interpretation maybe not in the sense the OP has put them. I also enjoy games with a lot more cruncher rules with more things nailed down.

Different rules system for different players, groups and games. With their own different set of results. These days I generally prefer to run FATE, but I have a Pathfinder game on the go as well.
One thing I am curious about, some people on the boards have a preference for different styles of games. I have a couple of questions, if you prefer a system that has fixed rules and less interpretation can you see any advantages at all of more open rules ?

Same question but the other way around, if you prefer the open systems can you not see an advantage of the other way of doing things ?

I like defined rules when playing more strategic games like board games or computer games, but when I'm playing TTRPG I prefer not to be bound by too many strict rules. I like to use my imagination and find out of the box solutions to traps or situations. As good a designer/DM can be, there is a limit to what he can guess the players will do, so a more open rule system is easier to react to players creativity.
I stopped playing 3.X and Pathfinder because at some point the game was more about: "It's not in the rules, you can't do that" than actually roleplaying my character.

As an example, in my last 5e game I was playing a Goliath fighter and we were taking off with our airship when a green dragon attacked us. My character being particularly intrepid, decide to climb on top the the airship balloon and took a run to jump onto the dragon's back. While there are rules for jumping in 5e, there are not for jumping on a moving target nor landing on the back of a creature. My DM decidee that since that the jump was a pretty simple task for my character but the landing wouldn't be as automatic, also, there was the risk of falling. So she set only a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to see if I can land on the Dragon and not fall. She considered that it was pretty hard and set the DC above 20, but allow for a range of failure (if I failed by more than 5 my check I would fall to the ground, otherwise I would miss landing on the dragons back, but will manage to grab a body part and not fall to the ground). Luckily I manage to pull it out, only to be thrown to the ground on the next turn :smallbiggrin: This in all took about 2 min, and most of the time was spent describing the actions of my character and the results.

Having played a 3.X or Pathfinder game, it would probably ended as "You can't do such a thing" or took an infinite long time to get all the modifier to my check.


But that's only my preference. I prefer faster and more cinematic style of play, especially since we are a large group and only play about 2-3 hours every two weeks :smallsmile:

[PhoenixPhyre]

But that's only my preference. I prefer faster and more cinematic style of play

This describes my preference as well. The thing I dislike most is when someone stops play for something unimportant. It's why having to look up in tables (or memorize and repeat tables) is a strong negative for me--I'd rather get it wrong but move on.

As others have said, if the stakes of each roll are high I want more definition. But then again I prefer if each roll only has small but interesting stakes from which you can recover. Staking everything on a single dice roll should be only for the most dramatic of circumstances and be voluntary. It shouldn't be Tuesday.

[kyoryu]

What's interesting to me is that at this point, the conversation seems to be:

"Yeah, I like systems that are less defined, but, you know, I can see why people might like other systems. Good on them."
"No! Systems that aren't well-defined are bad!"


Sure, so it sounds like you accept the latter, the DC might change for individual trees.

Isn't that the crux of "Rulings over Rules"? The idea that no two situations will be exactly alike, and that trying to codify all of the factors is, essentially an impossible task, so better to go with a trusted referee that is working in good faith?

I mean, this is an old, old debate. Look up "Kriegsspiel vs. Free kriegsspiel".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegsspiel_(wargame)


Personally, I want to know what sort of chance my character is taking, and the least-contentious, least-ambiguous way to communicate that is to be open about the numbers. And yes, unless my character is a risk-taking maniac or over-confident twit, I'm not going have them try things they're quite likely to fail at.

I'm in 100% agreement on this.

Beyond that, I'd say that you should be open about not only the numbers, but the results of success/failure.

(And getting characters into situations where they're willing to do risky things is pretty much my definition of a successful adventure setup).

[Max_Killjoy]

This describes my preference as well. The thing I dislike most is when someone stops play for something unimportant. It's why having to look up in tables (or memorize and repeat tables) is a strong negative for me--I'd rather get it wrong but move on.


And that's one of the reasons I want consistency across a system, so that once you understand how it works you don't have to keep looking up a different table or chart for each Skill or task or whatever.




As others have said, if the stakes of each roll are high I want more definition. But then again I prefer if each roll only has small but interesting stakes from which you can recover. Staking everything on a single dice roll should be only for the most dramatic of circumstances and be voluntary. It shouldn't be Tuesday.

This is one of the reasons I prefer task resolution to conflict resolution ( so long as "task" can be "climb the wall" rather than "climb this 5' of the wall, now roll again, and again, and again, and..." ).

[PhoenixPhyre]

And that's one of the reasons I want consistency across a system, so that once you understand how it works you don't have to keep looking up a different table or chart for each Skill or task or whatever.


My problem with this is that consistency between things that aren't consistent is a trap. Consistency is important where the situations don't vary significantly (or do so smoothly). Skills don't seem to be that consistent--fighting someone (in a system where that's a skill) is very different than climbing something, or talking to someone. You could get consistent by having everything being an opposed check, but that has its own issues.

I'm of the "teach correct principles and let them govern themselves" school--tables are a shortcut that impedes learning how the system works most of the time (in favor of just going "oh, there's a table for that"). It also stifles creativity because it sets an expectation that the tables will be followed exactly (or with only minor deviations).



This is one of the reasons I prefer task resolution to conflict resolution ( so long as "task" can be "climb the wall" rather than "climb this 5' of the wall, now roll again, and again, and again, and..." ).

I think there's a happy medium to be struck here. Either can work (but for different situations), but what I want to avoid is the "one success isn't enough but one failure is catastrophe" model in either case. Stealth is a common issue here--if you have to roll separate checks against each and every thing you encounter, you're going to fail one if there's any chance of failure at all.

[Pex]

I'm a little confused by your preference here, hopefully you can clarify. Do you want every tree to have the same DC no matter what, or just a standard DC for a default tree and then they may individually vary (changing the DC)? The DM in the paladin game might have used DC 20 for just one individual tree in the first place... So is the problem that different trees have different DCs, or that the default is too high, or that it is not consistent for a particular tree?

And do you avoid attempting things in that game because you find the DC too high after asking about it, or do you not ask for each particular DC at all?

The second game sounds fun. Do you think it would be better or worse if the DM instead had to follow strict rules and look up lots of tables to try adjudicate that stuff?



I purposely chose the extremes in terms of ease/difficulty of Skill use. The difference between the games is because skill DC is DC Whatever the DM feels like, so it illustrates my point how the skills change depending on who is DM that day.

In my Paladin game Skill DCs are consistently 15 or 20. It's always 15 if the DM asks for a skill roll, 20 if it's a knowledge check about a BBEG monster. (I actually don't mind that particular DC 20.) I think once a skill DC was 10. I remember feeling surprised about the number. The game is over 2 years old. It's more fun to play than the gripes I have about it so I stay, but I learned it's not worth the effort to try something that requires a skill. The rogue uses stealth easy enough thanks to Expertise. For class-based things out of the box thinking works fine because it's all spelled out. Recently we defended a fort against trebuchet boulder attacks. The DM allowed the warlock to use his repelling eldritch blast to knock incoming boulders off course. I was happy the warlock player thought of it and thrilled the DM allowed it. The DM is allowing great weapon style to work on paladin smites. He's not dun-dun dunnn tyrannical. He follows the printed rules, but since he has to make up skill DCs by whim his style is to lean towards 15 & 20.

My hexblade DM is the opposite. Anything goes. This is the DM who had two goblins from Phandelver join our party that I've mentioned before. For our second campaign he's allowing Unearthed Arcana classes. Skill DCs are consistently low enough we have a chance to succeed. We don't always, of course, but we're encouraged to give it a try because we know we have a fair chance. Guidance spell was Most Valuable Player of the previous campaign. It's a less stressful game.

[Rhedyn]

What's interesting to me is that at this point, the conversation seems to be:

"Yeah, I like systems that are less defined, but, you know, I can see why people might like other systems. Good on them."
"No! Systems that aren't well-defined are bad!"

I don't argue the preference (as long as everyone is aware that they don't want vagueness, they want the results that vagueness can bring). I argue that 5e specifically has a terrible skill system. It tries to codify "winging it" or using a "DM gut check" with it's 6 listed difficulty DCs which in motion causes all sorts of problems or at best a DM can overcome the problems with enough meticulous management that the skill system is only a waste of time.

It's worse than not having a skill system at all. It actively trips up DMs and creates unsatisfactory play where "just winging it" would have worked better.

For players that care about complex rules, the system does nothing for them.

For players that don't care, the system is actively burdensome and gets in the way between player and DM interaction to reduce the process to the DM picking a random number with no real guidance from the system but the system tells him that he needs to pick the correct number to be a good DM.

Bah!

[Pex]

Sure, so it sounds like you accept the latter, the DC might change for individual trees. It looked to me like Pex was arguing for that trees are maybe different in the fiction, but should in a gamist way be abstracted to all have the same DC, independent of their size, bark, branches etc. Hence asking for clarification.



As I wrote before, I suppose technically yes in result but not for the reason. It's not that every tree everywhere must be DC 15. The point isn't that trees are DC 15. The point is to use climb trees DC 15 as a universal reference. If something is harder to climb than a tree then the DC is higher. How much higher? Is it as hard as a generic stone dungeon wall of universal reference 20? If yes, DC 20. If not that hard, then DC 17 perhaps. If equal to a tree, DC 15. A knotted rope is easier so DC 10.

The word I'm looking for is "benchmark". It's the game designers' job to define the benchmark of example DCs then the DM can place the DC of something for his game based on that benchmark and the player can create his character accordingly based on how well he wants to achieve that benchmark. That is what example DC tables provide in 3E/Pathfinder. That is what 5E Xanathar's Guide does for tool use. That is what 5E DMG does for Tracking, Object Hardness, and Conversation Results if you can find them.

[Max_Killjoy]

My problem with this is that consistency between things that aren't consistent is a trap. Consistency is important where the situations don't vary significantly (or do so smoothly). Skills don't seem to be that consistent--fighting someone (in a system where that's a skill) is very different than climbing something, or talking to someone. You could get consistent by having everything being an opposed check, but that has its own issues.

I'm of the "teach correct principles and let them govern themselves" school -- tables are a shortcut that impedes learning how the system works most of the time (in favor of just going "oh, there's a table for that"). It also stifles creativity because it sets an expectation that the tables will be followed exactly (or with only minor deviations).


We're maybe not as far apart as it seems there:

* I'm not sure we mean exactly the same thing by "tables" (I'm opposed to having to look up results on a table for lots of rolls, but I don't mind a "table format" for displaying example difficulties and/or modifiers -- I hate important numbers buried in text and/or scattered around the books).

* My point is that I want the system to work on consistent principles so that it's not necessary to look up every Skill (or whatever) a character uses every time it's used, and so that extrapolation isn't messy or contentious.

I want a system to teach the players how to fish, not spoon-feed them fish soup.

What bugs the hell out of me is when Skill A functions by X rules, and Skill B functions by Y rules, and Skill C functions by Z rules, and on and on, and nothing in the overall system interacts cleanly or intuitively, and every time a Skill is used someone needs to crack the book open, because the designers piecemealed the Skills (or whatever) in as a bunch of disparate subsystems with their own context-laden verbiages with the terminology not crossing over to other Skills (or whatever).

E: this is also one of the reasons I'm big on the system following "the fiction" -- the secondary reality serves as the ultimate fact check on what's coming out of the system.




I think there's a happy medium to be struck here. Either can work (but for different situations), but what I want to avoid is the "one success isn't enough but one failure is catastrophe" model in either case. Stealth is a common issue here--if you have to roll separate checks against each and every thing you encounter, you're going to fail one if there's any chance of failure at all.


That is one of the classic examples, and I'd rather see one or two Stealth rolls instead of once against each of the 20 guards. But to me "conflict resolution" is a gross overreaction to the "roll until you fail" problem, killing houseflies with howitzers...

...especially when it gets really strange with assertions like "your conflict isn't with the guards, it's with the lord of the keep, so roll once against the lord of the keep to see if you sneak past the guards and climb the wall and pick the lock to get into his treasure chamber".

(And yes, I've seen exactly that example used by staunch advocates of conflict resolution.)

[Max_Killjoy]

As I wrote before, I suppose technically yes in result but not for the reason. It's not that every tree everywhere must be DC 15. The point isn't that trees are DC 15. The point is to use climb trees DC 15 as a universal reference. If something is harder to climb than a tree then the DC is higher. How much higher? Is it as hard as a generic stone dungeon wall of universal reference 20? If yes, DC 20. If not that hard, then DC 17 perhaps. If equal to a tree, DC 15. A knotted rope is easier so DC 10.

The word I'm looking for is "benchmark". It's the game designers' job to define the benchmark of example DCs then the DM can place the DC of something for his game based on that benchmark and the player can create his character accordingly based on how well he wants to achieve that benchmark. That is what example DC tables provide in 3E/Pathfinder. That is what 5E Xanathar's Guide does for tool use. That is what 5E DMG does for Tracking, Object Hardness, and Conversation Results if you can find them.


"Benchmark" is a good term. I don't want a hard-coded "all trees are 15 to climb" (or however it works in the system at hand), I want a benchmark tree against which easier or harder trees can be compared and "mapped", and against which my character can be built if I want to them to be good at climbing trees.

(And yes, we know that climbing a typical tree is automatic in 5e, that's beside the point.)

[Rhedyn]

That is one of the classic examples, and I'd rather see one or two Stealth rolls instead of once against each of the 20 guards. But to me "conflict resolution" is a gross overreaction to the "roll until you fail" problem, killing houseflies with howitzers...

...especially when it gets really strange with assertions like "your conflict isn't with the guards, it's with the lord of the keep, so roll once against the lord of the keep to see if you sneak past the guards and climb the wall and pick the lock to get into his treasure chamber".

(And yes, I've seen exactly that example used by staunch advocates of conflict resolution.)
Savage Worlds has a nice meaty approach up stealth (easily the most complicated skill). And since my explanation of Savage Worlds rules to tend to be longer than the actual rules themselves, just know you roll a d4-12 and a d6 for a skill and select the higher, dice can explode, and you succeed on a 4 or higher:

Stealth (Agility)
Stealth is the ability to both hide and move quietly, as well as palm objects and pick pockets. In many Savage Worlds games, knowing exactly when your hero has been spotted and when he hasn’t can be critical.
For a character to sneak up on foes and infiltrate enemy lines, start by figuring out if the “guards” the heroes are sneaking up on are “active” or “inactive.” Inactive guards aren’t paying particularly close attention to their surroundings. The group need only score a standard success on their individual
Stealth rolls to avoid being seen. Failing a Stealth roll in the presence of inactive guards makes them active. Active guards make opposed Notice rolls against the sneaking characters’ Stealth skills. Failing a roll against active guards means the character is spotted.
Apply the following modifiers to all Stealth rolls:

Stealth Modifiers
Situation Modifier
Crawling +2
Running –2
Dim light +1
Darkness +2
Pitch darkness +4
Light cover +1
Medium cover +2
Heavy cover +4
► The Last Step: Sneaking to within 6” of a foe (usually to get close enough for a melee attack) requires an opposed Stealth roll versus the target’s Notice, whether the guard is active or inactive.
► Movement Rate: Out of combat, each Stealth roll covers moving up to five times the character’s Pace. In combat, the Stealth roll covers only a single round of movement.
► Stealth for Groups: Out of combat, make only one Stealth roll for each like group of characters (see Group Rolls on page 63). Use the lowest movement rate to determine how much ground is covered. The observers also make a group roll to Notice their foes. Once a combat breaks down into rounds, Stealth and Notice rolls are made on an individual basis.

[PhoenixPhyre]

We're maybe not as far apart as it seems there:

* I'm not sure we mean exactly the same thing by "tables" (I'm opposed to having to look up results on a table for lots of rolls, but I don't mind a "table format" for displaying example difficulties and/or modifiers -- I hate important numbers buried in text and/or scattered around the books).

* My point is that I want the system to work on consistent principles so that it's not necessary to look up every Skill (or whatever) a character uses every time it's used, and so that extrapolation isn't messy or contentious.


And I'm worried that there might not be consistent principles that join disparate skill uses without forcing them to fit. I'm fine with subsystems that are different, as long as they describe different things. I'm still not entirely clear what you mean by "consistent principles"--does this require an equation with relatively fixed (and limited) variables? Or can it be a more general set of guidelines?




What bugs the hell out of me is when Skill A functions by X rules, and Skill B functions by Y rules, and Skill C functions by Z rules, and on and on, and nothing in the overall system interacts cleanly or intuitively, and every time a Skill is used someone needs to crack the book open, because the designers piecemealed the Skills (or whatever) in as a bunch of disparate subsystems with their own context-laden verbiages with the terminology not crossing over to other Skills (or whatever).



I guess I'm not sure exactly what you mean here--I'm no good at reading telegraphic descriptions like this. Can you give a specific example of one you don't like?





That is one of the classic examples, and I'd rather see one or two Stealth rolls instead of once against each of the 20 guards. But to me "conflict resolution" is a gross overreaction to the "roll until you fail" problem, killing houseflies with howitzers...

...especially when it gets really strange with assertions like "your conflict isn't with the guards, it's with the lord of the keep, so roll once against the lord of the keep to see if you sneak past the guards and climb the wall and pick the lock to get into his treasure chamber".

(And yes, I've seen exactly that example used by staunch advocates of conflict resolution.)

Yeah, I want a more middle-ground approach. Not "Did I swing my sword with the exact right angle in that one attempt" or "roll to win the fight" but "did I meaningfully reduce my opponent's ability to continue the fight during this time-period." I'm fine with varying degrees within one system--crafting an item might be an outcome that subsumes a lot of tasks into a single roll (or just plain narrative), while tasks where the approach strongly matters should get more detailed resolutions.

That brings up one issue for me with stating defined DCs up front:

Often I need to know more about the exact approach before I can meaningfully decide how hard something is, and different approaches can change the difficulty by huge (and non-linear) amounts. That is, I need more than just "I roll Investigate" to decide what the task even is that's being resolved. It's why I'd rather the players tell me what they want to do, and then we'll decided how to resolve it. Sometimes the applicable mechanics are obvious (like hitting someone with a weapon) and we can just say "I attack with my dagger." Other times, it could take a few back and forth questions/statements from DM to player and back to decide how to handle it. I find that once that happens, the question of the DC is almost moot--it's obvious from the discussion how difficult it is, or we realize that it's not going to be reasonably possible (or the converse, that it can't reasonably fail).

It's probably just personal bias, but my knee-jerk internal reaction to people wanting codified DCs for everything is to think that they're trying to avoid actually talking about things and are trying to exploit something. The stench (even if illusory) of trying to gain mechanical advantage through exploiting rules is a major turn-off. Call it a learned aversion from growing up with a (non-RPG) rules-lawyer.

And yes, the consequences for failure/success (and partial success/failure if applicable) is an important thing to establish before the player commits to an action. I'll even do it for non-mechanical rolls--"10 or lower he runs/lets you in/attacks PC X. 11 or higher, he does Y instead."

[Pex]

Popping in quick to clarify I didn't mean to knock my Paladin DM game with regards to talking to the Black Dragon and Dracolich. It's Campaign Plot relevant. Our party has allied, willingly, with the Cult of the Dragon. My Paladin of Torm is ok with it. It's for a Good Cause. Torm knows I'll get dirty, but otherwise there are no Code or Faith problems. At the moment I'll potentially be leading an undead army created by the Dracolich against a city of mindflayers to recover Blue Dragon eggs. Very long story. That will be awesome if it happens.

[JoeJ]

"Benchmark" is a good term. I don't want a hard-coded "all trees are 15 to climb" (or however it works in the system at hand), I want a benchmark tree against which easier or harder trees can be compared and "mapped", and against which my character can be built if I want to them to be good at climbing trees.

(And yes, we know that climbing a typical tree is automatic in 5e, that's beside the point.)

For me, that benchmark would be a waste of ink unless it was accompanied by a picture of the tree that it applies to. Without that, I would have absolutely no idea how the benchmark compares to any tree the PCs are trying to climb. In fact, even with the illustration it wouldn't really be of any use since the range of "typical" tree shapes is so enormous that the benchmark would likely never apply.

From my backyard, if I look in one direction I can see a whole forest of tall, mostly smooth conifers that often don't even branch for the first 20-30 feet. If I look in the other direction I'll see along the sides of the hills a belt of squat, heavily branching trees that rarely even get up to 30 feet high. Climbing one of the latter trees would be a trivial task, as long as you pick one large enough to hold your weight. Climbing the former would be almost impossible without special equipment. Both are typical, ordinary trees for my area.

So to me, talking about a benchmark difficulty for climbing trees is like a benchmark for the number of rooms in a building. You could perhaps use that figure to aggregate (for example, to extrapolate the number of rooms in a city) but for dealing with any specific building the range is simply too great to make any average figure useful.

[kyoryu]

E: this is also one of the reasons I'm big on the system following "the fiction" -- the secondary reality serves as the ultimate fact check on what's coming out of the system.

Absolutely. In most cases, common sense is a better guide of what can or can't be done than a system that is almost guaranteed to have some unexpected results at the edges.


That is one of the classic examples, and I'd rather see one or two Stealth rolls instead of once against each of the 20 guards. But to me "conflict resolution" is a gross overreaction to the "roll until you fail" problem, killing houseflies with howitzers...

...especially when it gets really strange with assertions like "your conflict isn't with the guards, it's with the lord of the keep, so roll once against the lord of the keep to see if you sneak past the guards and climb the wall and pick the lock to get into his treasure chamber".

(And yes, I've seen exactly that example used by staunch advocates of conflict resolution.)

It's an extreme example. I also don't know that I know of a really good definition of task/conflict resolution, as it seems to conflate two things:

1) detail of resolution
2) whether or not you're specifying your desired end goal or not

In other words, I've heard it used in both the sense of "I roll to see if I tackle him, rather than rolling to see the results of my charge" as well as the "I'm rolling a single task vs. a higher-level goal".

As far as the detail of resolution, if you don't care about playing through getting into the treasure chamber for some reason, and want to resolve it in a single roll, then, yeah, I'd make the roll against some kind of aggregate "castle defense" skill. I likely wouldn't do that, though. I generally prefer things be mostly played out at the "scene" level.


"Benchmark" is a good term. I don't want a hard-coded "all trees are 15 to climb" (or however it works in the system at hand), I want a benchmark tree against which easier or harder trees can be compared and "mapped", and against which my character can be built if I want to them to be good at climbing trees.

(And yes, we know that climbing a typical tree is automatic in 5e, that's beside the point.)

Again, as a Fate thing, this works fairly well, because it does two things:

1) Character abilities are strongly constrained. You get one skill at +4, and maybe some stunt support for a conditional +2. Apart from invocations (which shouldn't be factored into setting difficulties), that's it. So you always know that -2 is accomplishable by anyone outside of bad luck, +0 is easy for anyone moderately skilled and a coin toss for the untrained, +2 is going to be challenging for an untrained person but is 50/50 for a moderately skilled person, and easy for an expert. +4 is challenging for a moderately skilled person, iffy for an expert, but doable by a specialist, and then +6 is basically iffy for a specialist and between challenging and effectively impossible for everyone else.

Because slots are constrained (as described above), if you want your character to be good at climbing trees, give them a high Athletics skill, and a Stunt related to climbing trees. Boom, done.

2) Each difficulty has an adjective associated with it. "It would be a <descriptor> effort to accomplish that". Fair, mediocre, poor great, whatever.

Overall, this works.

[Pelle]

As I wrote before, I suppose technically yes in result but not for the reason. It's not that every tree everywhere must be DC 15. The point isn't that trees are DC 15. The point is to use climb trees DC 15 as a universal reference. If something is harder to climb than a tree then the DC is higher. How much higher? Is it as hard as a generic stone dungeon wall of universal reference 20? If yes, DC 20. If not that hard, then DC 17 perhaps. If equal to a tree, DC 15. A knotted rope is easier so DC 10.

The word I'm looking for is "benchmark". It's the game designers' job to define the benchmark of example DCs then the DM can place the DC of something for his game based on that benchmark and the player can create his character accordingly based on how well he wants to achieve that benchmark. That is what example DC tables provide in 3E/Pathfinder. That is what 5E Xanathar's Guide does for tool use. That is what 5E DMG does for Tracking, Object Hardness, and Conversation Results if you can find them.

Thanks for clarifying. I get what you mean about benchmarks. I just think using "climbing a tree" is a bad benchmark for climbing, since that should vary from impossible to automatic. For climbing, using one of these scales (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_(climbing)) for benchmarking would be a lot more intuitive for me.

It sounded a bit like that you are listening for a keyword (tree, stone wall) in a description of a situation, and want a fixed DC relating to that keyword, without caring for the actual difficulty in the fiction.

I use this this (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/38039/roleplaying-games/art-of-rulings-part-5-skill-and-difficulty) approach for benchmarking/calibrating my skill tests, both in 3.5 and 5e (need to be adjusted, though same principles). For me it is much better and easier to adjudicate like this than to stop and look up lots of tables and modifiers.

[Pleh]

To the O P I would say generally yes I do like rules that are more open to interpretation. Part of that is because I feel like very tight rules tend to be somewhat inflexible and can create some rather strange effects. I feel like it's more fun and useful to have rules that can be made to fit the situation kind of like how some wrenches allow you to tighten the wrenches grip to exactly match the nut that you need to move. Though I do also enjoy the eloquent see of a well-written rule that needs very little interpretation.

[Knaight]

Same question but the other way around, if you prefer the open systems can you not see an advantage of the other way of doing things ?
Yes, and I've explicitly listed these. They just tend to be things that don't matter to me, hence my preferences leaning towards the open system (though a lot of that is more an aversion to disadvantages than anything else).


What's interesting to me is that at this point, the conversation seems to be:

"Yeah, I like systems that are less defined, but, you know, I can see why people might like other systems. Good on them."
"No! Systems that aren't well-defined are bad!"
It is GiTP. There's a very strong bias towards the way 3e D&D does things here, and so we get this standard script for basically any aspect of design a rules light game might use, with a chance of a few other scripts on top of it.

[Jay R]

One thing I am curious about, some people on the boards have a preference for different styles of games. I have a couple of questions, if you prefer a system that has fixed rules and less interpretation can you see any advantages at all of more open rules ?

Same question but the other way around, if you prefer the open systems can you not see an advantage of the other way of doing things ?

These questions led me down a long thought process, in which I eventually concluded that I agree with one side in one circumstance, and agree with the other side under different circumstances.

The biggest difference is what we think playing under a rules-light system is like.

The original poster made it clear that he thinks a rules-light system is inherently about arbitrary rulings and long arguments. I share his disdain for both, but I associate neither with a rules-light game.

On the most basic level, the question boils down to this: do you have more faith in the GM’s judgment or in the published rules?

And the most basic answer is this: that depends on the GM’s judgment.

My most obvious example is this. I want to know what the likely results will be when I take an action. So my preference priority is as follows:
1. I understand the consequences of my choices because those consequences make sense in the situation being simulated.
2. I understand the consequences of my choices because I know the game mechanics.
3. I don’t understand the consequences of my choices.

Situation 1 is a rules-light system with a GM with good judgment. Situation 2 is a rules-heavy system. Situation 3 is a rules-light system with a GM with poor judgment.

Many people who say they prefer a rules-light system are comparing situation 1 to situation 2. And many people who say they prefer a rules-heavy system are comparing situation 2 to situation 3.

And I agree with both sides. I prefer situation 1 to situation 2, and I prefer situation 2 to situation 3. Because I have been very lucky in my GMs, I think of a rules-light situation as situation 1.

[Side-note: Others who prefer a rules-heavy situation do so because they prefer playing the game mechanics to playing a simulation. This is a simple aesthetic preference, and I have no quarrel with such people, just as I have no quarrel with people who prefer vanilla to chocolate.]

Similarly, I share the OP’s disapproval of games interrupted by long arguments. I don’t share his belief that this is an inherent aspect of rules-light systems. A GM with good judgment doesn’t tend to have such arguments at his or her table, and deals with them swiftly and fairly when they come up. [This is also affected by the players. I dislike a game with argumentative players, regardless of the rules.] So in this area as well, when I say I prefer a rules-light system, I’m referring to a very different gaming experience than the OP was.

So I think the real situation is this. I would rank games as follows:
1. Rules-light system with GM with good judgment.
2. Rules-heavy system with GM with good judgment.
3. Rules-heavy system with GM with poor-to-average judgment.
4. Rules-light system with GM with poor-to-average judgment.


*Good judgment includes understanding the system. Good GMs for one system can be poor ones for a system they don’t understand.

Most defenses of rules-heavy system seem to be saying, truthfully, that my third choice is better than my fourth choice. I agree completely – but I won’t play in either game.

I’m comparing my top choice with my second choice, and in that range, I prefer a rules-light system. I will play either; they are both great fun.

But I agree completely that a rules-light system with an unfair or arbitrary GM is a bad experience.

[Seharvepernfan]

Do You Enjoy Vague Rules Which Are Open To Interpretation?

Hate it with a passion. Everybody needs to be on the same page. The DM needs to respect whatever rules are in place when the game starts. The rules themselves need to be abundantly clear; ironclad. Even 3.5 with all it's rules can be frustrating vague or confusing at times, like the rules for the hide skill. I'm the kind of person that prefers rules/mechanics for anything that might matter for a game.

[LordCdrMilitant]

There's a fine line.

Mechanics can't be too complicated, people avoid the sort of rules where you read 12 pages, read it again, and still have no ideal what you're supposed to do.

It's also important that results are predictable. I don't like the fact that, in 5e, if you have to roll for anything you're as likely to fail as you are to succeed, and even if you're super min-maxed for it you're still unfortunately likely to fail.

As a player, most of my understanding of what a character can do is defined by the mechanics of the system. I am easily frustrated by systems that are too free form.

At the same time, as a GM, systems must be flexible enough to account for whatever might come up. I always operate on the premise that my judgement overrides the rules. I'm going to be running Black Crusade, and I'm going to have to make some changes, because off the bat a character can have Psy Rating 9 and overchannel up to psy rating 13. They should not be halfway to Magnus the Red or a Greater Daemon of Tzeentch at character creation, or at least that's not how I envision them or my game playing out. I envision my players as playing 4 point cultists and 13 point Chaos Space Marines, not 430 point lord of war daemon primarchs or 125 point Exalted Sorcerers.

[Tetsubo 57]

I despise vague rules with the heat of a thousand suns. I've said for years that regardless of a system's mechanics, all games have the same number of rules. Rules light systems just expect the rules to live inside the head of the GM as folklore. Complete systems put the rules on the page and everyone can reference them equally.

[Selene Sparks]

OP: It's simply impossible, obviously, for a complex system to be completely clear and absolutely independent of interpretation. That, of course, doesn't mean that such an impossible state isn't desirable, and that one shouldn't go for it, and it doesn't mean that rules systems that fail to cover the basic things they should cover aren't bad systems.

I despise vague rules with the heat of a thousand suns. I've said for years that regardless of a system's mechanics, all games have the same number of rules. Rules light systems just expect the rules to live inside the head of the GM as folklore. Complete systems put the rules on the page and everyone can reference them equally.Now that's not entirely fair. Some systems do, genuinely, have fewer numbers of rules, it's just generally to the system's detriment.

Take Apocalypse World and its ilk, for example. In it, there really is only one rule, which is suck up to the GM to hope they don't shaft you, because it is literally impossible to generate a meaningful result from any task resolution in the book. And, no, I'm not even talking about how the GM decides how your roll is resolved, I'm talking about how, in text examples in the book, there are explicit examples of a "success at a cost" on a hide attempt wherein the cost was "you fail to hide," and examples where a successful check simply means you fail the mission. There are no rules beyond sucking up to the GM, because any actions the players attempt to take are entirely meaningless.

On the other hand, take Munchhausen. Despite not really being a huge fan, it really is the only rules-light system I would argue is, in fact, a good game. In it, there is essentially no vagueness, and the rules can be completely explained to even a complete newbie in under five minutes, and it is both conceptually and mechanically sound.

[martixy]

Now that's not entirely fair. Some systems do, genuinely, have fewer numbers of rules, it's just generally to the system's detriment.

The thing is, in any fully open game, in general the situations a GM is required to arbitrate are generally the same, regardless of rules lite or rules heavy.

However in rules lite, all the guidelines that lead to resolution, as Tetsubo 57 mentioned, have to live inside the GMs head as folklore, while more complete systems obviously lighten this burden.

And while there are instances where leaving something vague is the better choice, these come few and far between.

[ImNotTrevor]

OP: It's simply impossible, obviously, for a complex system to be completely clear and absolutely independent of interpretation. That, of course, doesn't mean that such an impossible state isn't desirable, and that one shouldn't go for it, and it doesn't mean that rules systems that fail to cover the basic things they should cover aren't bad systems.
Now that's not entirely fair. Some systems do, genuinely, have fewer numbers of rules, it's just generally to the system's detriment.



Take Apocalypse World and its ilk, for example. In it, there really is only one rule, which is suck up to the GM to hope they don't shaft you, because it is literally impossible to generate a meaningful result from any task resolution in the book. And, no, I'm not even talking about how the GM decides how your roll is resolved, I'm talking about how, in text examples in the book, there are explicit examples of a "success at a cost" on a hide attempt wherein the cost was "you fail to hide," and examples where a successful check simply means you fail the mission. There are no rules beyond sucking up to the GM, because any actions the players attempt to take are entirely meaningless.
Um.

As the resident expert on Apocalypse World, I'm gonna need the RAW quote on that because I have the opposite quote. Namely:
"A player cannot fail at their goal on a 7-9 because a partial success is still, fundamentally, a success."
Now, this may shift somewhat depending on what the goal is. The goal may be to "get into that building undetected."
On a 7-9 the MC may ask if the player would rather successfully make it in, but be noticed, or successfully go unnoticed, but not make it in.
This is called a Devil's Bargain. You will get one of the 2 things you want (to go undetected, and to enter that building) You decide which.
If there is one goal (Don't get shot) then it also explicitly outlines what can and can't happen. Ie, if the MC inflicts full damage on a 7-9, you can let them know they're doing it wrong since you didn't fail. A 7-9 might produce a LESSER version of the desired outcome. (You are still shot, but not badly) or you avoid getting shot at the cost of something else happening. (You don't get shot, but you drop your gun)
As part of a 7-9, the MC may OFFER a choice to fail but have nothing bad happen, or you even gain a boon related to what you want. But they can always also choose to succeed at cost. That is a choice the player makes.
(You don't get into the cult meeting, but you find a key to the leader's house, for instance.)

I feel like you had AW explained to you once but never actually read it. >.>

[Selene Sparks]

The thing is, in any fully open game, in general the situations a GM is required to arbitrate are generally the same, regardless of rules lite or rules heavy.

However in rules lite, all the guidelines that lead to resolution, as Tetsubo 57 mentioned, have to live inside the GMs head as folklore, while more complete systems obviously lighten this burden.

And while there are instances where leaving something vague is the better choice, these come few and far between.Hence my example of Munchhausen. It doesn't have a GM. That is a large part of why it is good and the various X-Worlds aren't. That is, the more something turns into Magical Tea Party, the less value there is in having one person with all the power and the rest without it.

Um.

As the resident expert on Apocalypse World, I'm gonna need the RAW quote on that because I have the opposite quote. Namely:
"A player cannot fail at their goal on a 7-9 because a partial success is still, fundamentally, a success."
Now, this may shift somewhat depending on what the goal is. The goal may be to "get into that building undetected."
On a 7-9 the MC may ask if the player would rather successfully make it in, but be noticed, or successfully go unnoticed, but not make it in.
This is called a Devil's Bargain. You will get one of the 2 things you want (to go undetected, and to enter that building) You decide which.
If there is one goal (Don't get shot) then it also explicitly outlines what can and can't happen. Ie, if the MC inflicts full damage on a 7-9, you can let them know they're doing it wrong since you didn't fail. A 7-9 might produce a LESSER version of the desired outcome. (You are still shot, but not badly) or you avoid getting shot at the cost of something else happening. (You don't get shot, but you drop your gun)
As part of a 7-9, the MC may OFFER a choice to fail but have nothing bad happen, or you even gain a boon related to what you want. But they can always also choose to succeed at cost. That is a choice the player makes.
(You don't get into the cult meeting, but you find a key to the leader's house, for instance.)
No. You are wrong here.

Keeler the gunlugger’s taken off her shoes and she’s sneaking into Dremmer’s camp, armed as they say to the upper teeth. If they hear her, she’s ****ed. (On a 7–9, maybe I give her an ugly choice between alerting the camp and murdering an innocent teenage sentry.) She hits the roll with an 8, so the ugly choice it is. “There’s some kid out here, huddled under this flimsy tin roof with a mug of who-knows-what. You think you’re past him but he startles and looks right at you. You can kill him before he makes a noise, but you’ll have to do it right this second. Do you?” “Yes, duh,” she says. “Great. You leave him dead and make your way in. You’re crouching down by a big piece of fallen wall, looking into Dremmer’s camp. He’s eating with a couple other guys, they have no idea you’re here.”
...
Wilson the operator’s blundered into Dremmer’s territory and gone to earth. He’s lying up against a wall amid the debris with a plastic tarp over him, trying to look like not-a-person-at-all, while a 2-thug patrol of Dremmer’s gang passes by. If they spot him they’ll drag him to Dremmer and he wants that zero at all. He hits the roll with a 9, so I get to offer him a worse outcome, a hard bargain, or an ugly choice. “Yeah,” I say. “So you’re holding still and you can’t really keep them in your sight. They, um, they spot you, but you don’t realize it.” I think about this for a second. It doesn’t seem quite right, and Wilson’s player is looking at me like I might be cheating. “Actually wait wait. You hit the roll, you didn’t miss it.” “I was gonna say,” Wilson’s player says. “So no,” I say. “Instead, they haven’t spotted you, but they’re getting closer and closer. They’ll be on top of you in just a minute but if you do something right this second you’ll have the drop on them. What do you do?”So here we have two different examples of the "cost" of failure at a cost, is to simply fail to do what you were trying to do.

And here's a non-hiding example:

Bran doesn’t like the way things are going, so he takes a quick look around. He hits the roll with an 11, so let’s see. Tum Tum isn’t his biggest threat, Tum Tum’s psychically-linked cultist bodyguards are. His enemy’s true position is closing in slowly around Tum Tum’s temple, where they’re talking. And if things go to ****? I think his best escape route would be to take one or the other of Tum Tum hostage. So here we have a successful roll turning an encounter from winnable to unwinnable by the power of fiat. The mission transforms from taking out Tum Tum to running away from an unbeatable opponent because someone made a spot check. This is just as dumb.

This is why I said that Apocalypse World doesn't generate meaningful outputs. The example outputs in the book disagree with you.

I feel like you had AW explained to you once but never actually read it. >.>Funny, given how I'm pulling multiple direct citations. But I suppose making assumptions is easier than actually verifying another argument.

[2D8HP]

....take Munchhausen. Despite not really being a huge fan, it really is the only rules-light system I would argue is, in fact, a good game. In it, there is essentially no vagueness, and the rules can be completely explained to even a complete newbie in under five minutes, and it is both conceptually and mechanically sound.


Hence my example of Munchhausen. It doesn't have a GM. That is a large part of why it is good and the various X-Worlds aren't. That is, the more something turns into Magical Tea Party, the less value there is in having one person with all the power and the rest without it...


Oh!

I've bought two editions of Munchhausen!

I don't think I"m quick-witted enough to be a good player of it, but it looked like it would be fun in the right company.

:smile:

[Talakeal]

So, at first I thought the OP was one of my RL friends come to the forum, but now that I look closer it appears that the OP is frankensteined together from quotes of my old posts. What does it mean? And further, why is it enough to prompt seven pages of discussion?

[Cluedrew]

These questions led me down a long thought process, in which I eventually concluded that I agree with one side in one circumstance, and agree with the other side under different circumstances.I have sort of held off on replying to this thread because I felt it was... unnecessarily polarized. But I will now to say: I think you got it. I would add some stuff about rules being general without being vague and so on but it mostly boils down to what you said.

To Talakeal: Well once you get down to it, the topic really comes down to what are the advantages and disadvantages of rules-light and rules-heavy systems. Respectively. I kid, I kid. As Knaight pointed out it is really the opposite around here. I would leap to defend the design decisions of Powered by the Apocalypse, but I learned all I know about it from a friend of mine who I had to check to make sure is not also ImNotTrevor, so I will let ImNotTrevor handle that. More importantly I also had a copy of my post used to create a thread... I wonder what is up with that.

[ImNotTrevor]

No. You are wrong here.
So here we have two different examples of the "cost" of failure at a cost, is to simply fail to do what you were trying to do.
One of those examples is one of the things I described before:
The player is given a hard choice.

The second, I can tell you stopped reading. Because he reverses the call since it would just be a failure. Instead, he remains unseen, BUT the patrol ks approaching and he will need to take further action.




And here's a non-hiding example:
So here we have a successful roll turning an encounter from winnable to unwinnable by the power of fiat. The mission transforms from taking out Tum Tum to running away from an unbeatable opponent because someone made a spot check. This is just as dumb.

Why?
The situation has become more complicated, not unwinnable. The "threat" doesn't get to make any rolls, and it depends entirely on the player how well this goes.

I'm wondering how you managed to read these examples and have the rest of the ruleset fall out of your head. >.>



This is why I said that Apocalypse World doesn't generate meaningful outputs. The example outputs in the book disagree with you.
If you understood what I said and how the mechanics work, you'd know that's untrue.



Funny, given how I'm pulling multiple direct citations. But I suppose making assumptions is easier than actually verifying another argument.
I'm not at my computer, hence requesting the citations. But you've not presented anything outside of what the Moves Snowball section predicts or outside of the MC section RAW.

So... yeah, not really an argument in favor of your position. Every outcome was fairly predictable if you understand the Moves Snowball, which is the core mechanic of the game.

Look, it's ok to dislike how the Moves Snowball works. But what you're currently doing is comparing its outputs to D&D style outputs as if the goal is the same. It's not.

[1337 b4k4]

No. You are wrong here.
So here we have two different examples of the "cost" of failure at a cost, is to simply fail to do what you were trying to do.

I would argue neither of these examples is failing to do what the player was trying to do. In the first example, the character is trying to enter the camp without raising the alarm. The cost of doing so is murdering an otherwise innocent sentry. It is of course the player's option to avoid paying that cost, but then yes, they don't get what they wanted. That is the essence of "success with a cost". In non *World games, I've often seen something like this play out when it's a "by the skin of your teeth" success, except the player doesn't get to choose, usually the GM just narrates that they get halfway into the camp when they cross paths with a sentry and quickly and quietly cut them down.

The second example is a little murkier and I personally would have probably chosen a different tact, but the player is still getting what they wanted. They wanted to hide from the patrol, they have done so and are hidden. They may not remain hidden for long, but for now they are. Again this is a pretty standard trope in games and fiction, where the main character has successfully hidden themselves, but luck is not on their side and the patrol stops right where they're hiding or otherwise makes them have to take additional actions. One of the more famous examples might be Obi-Wan Kenobi and shutting down the deathstar tractor beams. He's made a number of successful hide checks to get there, but at the actual controls, he got a partial success, so while he remained hidden from the patrol as they came, he then had to use the force to trick them into looking another way so that he could escape.



And here's a non-hiding example:
So here we have a successful roll turning an encounter from winnable to unwinnable by the power of fiat. The mission transforms from taking out Tum Tum to running away from an unbeatable opponent because someone made a spot check. This is just as dumb.

This one I don't know enough context to say what's going on, but at the moment it doesn't read like the situation has become unwinable. It doesn't even read like the situation has changed at all.

[Bohandas]

On principle I don't like the look of anythig that falls between D&D 3.5 and Toon crunch wise. That said I don;t really get to play much so I can't really speak as to what works or doesn't in practice

[Selene Sparks]

One of those examples is one of the things I described before:
The player is given a hard choice. No, the player is not "given a hard choice." They successfully rolled to be undetected, and yet they were still detected. That's the bottom line. You succeed, so you fail.

The second, I can tell you stopped reading. Because he reverses the call since it would just be a failure. Instead, he remains unseen, BUT the patrol ks approaching and he will need to take further action.No, the person again fails. They fail at hiding. If I roll to hide and the output is ambush, that is not a meaningful roll, because I have both failed to hide and am now pressed into a different like of action.

Why?
The situation has become more complicated, not unwinnable. The "threat" doesn't get to make any rolls, and it depends entirely on the player how well this goes. The players were invading the cult leader's base with him as the threat. Since they succeeded on a check, there is now a new enemy that spawned from the successful roll that actively makes things worse. And, again, this is PbtA game, so enemies don't actually have stats beyond fiat, and the only resolution possible put forward involved taking a hostage rather than accomplishing the objective.

As a side note, the threat most certainly gets to make rolls, as they're part of the move system and the GM can make a move pretty much whenever they feel like it.

I'm wondering how you managed to read these examples and have the rest of the ruleset fall out of your head. >.>I'm wondering how you managed to read the rest of the ruleset and have the rest of the ruleset fall out of your head, personally.

If you understood what I said and how the mechanics work, you'd know that's untrue. I do understand the rules, and that's the problem. The rules are you roll some dice and the GM says whatever they want to happen, on which the actual die roll has no meaningful impact.

I'm not at my computer, hence requesting the citations. But you've not presented anything outside of what the Moves Snowball section predicts or outside of the MC section RAW.

So... yeah, not really an argument in favor of your position. Every outcome was fairly predictable if you understand the Moves Snowball, which is the core mechanic of the game. Again, you're wrong. It's not that I dislike it, although I do, it's that it's simply bad. The "Moves Snowball" is meaningless and the entire "system" is just a bare cover over mindless GM wankery. The GM decrees how things go, and that's that, with no regard for what they players even attempt to do, much less any petty concerns like what the dice turn up as.

Look, it's ok to dislike how the Moves Snowball works. But what you're currently doing is comparing its outputs to D&D style outputs as if the goal is the same. It's not. I honestly don't even get what you're even trying to defend here. I mean, seriously, there's not even any model for difficulty in it outside of one one-off "custom move" that the text itself is pretty dismissive of, and even then it's awful, especially with how it ties into the "move" system. So there is no difficulty difference between sneaking into a building with ninja pajamas on or sneaking in with a loud pink suit and squeaky clown shoes with spurs attached and a bell around your neck, save in what the GM fiats up in response to whatever you do, which happens either way.

You're seriously, here, saying that being a not-game is the intent of the game, and so its abject mechanical failure on every level shouldn't be criticized. I mean, that argument could be used to defend any other system from any attack.

I would argue neither of these examples is failing to do what the player was trying to do. In the first example, the character is trying to enter the camp without raising the alarm. The cost of doing so is murdering an otherwise innocent sentry. It is of course the player's option to avoid paying that cost, but then yes, they don't get what they wanted. That is the essence of "success with a cost". In non *World games, I've often seen something like this play out when it's a "by the skin of your teeth" success, except the player doesn't get to choose, usually the GM just narrates that they get halfway into the camp when they cross paths with a sentry and quickly and quietly cut them down.No. That is a load of crap. The attempt was to get in undetected, and the attempt failed, because they were detected.

The second example is a little murkier and I personally would have probably chosen a different tact, but the player is still getting what they wanted. They wanted to hide from the patrol, they have done so and are hidden. They may not remain hidden for long, but for now they are. Again this is a pretty standard trope in games and fiction, where the main character has successfully hidden themselves, but luck is not on their side and the patrol stops right where they're hiding or otherwise makes them have to take additional actions. One of the more famous examples might be Obi-Wan Kenobi and shutting down the deathstar tractor beams. He's made a number of successful hide checks to get there, but at the actual controls, he got a partial success, so while he remained hidden from the patrol as they came, he then had to use the force to trick them into looking another way so that he could escape.Again, no. The roll was "I want to hide from these two specific people" and the result on a success was "you do not get to hide from those two specific people." And, in Star Wars(which, I want to remind you, isn't an RPG), Obi-Wan was still not caught by the storm troopers. It wasn't "Oh, that's nice, you don't get to hide," it was a matter of fluff.

This one I don't know enough context to say what's going on, but at the moment it doesn't read like the situation has become unwinable. It doesn't even read like the situation has changed at all.The psychic bodyguards came into existence on the roll. That is the problem.

[ImNotTrevor]

No, the player is not "given a hard choice."
Go ahead and read that again. Because you apparently are struggling with it.

Firstly:
She is rolling to Act Under Fire, not to hide. Hiding isn't a move. She is in a dangerous situation. The "Fire" she is acting under is the threat of a raised alarm. The outcome is this:


There’s some kid out here, huddled under this flimsy tin roof with a mug of who-knows-what. You think you’re past him but he startles and looks right at you. You can kill him before he makes a noise, but you’ll have to do it right this second. Do you?” “Yes, duh,” she says. “Great. You leave him dead and make your way in. You’re crouching down by a big piece of fallen wall, looking into Dremmer’s camp. He’s eating with a couple other guys, they have no idea you’re here.”
Note that last sentence.
"THEY HAVE NO IDEA YOU'RE HERE."

Their goal of getting to Dremmer without raising the alarm has been met. The cost was murdering some teenager. Bam.



They successfully rolled to be undetected, and yet they were still detected. That's the bottom line. You succeed, so you fail.
She rolled to avoid anyone raising the alarm. Killing the one guy who happened to see you before they can raise the alarm isn't failing to hide. It's succeeding at hiding... except for that one hiccup. Which was dealt with. Nobody knows you're there, now that Slim over there is dead. Overall, the sneak was successful.



No, the person again fails. They fail at hiding.
I see you again didn't finish.



(Emphasis added)
Instead, [b]they haven’t spotted you,[b] but they’re getting closer and closer. They’ll be on top of you in just a minute but if you do something right this second you’ll have the drop on them. What do you do?”
So you're still hidden. Note that IF. If you do something right away, you'll have the drop on them. That, to me, doesn't limit the action to an ambush. If the player wants, they might be able to create a distraction that the guards will be especially vulnerable to. So on this:



If I roll to hide and the output is ambush, that is not a meaningful roll, because I have both failed to hide and am now pressed into a different like of action.
Read the Moves Snowball section.
Failed Moves and Partial Successes create the need for additional moves to be made. This is the core mechanic. Things get more complicated over time. This is the system working as advertised.

So yes, you're hidden. The cost is: not for long. The benefit is: you can play this on your terms.

Come on, man. This isn't even that hard to parse out.



Ah yes. Just like how a successful spot check spawns a goblin if you see one. Spot checks with a result other than Nothing are failures, now.

Oh wait. That's terrible logic!

And

[QUOTE]
And, again, this is PbtA game, so enemies don't actually have stats beyond fiat,
Virtually every NPC dies at 3 or more harm, absolutely all of them die at 4 or more, and at 5 they're chunky salsa. This is in the Harm rules.
Armor does not go above 2, and if they have Armor 2 they're wearing ARMOR. Visible, noticeable metal on their bodies.
Most weapons have codified harm.

Are you 100% sure you read the book?



and the only resolution possible put forward involved taking a hostage rather than accomplishing the objective.
Incorrect. Please read more carefully. Quoting again:


And if things go to ****? I think his best escape route would be to take one or the other of Tum Tum hostage.

There's a conjunction in there. Notice it? The word is "if."
It is used in English to denote things that are possible, but not guaranteed. Most often used as a short version of "in the situation where..."

That means the character now knows that IF things go bad, Tum Tum is their ticket out.

But that hasn't happened yet. It can, but it hasn't.

You also must assume that these psychics are not already an established fact. Which is stretching beyond the scope of the example and into "I'm making up things I might think are problems, using BS extrapolation from limited data" territory.



As a side note, the threat most certainly gets to make rolls, as they're part of the move system and the GM can make a move pretty much whenever they feel like it.
The MC has specific times when they can make moves. Namely:
-In response to failures, they can make as hard a move as they want.
-in partial successes, they may make weaker moves.
-they may make weak moves when things are going slow, to trigger the moves snowball. But if the snowball is going, play by the rules.

Seriously.



I'm wondering how you managed to read the rest of the ruleset and have the rest of the ruleset fall out of your head, personally.
Fascinating. You went with "No you!"
All while demonstrating you didn't actually understand the examples, and don't know the rules.



I do understand the rules, and that's the problem. The rules are you roll some dice and the GM says whatever they want to happen, on which the actual die roll has no meaningful impact.
That would be scathing if I weren't 100% certain you've not understood and just dislike it.
Which is fine. I can live with you not liking it.



Again, you're wrong. It's not that I dislike it, although I do, it's that it's simply bad. The "Moves Snowball" is meaningless and the entire "system" is just a bare cover over mindless GM wankery. The GM decrees how things go, and that's that, with no regard for what they players even attempt to do, much less any petty concerns like what the dice turn up as.

I honestly don't even get what you're even trying to defend here. I mean, seriously, there's not even any model for difficulty in it outside of one one-off "custom move" that the text itself is pretty dismissive of, and even then it's awful, especially with how it ties into the "move" system. So there is no difficulty difference between sneaking into a building with ninja pajamas on or sneaking in with a loud pink suit and squeaky clown shoes with spurs attached and a bell around your neck, save in what the GM fiats up in response to whatever you do, which happens either way.
Ah. You really don't understand how it works. Or you kiiiinda do, but just don't like it and can't separate "i dislike this style" from "this is objectively bad."
Don't worry. Many people have the same difficulty.

You like when a system is more granular, and has things like sliding difficulty. Cool! I like those things, too.
I also like what Apocalypse World does, as both MC and Player.



You're seriously, here, saying that being a not-game is the intent of the game, and so its abject mechanical failure on every level shouldn't be criticized. I mean, that argument could be used to defend any other system from any attack.
That's a super neato strawman. Way to get him.

Too bad nobody in the for realsies discussion is making that argument, or you'd have got 'em real good!


Look, I really don't mind that you dislike a system I enjoy. I get snarky when people try to project an opinion as objective fact, because that's annoying and also very obviously what is happening here. You're unusually histrionic about it, but eh. I've seen worse.

Again, I find myself severely doubting that you've comprehended the game. Even less that you've played it. I've played AW for about 4 years now, and my experiences have not matched your expectations at all. In fact, most people I played campaigns of AW with wanted to play it again right after, and were highly satisfied with their ability to contribute to the storyline, moreso than in games like D&D. I've never had any complaints that rolls didn't matter, both from new and veteran players of various systems.

So....

I dunno what to tell you other than that your rant fails to accurately reflect the things going on, fails to account for the actual mechanics, and fails to have much logical merit beside.

As I'll say to anyone:
AW is weird, and not for everyone. It does not hold the same assumptions as games like D&D, and the play experience it produces is not akin to what D&D does. In any way.
What it DOES DO, it does very well. Namely:
Things escalate.
Things get desperate.
By the end of the campaign, the world will probably not be better. But it will certainly not be the same.

If you dislike that, no problem. It is weird! AW is a game about building up a town/region/place and then letting loose a bunch of badasses to wreck up the place and see what kinds of cool patterns the fires make.
And it's REALLY good at that.
If that's not the thing you want? Don't play it. That's all it does.

Hence why people disliking it doesn't bother me. People misrepresenting what it does, eh. I'm here to fact check.

[Selene Sparks]

Firstly:
She is rolling to Act Under Fire, not to hide. Hiding isn't a move. She is in a dangerous situation. The "Fire" she is acting under is the threat of a raised alarm.That's crap and you know it. First of all, hiding, like any number of other actions, falls under the Act Under Fire. Second, you are wrong, because, while threatened, she is explicitly sneaking, and is "****ed" if she is heard. Those are her objectives. Sneaking and not being heard. She absolutely fails at the first and obviously fails at the second.

The outcome is this:
Note that last sentence.
"THEY HAVE NO IDEA YOU'RE HERE."

Their goal of getting to Dremmer without raising the alarm has been met. The cost was murdering some teenager. Bam.Except no. Again, you are flatly wrong. First of all, again, the stated objective was to sneak. Being detected is an obvious failure, period. "were you undetected" is no. There was no "cost" involved. She was detected, and then killed a faceless NPC with no stats. The fact that the alarm wasn't raised is entirely irrelevant to the fact that she was detected, and there is no possible definition of "detected" wherein killing the detector retroactively changes the fact that you were detected unless time travel is involved.

She rolled to avoid anyone raising the alarm. Killing the one guy who happened to see you before they can raise the alarm isn't failing to hide. It's succeeding at hiding... except for that one hiccup. Which was dealt with. Nobody knows you're there, now that Slim over there is dead. Overall, the sneak was successful.Yes, you succeed except when you fail, which I guess counts as a success despite being failing because I don't know, something something sitch move fire something.

I see you again didn't finish.

So you're still hidden. Note that IF. If you do something right away, you'll have the drop on them. That, to me, doesn't limit the action to an ambush. If the player wants, they might be able to create a distraction that the guards will be especially vulnerable to.So, you can ambush, or you can make undefined action that you have a 70% chance of having go wrong and the output will still be ambush because the last output was ambush from an action that couldn't generate it again, so there's no reason why it wouldn't give that same output, because the output is disconnected from the input.

Also, it's telling that the first part of that, the first thought of the author, was to go to an explicit, unconditional "you fail" on a success until it was obvious the player wasn't buying it.

So on this:
Read the Moves Snowball section.
Failed Moves and Partial Successes create the need for additional moves to be made. This is the core mechanic. Things get more complicated over time. This is the system working as advertised.

So yes, you're hidden. The cost is: not for long. The benefit is: you can play this on your terms.

Come on, man. This isn't even that hard to parse out."You fail" is not a valid "benefit." "Not for long" is simply another way of saying "you fail," and thus the output is ambush, as that's the only remaining option according to the text.

Ah yes. Just like how a successful spot check spawns a goblin if you see one. Spot checks with a result other than Nothing are failures, now.

Oh wait. That's terrible logic!This is, again, a load of crap. First of all, the example had no indication that they existed prior, the player clearly had no idea they existed, and so on. Beyond that, it's looking like you don't understand how action resolution works. They weren't there until the action that generated them occurred. Second, there is a difference between "super monsters generated by your action" and "successfully sees nothing exists". Furthermore, "make random stuff up" is explicitly listed as a result. So, your logic is indeed awful, thank you for pointing it out for me. And, third, as you pointed out, *world doesn't try to generate logical responses. In D&D, things are already there because that's the model D&D works on, save for random encounters, which are very nearly as dumb, but at least aren't arbitrary in response to any action the GM pleases.

Virtually every NPC dies at 3 or more harm, absolutely all of them die at 4 or more, and at 5 they're chunky salsa. This is in the Harm rules.
Armor does not go above 2, and if they have Armor 2 they're wearing ARMOR. Visible, noticeable metal on their bodies. Wrong on both counts. First of all, NPCs, generally, can survive up to five wounds(They only explicitly die at the six o'clock position). Second of all, the hardholder has a power that grants their gang +2 armor. In other words, armor can most certainly go above 2. Methinks it's you who needs to go reread the rules.

Most weapons have codified harm. In other words, damage is whatever the GM says.

Are you 100% sure you read the book?Apparently I've been doing a better job of it then you, so yeah.

Incorrect. Please read more carefully. Quoting again:


There's a conjunction in there. Notice it? The word is "if."
It is used in English to denote things that are possible, but not guaranteed. Most often used as a short version of "in the situation where..."

That means the character now knows that IF things go bad, Tum Tum is their ticket out.

But that hasn't happened yet. It can, but it hasn't.Again,*World doesn't have differing difficulties, the GM simply narrates whatever. The only information the GM gave was that they could run away if they did one specific action. Any subsequent actions are under fire, and the GM decides the result against the opponent where the PCs are explicitly told that they might be able to run away maybe and that's it.

You also must assume that these psychics are not already an established fact. Which is stretching beyond the scope of the example and into "I'm making up things I might think are problems, using BS extrapolation from limited data" territory.Again, no, see above.

The MC has specific times when they can make moves. Namely:
-In response to failures, they can make as hard a move as they want.
-in partial successes, they may make weaker moves.
-they may make weak moves when things are going slow, to trigger the moves snowball. But if the snowball is going, play by the rules. You missed one.

However, when a player’s character hands you the perfect opportunity on a golden plate, make as hard and direct a move as you like. It’s not the meaner the better, although mean is often good. Best is: make it irrevocable.In other words, you can make whenever you feel like.

Fascinating. You went with "No you!"
All while demonstrating you didn't actually understand the examples, and don't know the rules.Worth pointing out your first post on the subject, and nearly every other line in this one, were insults, whereas I've been citing sources.

That would be scathing if I weren't 100% certain you've not understood and just dislike it.
Which is fine. I can live with you not liking it. In other words, you have no response, but are too attached to the idea of *World to say so.

Ah. You really don't understand how it works. Or you kiiiinda do, but just don't like it and can't separate "i dislike this style" from "this is objectively bad."
Don't worry. Many people have the same difficulty. Ah, more condescension. Wonderful.

Funny thing is I can say the opposite with greater accuracy, which is you don't really understand how the book is written, but you simply liked the games you've played without going by the rules, and you can't separate those two points. Which is fine, that happens most people who've played White Wolf games, so you're hardly alone.

You like when a system is more granular, and has things like sliding difficulty. Cool! I like those things, too.
I also like what Apocalypse World does, as both MC and Player. That's cool. But what you've been describing isn't Apocalypse World as it's written.

That's a super neato strawman. Way to get him.

Too bad nobody in the for realsies discussion is making that argument, or you'd have got 'em real good!Do you not know what a strawman is? You said that the goal of the game wasn't what I wanted, and using that to dismiss my criticism. That argument is the exact same logic as the "not for critics" argument. "It doesn't contain the element you want, so you dislike it so your argument on its merits is invalid" is what your statement boiled down to, dismissing the idea out of hand the notion that my dislike for something and it being bad are two different things, the former having no impact on the latter.

Look, I really don't mind that you dislike a system I enjoy. I get snarky when people try to project an opinion as objective fact, because that's annoying and also very obviously what is happening here. You're unusually histrionic about it, but eh. I've seen worse. Again, I've quoted sources, you've said "nuh-uh" and have been repeatedly wrong about specific mechanics.

Again, I find myself severely doubting that you've comprehended the game. Even less that you've played it. I've played AW for about 4 years now, and my experiences have not matched your expectations at all. In fact, most people I played campaigns of AW with wanted to play it again right after, and were highly satisfied with their ability to contribute to the storyline, moreso than in games like D&D. I've never had any complaints that rolls didn't matter, both from new and veteran players of various systems. You're conflating two unrelated points, with a side dose of appeal to popularity based on anecdotes, but more broadly, if that was the case you weren't using the system as it's written, because the system as its written is directly hostile to what you described.

I dunno what to tell you other than that your rant fails to accurately reflect the things going on, fails to account for the actual mechanics, and fails to have much logical merit beside. Yes, my argument is wrong despite being backed up with explicit quotes, because the "nuh-uh" of a self-proclaimed expert is obviously more valid than what the book itself says.

I'm here to fact check.No, you're here to defend how you think the game works, rather than how the game works. It's honestly a pretty common thing. I can think of several people I've known who've said they've played Scion, for example, but when you get into specific mechanics, their eyes glaze over. Even on this forum, I've seen people deny the idea of peasant armies being better than everything else in 5e, and simulacra loops, as well as defending the idea that hide rules even exist. If you've ever joined a WoD game, you'll know you have to learn the group's elaborate houserule web. It's fine. People remember how games went more than what the rules say, and people are pretty good at mentally rewriting nonsense into something vaguely usable without even realizing they're doing it. But people's positive memories and mind caulk don't change what the system is, which is a thin veneer of mechanics covering GM wankery.

As a side note, in your "defense" of the system, one thing I can't help but notice you neglected to mention is that the party engaging in constant orgies is the only logical result of the mechanics, and is objectively superior to not doing so.

[Floret]

As a side note, in your "defense" of the system, one thing I can't help but notice you neglected to mention is that the party engaging in constant orgies is the only logical result of the mechanics, and is objectively superior to not doing so.

While I have less experience with AW then NotTrevor, so I think I'll let him handle the bigger strokes (But somehow managed to glean the same interpretation from reading the rules than he does), but this is just a cheap potshot. And not even accurate.

1) Yes, there are rules for what happens when characters have sex, sometimes giving out mechanical benefits.

2) I think you pointing it out in this way points to a fundamental difference in expectations, with which AW gets hard to understand. Namely, that whole "fiction first" thing the system says? No matter how tight, and in parts gamey the mechanics are, the focus of the game is the fiction of it, and playing your character, following them trying to achieve their goals. You use the mechanics for that, sure, but first and foremost, you play your character and do what they would do. Which is probably not wildly ****ing everyone (Though it might be, and so what). And that permeates the system, especially so what the MC does. Cause sure, technically they can do a bunch of things, but that is true of every system (And I have yet to see another system say "GM, don't try and actually fight your players, you will win, and noone would have fun" as bluntly (or at all)). Have you read the agendas and MC principles? And the actual MC moves? Cause those are all binding, yaknow. A GM that just ****s with players and does whatever is actively violating the rules.

3) Even if we were gonna mechanically exploit things, just have a Maestro D' along passing around a joint... Seriously, do optimisation right if you insist on it.
Oh, and make sure you skip the driver. Or the battlebabe. Or a bunch of others. And technically it only really does things other than potential incremental xp gain when you hit up the gunlugger. But sure. Orgies are really efficient. :smallconfused:

[Cluedrew]

I have to say, I have played Powered by the Apocalypse games before (never Apocalypse World itself however) and my experiences match ImNotTrevor's explanation more than Selene Sparks' predictions. When we played a miss was a failure, a weak hit felt like a success and a strong hit felt like a critical success. And it worked really well. I have had trouble playing in D&D campaigns since then (although there were other factors). Although it is possible that both my GM and ImNotTrevor misunderstood what was in the rule-book in striking similar ways, I have to say this in any case:

To Selene Sparks: Even if that is not what was originally intended, or it was intended but miscommunicated, just go with the "wrong" way because it is a lot more fun. Powered by the Apocalypse has been some of the most fun I have played and that is in no small part because it played out kind of like ImNotTrevor described it.

[Rhedyn]

The thing is, in any fully open game, in general the situations a GM is required to arbitrate are generally the same, regardless of rules lite or rules heavy.

Yeah but most of us consider "writing the game world/narrative" and "role-playing NPCs" not to be things you need rules for because it's a basic assumption that you can do these things.

[Selene Sparks]

While I have less experience with AW then NotTrevor, so I think I'll let him handle the bigger strokes (But somehow managed to glean the same interpretation from reading the rules than he does), but this is just a cheap potshot. And not even accurate.No, there are plenty of "cheap potshots" I could have, in fact. I was strictly sticking to the mechanics and not going into the fact, that, for example, the author is a creep (https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?350453-Let-me-recommend-you-a-great-pirates-game/page2)(And, no, before anyone tries to downplay this, that "game" literally has the players lose control of their characters and go on raping sprees based on the RNG), associates with creeps (https://storify.com/AndriErlingsson/zak-s-runs-a-secret-harassment-group-online), and is generally the kind of person I'd go out of my way to avoid being alone with at all.

1) Yes, there are rules for what happens when characters have sex, sometimes giving out mechanical benefits.Large bonuses, including XP. I shouldn't need to explain why this is a bad idea. Especially considering the f

2) I think you pointing it out in this way points to a fundamental difference in expectations, with which AW gets hard to understand. Namely, that whole "fiction first" thing the system says? No matter how tight, and in parts gamey the mechanics are, the focus of the game is the fiction of it, and playing your character, following them trying to achieve their goals. You use the mechanics for that, sure, but first and foremost, you play your character and do what they would do. Which is probably not wildly ****ing everyone (Though it might be, and so what). And that permeates the system, especially so what the MC does. Cause sure, technically they can do a bunch of things, but that is true of every system (And I have yet to see another system say "GM, don't try and actually fight your players, you will win, and noone would have fun" as bluntly (or at all)). Have you read the agendas and MC principles? And the actual MC moves? Cause those are all binding, yaknow. A GM that just ****s with players and does whatever is actively violating the rules.No, they aren't. But at least someone here's admitting that the mechanics don't actually exist and the GM simply makes stuff up, so I guess that's progress.

3) Even if we were gonna mechanically exploit things, just have a Maestro D' along passing around a joint... Seriously, do optimisation right if you insist on it.So your response is "There are more powerful optimization options?" I genuinely don't even know what to say about this, beyond that you really have to be deliberately missing the point here.

Oh, and make sure you skip the driver. Or the battlebabe. Or a bunch of others. And technically it only really does things other than potential incremental xp gain when you hit up the gunlugger. But sure. Orgies are really efficient. :smallconfused:Yeah, they really are. They cost nothing in-game to do, and gives you extra XP, free items, +1 forward, free assists. This is stupid, for obvious reasons, even without getting into the weird framing.

As a side note, I'm still having trouble believing people are writing down game-terms like "battlebabe" and are still willing to defend this garbage.

To Selene Sparks: Even if that is not what was originally intended, or it was intended but miscommunicated, just go with the "wrong" way because it is a lot more fun. Powered by the Apocalypse has been some of the most fun I have played and that is in no small part because it played out kind of like ImNotTrevor described it.No. The game is GM wankery disguised as a game, and no amount of having a good storyteller will change that. The best case scenario is it turns into a decent round of magical tea party, but if I wanted to do that, I don't need this nonsense excuse for a system, and I could just go play Munchhausen.

[Corneel]

What I get out of this discussion of the Apocalypse system, knowing it not at all, is that Selene Sparks doesn't like it for seemingly for both game system and non game system reasons, and while I could agree there seem to be objective problems about the non game system aspects (eg terms like "battlebabe"), this seems to unfairly color their perspective of the game system together with a subjective preference for rules heavy systems, as the game system interpretations of those that argue against her (mainly ImNotTrevor) seem to be more justified in terms of the material quoted and presented in the discussion, and actually got me interested to look into the system.

[Satinavian]

What I get out of this discussion of the Apocalypse system, knowing it not at all, is that Selene Sparks doesn't like it for seemingly for both game system and non game system reasons, and while I could agree there seem to be objective problems about the non game system aspects (eg terms like "battlebabe"), this seems to unfairly color their perspective of the game system together with a subjective preference for rules heavy systems, as the game system interpretations of those that argue against her (mainly ImNotTrevor) seem to be more justified in terms of the material quoted and presented in the discussion, and actually got me interested to look into the system.
No, Selene is argueing that if you have a free, vague, narrative driven game you should not give the GM all the power over the developing narrative. She seems to be quite ok with other short and vague systems.

[ImNotTrevor]

That's crap and you know it. First of all, hiding, like any number of other actions, falls under the Act Under Fire. Second, you are wrong, because, while threatened, she is explicitly sneaking, and is "****ed if she is heard. Those are her objectives. Sneaking and not being heard. She absolutely fails at the first and obviously fails at the second.
Yes. She fails those. Temporarily. And then without a roll she is back to hidden, but now someone is dead.
It's almost like she got a PARTIAL SUCCESS, rather than a FULL SUCCESS.
Holy crap, what a concept!




Except no. Again, you are flatly wrong. First of all, again, the stated objective was to sneak. Being detected is an obvious failure, period. "were you undetected" is no. There was no "cost" involved. She was detected, and then killed a faceless NPC with no stats. The fact that the alarm wasn't raised is entirely irrelevant to the fact that she was detected, and there is no possible definition of "detected" wherein killing the detector retroactively changes the fact that you were detected unless time travel is involved.
Really? So now the target of interest knows she's there?
Wait. They don't.
It's almost like they had a PARTIAL SUCCESS.
What a concept!



Yes, you succeed except when you fail, which I guess counts as a success despite being failing because I don't know, something something sitch move fire something.



So, you can ambush, or you can make undefined action that you have a 70% chance of having go wrong and the output will still be ambush because the last output was ambush from an action that couldn't generate it again, so there's no reason why it wouldn't give that same output, because the output is disconnected from the input.
Now were on hyperbole. Neato.

Unless you have a minus in the stat, all rolls have a 50% chance of being at least a partial success. Every additional increase in the stat makes it less and less likely to fail. For instance, if you have a +3, only three dice outcomes can cause you to fail, three cause you to partial success, and the other six are a full success. As a math note.

Again, you are deliberately ignoring the realm of possibility in favor of yoir opinion and calling that opinion TRUTH. I, and everyone else, don't buy it.



Also, it's telling that the first part of that, the first thought of the author, was to go to an explicit, unconditional "you fail" on a success until it was obvious the player wasn't buying it.
You really need to brush up om that reading, friend!



I think about this for a second. It doesn’t seem quite right, and Wilson’s player is looking at me like I might be cheating.
It's almost as of this example is meant to teach that while a partial success does cause problems and is not the ideal outcome, it is still fundamentally a success.
Literally an example of correcting an error is being used as proof that the error is the desired outcome.

Wow.



"You fail" is not a valid "benefit." "Not for long" is simply another way of saying "you fail," and thus the output is ambush, as that's the only remaining option according to the text.
You have an extremely binary view of success.

If I go out and want to spend ten bucks on tacos, and after I'm done I've spent $11.00 on tacos, have I succeeded at my task?

AW says: Partial Success. You pretty much got it, but it cost a tad more than planned. Moving on.

You: That is fundamentally a failure because something other than the ideal outcome happened!

I wonder if you also consider yourself to have failed a test if you get a 90% instead of a 100%.



This is, again, a load of crap. First of all, the example had no indication that they existed prior,
It's almost like it's a brief example and can't give detailed world lore.



the player clearly had no idea they existed,
There is no evidence of this, or its inverse, as what the character says is not included in your quote. I found it in the book, and it's indecisive.

Again, you're extrapolating.



and so on.
This is shorthand for "that's all I have but I want to seem like I have more."
I'm not new to this.



Beyond that, it's looking like you don't understand how action resolution works. They weren't there until the action that generated them occurred. Second, there is a difference between "super monsters generated by your action" and "successfully sees nothing exists". Furthermore, "make random stuff up" is explicitly listed as a result.
Really. For Read a Sitch?



Reading a situation can mean carefully checking things out, studying and
analyzing, thinking something through, or it can mean a quick look over
the wall and going by gut. Depends on the character.
As MC, sometimes you’ll already know the answers to these and sometimes
you won’t. Either way, you do have to commit to the answers when you
give them. The +1 is there to make it concrete.
Nope. No random making things up here. In fact, based on the agenda items:
-Say what your prep demands
-Say what honesty demands
And the principles:
-Think offscreen, too

The most likely outcome is that you get what prep demands, and what honesty demands. Just like in D&D, if Goblins were prepped, then spot checks will show goblins.

It's almost as if you're propping up an opinion with falsehoods and purposeful misreading that everyone else can see through easily.

Hmmmmmm...



So, that logic is indeed awful, thank you for pointing it out for me.
Corrected to properly reflect the context, rather than trying to strawman me again.



And, third, as you pointed out, *world doesn't try to generate logical responses.
Quote me saying this. Exactly this, not some sentence you extrapolated that from.



In D&D, things are already there because that's the model D&D works on, save for random encounters, which are very nearly as dumb, but at least aren't arbitrary in response to any action the GM pleases.
You mean the prep model?
Like how Apocalypse World has GM prep?
Oh my!



Wrong on both counts. First of all, NPCs, generally, can survive up to five wounds(They only explicitly die at the six o'clock position).
quote time? Quote time.




1-harm: cosmetic damage, pain, concussion, fear if the NPC’s likely to be
afraid of pain.
2-harm: wounds, unconsciousness, bad pain, broken bones, shock. Likely
fatal, occasionally immediately fatal.
3-harm: give it 50-50 it’s immediately fatal. Otherwise, terrible wounds,
shock, death soon.
4-harm: usually immediately fatal, but sometimes the poor **** has to
wait to die, mangled and ruined.
5-harm and more: fatal and increasingly bodily destructive.


Also, it takes 3 harm to get to 6-oclock.
1 harm fills 1 wedge.
You obviously didn't read.

So at 3 harm it's 50/50 they die now or die soon.
At 4 harm they either die right now, or spend a few minutes suffering in a mangled and ruined body. But either way? They're no longer a threat.
5 harm, chunky salsa.



Second of all, the hardholder has a power that grants their gang +2 armor. In other words, armor can most certainly go above 2. Methinks it's you who needs to go reread the rules.
The hubris makes this funny.
They get +2 instead of +1 when defending their stronghold. Yes, this can put them at 3 armor, but for the individual NPCs we were talking about, it doesn't go above 2.
Also, this is PC stuff and they operate by different rules.
I said it doesn't go above 2. That's my bad.
3-armor is extremely rare and transitional in nature, and usually only comes via PC shenanigans.



In other words, damage is whatever the GM says.
Apparently I've been doing a better job of it then you, so yeah.
Wow. You're really struggling at being condescending. To be condescending you need to know what you're talking about.

Based on what the NPC is holding, you can gauge the damage. And an NPC will probably never outdamage the Gunlugger.



Again,*World doesn't have differing difficulties, the GM simply narrates whatever. The only information the GM gave was that they could run away if they did one specific action.
That they take a +1 on.



Any subsequent actions are under fire, and the GM decides the result against the opponent where the PCs are explicitly told that they might be able to run away maybe and that's it.
he asked specifically about an escape route.
He got an escape route answer.

Why is this hard to grasp?




You missed one.
In other words, you can make whenever you feel like.
That's not what that means, but OK.
Especially not within the context of the Principles, but ok.
You do you, honey boo-boo.
That you're not running around ruining AW for people who enjoy it is a good thing, in my book. Please continue to not play it.



I literally quoted your quotes and had to correct your misreadings of basic English before I could move on to the rules.

[QUOTE]
In other words, you have no response, but are too attached to the idea of *World to say so.
Lol.



Ah, more condescension. Wonderful.

Funny thing is I can say the opposite with greater accuracy, which is you don't really understand how the book is written, but you simply liked the games you've played without going by the rules, and you can't separate those two points. Which is fine, that happens most people who've played White Wolf games, so you're hardly alone.
Weird. I've actually talked with Vince before (via the forum, of course. I'm not THAT cool) and we run our games the same way, though he's obviously much better at it.
Weird.



That's cool. But what you've been describing isn't Apocalypse World as it's written.
*uncomfortable coughing*



Do you not know what a strawman is? You said that the goal of the game wasn't what I wanted, and using that to dismiss my criticism.
Yes. Because criticising mustard for not being ketchup is a waste of time.



That argument is the exact same logic as the "not for critics" argument. "It doesn't contain the element you want, so you dislike it so your argument on its merits is invalid" is what your statement boiled down to, dismissing the idea out of hand the notion that my dislike for something and it being bad are two different things, the former having no impact on the latter.
Yes. Opinions and facts are different things. You're getting it now.



Again, I've quoted sources, you've said "nuh-uh" and have been repeatedly wrong about specific mechanics.
From memory, yes. But now I've got the rulebook with me.
I don't want to derail this thread further, though, so anything else you need clarified, feel free to start another thread or PM me.



You're conflating two unrelated points, with a side dose of appeal to popularity based on anecdotes, but more broadly, if that was the case you weren't using the system as it's written, because the system as its written is directly hostile to what you described.



Yes, my argument is wrong despite being backed up with explicit quotes, because the "nuh-uh" of a self-proclaimed expert is obviously more valid than what the book itself says.
If you had demonstrated a capacity to understand what the examples say, this would have weight.
You haven't.
So it sounds like grandstanding without merit.



No, you're here to defend how you think the game works, rather than how the game works. It's honestly a pretty common thing. I can think of several people I've known who've said they've played Scion, for example, but when you get into specific mechanics, their eyes glaze over. Even on this forum, I've seen people deny the idea of peasant armies being better than everything else in 5e, and simulacra loops, as well as defending the idea that hide rules even exist. If you've ever joined a WoD game, you'll know you have to learn the group's elaborate houserule web. It's fine. People remember how games went more than what the rules say, and people are pretty good at mentally rewriting nonsense into something vaguely usable without even realizing they're doing it. But people's positive memories and mind caulk don't change what the system is, which is a thin veneer of mechanics covering GM wankery.
Uhuh...mk.



As a side note, in your "defense" of the system, one thing I can't help but notice you neglected to mention is that the party engaging in constant orgies is the only logical result of the mechanics, and is objectively superior to not doing so.
Not if you're a Driver.
Not if there's a Battlebabe.
Not if you're a Hocus.

And that assumes the goal is to optimize. Which this doesn't, since orgies take time and their effects can often be gained by less time consuming and potentially risky methods.

Sorta like how everyone should heal people by drowning in 3.5 but that doesn't actually happen in real life for a variety of reasons.

Your theorycrafting is neato, but the point of bringing up my experience was that theory and actual play are often different. And my 4 years of play experience don't match your few hours of theorycrafting.

So....

*shrug*

[Corneel]

No, Selene is argueing that if you have a free, vague, narrative driven game you should not give the GM all the power over the developing narrative. She seems to be quite ok with other short and vague systems.
Then she's arguing it badly.

[ImNotTrevor]

What I get out of this discussion of the Apocalypse system, knowing it not at all, is that Selene Sparks doesn't like it for seemingly for both game system and non game system reasons, and while I could agree there seem to be objective problems about the non game system aspects (eg terms like "battlebabe"), this seems to unfairly color their perspective of the game system together with a subjective preference for rules heavy systems, as the game system interpretations of those that argue against her (mainly ImNotTrevor) seem to be more justified in terms of the material quoted and presented in the discussion, and actually got me interested to look into the system.

When you argue so poorly about the game being bad that people decide to play the game.

Amazing.

[Cluedrew]

No. The game is GM wankery disguised as a game, and no amount of having a good storyteller will change that. The best case scenario is it turns into a decent round of magical tea party, but if I wanted to do that, I don't need this nonsense excuse for a system, and I could just go play Munchhausen.That is a pretty good disguise to hold up to multiple campaigns (not all with the same GM), questioned decisions, player side calls and long design discussions. In fact I would argue that they these are "proof by counter example" (or my friend's hack is better the original) because they are good games. And very player driven, the campaign "quest giver" was often part of the party and most of the plot twists and changes in the plot similarly originated from within the party. This does not match what you are saying, do you have an explanation for that?

To ImNotTrevor: Actually I think that was supposed to be saying your arguments for the game are really good.

[Selene Sparks]

What I get out of this discussion of the Apocalypse system, knowing it not at all, is that Selene Sparks doesn't like it for seemingly for both game system and non game system reasons, and while I could agree there seem to be objective problems about the non game system aspects (eg terms like "battlebabe"), this seems to unfairly color their perspective of the game system together with a subjective preference for rules heavy systems, as the game system interpretations of those that argue against her (mainly ImNotTrevor) seem to be more justified in terms of the material quoted and presented in the discussion, and actually got me interested to look into the system.You mean my explicit quotes about how rolling a successes results in not successes is "interpretation?" Because that's the explicit text of the book.

No, Selene is argueing that if you have a free, vague, narrative driven game you should not give the GM all the power over the developing narrative. She seems to be quite ok with other short and vague systems.Pretty much this.

I mean, I do have qualms with vagueness in rules, but rules-light doesn't require it, and I'm fully supportive of freeform, narrative games provided they're more like Munchhausen and less like *World.

Yes. She fails those. Temporarily. And then without a roll she is back to hidden, but now someone is dead.
It's almost like she got a PARTIAL SUCCESS, rather than a FULL SUCCESS.
Holy crap, what a concept!No, she rolled a 7-9, which is a hard bargain, worse outcome, or ugly choice. There is no such result as a "partial success." And, in the example, there was no "ugly choice," she failed on a successful role because something something fire narrative hurt something.

Really? So now the target of interest knows she's there?
Wait. They don't.
It's almost like they had a PARTIAL SUCCESS.
What a concept!You mean that she failed completely at her objective, and now you're making stuff up to try to cover that.

Now were on hyperbole. Neato.

Unless you have a minus in the stat, all rolls have a 50% chance of being at least a partial success. Every additional increase in the stat makes it less and less likely to fail. For instance, if you have a +3, only three dice outcomes can cause you to fail, three cause you to partial success, and the other six are a full success. As a math note. As I've cited multiple times, a 7-9 can result in, by the tex examples, an objective failure.

You really need to brush up om that reading, friend!


It's almost as of this example is meant to teach that while a partial success does cause problems and is not the ideal outcome, it is still fundamentally a success.
Literally an example of correcting an error is being used as proof that the error is the desired outcome. Yeah, the example player is "looking at [the GM] like [they're] cheating," and that's the impetus for the correction. Try to read what I write.

And, again, what we're talking about isn't fundamentally a success. The desire was to hide from those two specific people. The result is that the player fails to hide from the two specific people they wish to hide from.

If I go out and want to spend ten bucks on tacos, and after I'm done I've spent $11.00 on tacos, have I succeeded at my task?

AW says: Partial Success. You pretty much got it, but it cost a tad more than planned. Moving on.

You: That is fundamentally a failure because something other than the ideal outcome happened!That is, again, a load of nonsense.

To break it down, first of all, if you desired to spend a maximum of 10 dollars, you obviously failed if you spent 11. It's flatly obvious. If you wanted a "partial success" there are plenty of obvious ways you could do that(Drinks are more expensive, so you go without, the tacos are awful if you want to get them at that price in the quantity you want, etc), but to say that you spent more than what you wanted to spend was succeeding at not spending more than you wanted to spend is so obviously wrong I genuinely am having trouble believing you're arguing this.

I wonder if you also consider yourself to have failed a test if you get a 90% instead of a 100%. That depends on the objective of taking the test.

It's almost like it's a brief example and can't give detailed world lore.

There is no evidence of this, or its inverse, as what the character says is not included in your quote. I found it in the book, and it's indecisive.

Again, you're extrapolating.No, you're making assumptions. There is no evidence that they were there prior, and generating hordes of enemies is a valid response to the situation.


Really. For Read a Sitch?


Nope. No random making things up here. In fact, based on the agenda items:
-Say what your prep demands
-Say what honesty demands
And the principles:
-Think offscreen, too

The most likely outcome is that you get what prep demands, and what honesty demands. Just like in D&D, if Goblins were prepped, then spot checks will show goblins.

It's almost as if you're propping up an opinion with falsehoods and purposeful misreading that everyone else can see through easily. Are you even bothering to read the damned book?

As MC, sometimes you’ll already know the answers to these and sometimes you won’t. Either way, you do have to commit to the answers when you give them. The +1 is there to make it concrete.In other words, the answer doesn't exist until the question is asked. "Is there a horde of whatever the GM's weird fetish is around the corner" is a question that can, in fact, generate a horde of whatever the GM's weird fetish is around the corner.

But, please, continue to insult me and either deliberately or negligently vomit out incorrect statements in your mindless defense of this non-system.

Corrected to properly reflect the context, rather than trying to strawman me again.You know, it's really annoying when people use words they clearly have no idea what they mean. "Strawman" is right up there with "ad hominem" in that category, and it's

Quote me saying this. Exactly this, not some sentence you extrapolated that from.In response to my objection of outputs with no relation to inputs, you said
Look, it's ok to dislike how the Moves Snowball works. But what you're currently doing is comparing its outputs to D&D style outputs as if the goal is the same. It's not.That is, you're saying that generating logical outputs isn't the goal.

You mean the prep model?
Like how Apocalypse World has GM prep?
Oh my!No, it has you write up "Fronts," which are meaningless nonsense.

quote time? Quote time.



Also, it takes 3 harm to get to 6-oclock.
1 harm fills 1 wedge.
You obviously didn't read.

So at 3 harm it's 50/50 they die now or die soon.
At 4 harm they either die right now, or spend a few minutes suffering in a mangled and ruined body. But either way? They're no longer a threat.
5 harm, chunky salsa.While you are correct in that I did remembered how the clock works, because seriously, I can't think of a worse HP system, you're, in fact, adding text that's not there. There is no text indicating that 5+ wounds are, in fact, instantly fatal, and in fact the book references fatally wounded people not being dead multiple times. So you are, again, arguing something the system itself doesn't say.

The hubris makes this funny.
They get +2 instead of +1 when defending their stronghold. Yes, this can put them at 3 armor, but for the individual NPCs we were talking about, it doesn't go above 2. Got a citation on that, buddy? Please, go find me text that says that armor flatly doesn't go above 2 for individual NPCs. Or are you arguing from your headcanon rather than the text again?
Also, this is PC stuff and they operate by different rules.

Wow. You're really struggling at being condescending. To be condescending you need to know what you're talking about.

Based on what the NPC is holding, you can gauge the damage. And an NPC will probably never outdamage the Gunlugger. Funny, considering how I'm the one with rules on my side. You, yourself said "most weapons have codified harm," without seeming to understand the implications thereof or the definition of "most."

he asked specifically about an escape route.
He got an escape route answer.

Why is this hard to grasp?Again, you're arguing something the text doesn't say. The player asked no such question, the GM just says "oh, hey, you can probably run away if you don't bother to kill the antagonist you wanted to kill."

That's not what that means, but OK. That is exactly what it means. You are free to make a hard move if you get a "perfect opportunity on a golden plate," of which the GM is who decides. But I guess the "Nuh-uh" of a self-proclaimed "expert" outweighs the actual text of the game.

I literally quoted your quotes and had to correct your misreadings of basic English before I could move on to the rules. You've done no such thing. You've simply been wrong about what the text has said, as I've quoted. And you really can't talk about "basic English" if you're arguing that being detected can be described as successfully hiding.

Weird. I've actually talked with Vince before (via the forum, of course. I'm not THAT cool) and we run our games the same way, though he's obviously much better at it.
Weird.You know what? I'm going to take you at face value on this. Even if that's the case, that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. If you want to look for it, you can find what Mike Mearls was saying about how skill challenges worked, and what he described had absolutely nothing in common with what was written in the books. In other words, I don't give a damn how you, the creep who wrote it, or Santa Claus play a game, I am talking about the game as it is written in the rulebook.

Beyond that, though, I really don't believe you because we have examples of how the writer thought the game should be played, which I've been quoting, but that's beside the point.

Yes. Because criticising mustard for not being ketchup is a waste of time. No, but we can criticize mustard for being having spoiled and having bugs growing inside.

I don't want to derail this thread further, though, so anything else you need clarified, feel free to start another thread or PM me.The only thing that needs clarification, I think, is whether or not you've actually bothered to read the book, because it looks pretty much like you haven't,

If you had demonstrated a capacity to understand what the examples say, this would have weight.
You haven't.
So it sounds like grandstanding without merit.Again, dismissiveness without support. Of course you must be right because you say you're right and you say you're an expert(which must be true, because you say it is), so obviously anything you dismiss must be dismissed out of hand without rebuttal, not because it's right and you dislike that, but something something under fire snowball something.

Not if you're a Driver.
Not if there's a Battlebabe.
Not if you're a Hocus.You mean a Hocus who gets to have free assists if you jerk off a party member?

And that assumes the goal is to optimize. Which this doesn't, since orgies take time and their effects can often be gained by less time consuming and potentially risky methods. "Time consuming?" "Risky?" Given that the party should be cooperative(Which they kinda have to be, because *World twists its head 180 degrees and projectile vomits if PVP comes up), there isn't risk, it's pretty much all benefit unless there's a battlebabe involved, so I don't see why everyone can't get involved in a quickie for mechanical boosts.

Sorta like how everyone should heal people by drowning in 3.5 but that doesn't actually happen in real life for a variety of reasons.The reason being that they're not into that and/or not creepers like the writer?

Here's an anecdote, since you seem to love basing everything on them: Literally everyone I've ever actually talked to about *World, if those rules get brought up, say "oh, we don't use those."

Your theorycrafting is neato, but the point of bringing up my experience was that theory and actual play are often different. And my 4 years of play experience don't match your few hours of theorycrafting. Now here's a fun one to unpack. A hint of appealing to authority, comparing his experience(Which we've seen previously with his self-description as "Expert") with an assumption regarding my own, a direct attempt to dismiss my statements of fact as "theorycrafting," and going on about "actual play" as if he is the sole determiner of what "actual play" is and how it is different from the eeeeeeeevil theorycrafting that those horrid roll-players who like logical outputs do.

When you argue so poorly about the game being bad that people decide to play the game.

Amazing.Shock. When you have someone lying about how great a game is, even when I respond with facts, the waters are muddied enough people might try the flavor-aid.

That is a pretty good disguise to hold up to multiple campaigns (not all with the same GM), questioned decisions, player side calls and long design discussions.Have you ever played OWoD? Or, more accurately, have you ever played with anyone who's played more than a session or two of OWoD?

Or, as a more personal example, I have a friend who used to love 5e, because we had a pretty good GM. He never realized something was amiss for two campaigns, even. He eventually asked me why I disliked 5e so much. My response was to have him read the hiding rules and walk me through exactly how they were supposed to work. He damn near threw his book across the room when he realized that it, and by extension the rest of the 5e ruleset, wasn't actually there at all and that we were pretty much running a patchwork of 3.5 outside of the combat system, save on a stupid RNG. It's just that, because we had a good GM, he never noticed this.

In fact I would argue that they these are "proof by counter example" (or my friend's hack is better the original) because they are good games.Again, they aren't, as the rules themselves have shown.

And very player driven, the campaign "quest giver" was often part of the party and most of the plot twists and changes in the plot similarly originated from within the party. This does not match what you are saying, do you have an explanation for that?I do, in fact. As I've said, under a good GM, if you have one that actually runs this awful "game," and they ignore a good chunk of the rules and the recommendations of how the writers wanted things to go, it turns into a basic round of magical tea party, save with vague prompts with dice before you have to justify your desire to the GM. You can have great fun in magical tea party, and I have plenty of respect for magical tea party. But it's not the game as it is written, because the GM is the only one with any tea a the party, and everyone else takes the role of stuffed animals and dolls with no input. And, seriously, if a game closer to MTP is what you want, I suggest Munchhausen.

[Floret]

Large bonuses, including XP. I shouldn't need to explain why this is a bad idea. Especially considering the f

Shouldn't you? Cause I'm kinda not seeing the horror.



No, they aren't. But at least someone here's admitting that the mechanics don't actually exist and the GM simply makes stuff up, so I guess that's progress.

Sure, I said that. Yes. You got me. GM just makes stuff up. Which is different, if we're arguing on this level, from every other game... how? If it is the "in the moment" part, are you averse to improvisation?



So your response is "There are more powerful optimization options?" I genuinely don't even know what to say about this, beyond that you really have to be deliberately missing the point here.
Yeah, they really are. They cost nothing in-game to do, and gives you extra XP, free items, +1 forward, free assists. This is stupid, for obvious reasons, even without getting into the weird framing.

No, my response is "If you insist on using a system fundamentally not designed rules-first, where even thinking in terms of optimization is missing the point by a mile... At least optimize properly."

And why is it stupid? It's not obvious enough for me to see at least.



As a side note, I'm still having trouble believing people are writing down game-terms like "battlebabe" and are still willing to defend this garbage.


Why? What is your objection to the term precisely? It is of course to be taken in context, but with a Mad Maxesque Postapocalypse... That is an archetype that exists, and an evocative name for it. (A social/combat hybrid character, more concerned about looking cool and the kick than winning fights or strategy) Do you think it's sexist? Cause a) It is not a gender-restricted archetype, and b) while that isn't proof, this woman here really doesn't see it.



No. The game is GM wankery disguised as a game, and no amount of having a good storyteller will change that. The best case scenario is it turns into a decent round of magical tea party, but if I wanted to do that, I don't need this nonsense excuse for a system, and I could just go play Munchhausen.

Sure. Because the only game I've seen that explicitly tells the GM "here are your limits, rule zero doesn't ****ing apply"; and "Play to find out what happens, let the players make the moves and respond to them" is purely GM ****ery.



No, she rolled a 7-9, which is a hard bargain, worse outcome, or ugly choice. There is no such result as a "partial success." And, in the example, there was no "ugly choice," she failed on a successful role because something something fire narrative hurt something.

She only failed in your interpretation cause you insist on redefining her objective. Her objective was not "stay hidden", or even a vague "don't get seen (because reasons)". The objective, as outlined in the example, is to get to the Dremmer undetected. I think what the defenders of apocalypse world do, here, is take the rather strongly implied "by the Dremmer (or anyone that will warn him)", and apply it to their reading of the situation.
Which seems to me the most logical interpretation of things as well - because "Remain fully undetected" has no meaning. What do you get from that for your plans, instead of feeling cool? No, what matters for the plan is to get to the Dremmer without him being any wiser. That? That bit she succeeded at, at the cost of gunning down an innocent kid.

Really, if you read the example without the assumption that it actually says something other than what it claims to say ("this is a success at a cost"), it falls perfectly in line with saying what it claims.

[QUOTE=Selene Sparks;23032506]
Yeah, the example player is "looking at [the GM] like [they're] cheating," and that's the impetus for the correction. Try to read what I write.

Because it is an example for dysfunction. It is not literally grabbed from the table, and probably only written in first person for stylistic reasons. It is a constructed situation, made up to showcase a potential point of misinterpretation, so that this potential mistake gets cleared up before play. Guessing from that at the playstyle of the author seems wildly inappropriate. (And, no, "you have time pressure now" is not "you failed"...)

[QUOTE=Selene Sparks;23032506]
No, you're making assumptions. There is no evidence that they were there prior, and generating hordes of enemies is a valid response to the situation.

Is it? Please show me a quote for that. My reading of the rules is a different one. "Make a new horde of enemies" is not on the list of MC moves, at any rate...



Are you even bothering to read the damned book?
In other words, the answer doesn't exist until the question is asked. "Is there a horde of whatever the GM's weird fetish is around the corner" is a question that can, in fact, generate a horde of whatever the GM's weird fetish is around the corner.

Unless the prep sets the answer. So, when asked "what is the biggest threat", going "out of all things that I have prepared, the new one I made up" seems hardly in keeping with the MC rules foe "What honesty demands/what your prep demands". "I hadn't really weighed them against each other so far, but I guess the bodyguards are more dangerous" would be an answer just made up in keeping with the rules.


Again, you're arguing something the text doesn't say. The player asked no such question, the GM just says "oh, hey, you can probably run away if you don't bother to kill the antagonist you wanted to kill."

"So she gets to ask three questions. I answer...". Since the move, as explained, lets you ask question from the list, but the specific questions aren't (I'd argue for stylistic choice) explicit, they can only be inferred from the answers. Which fit to... "Which enemy is the biggest threat"; "what is my enemies true position"; and "Where's my best escape route", and... none else, really. Since the questions belonging to those answers literally have to be from the list, as per the rules... Yes, the player asked for an escape route, pretty explicitly.


That is exactly what it means. You are free to make a hard move if you get a "perfect opportunity on a golden plate," of which the GM is who decides.

The "as hard a move as you like" does not, as it is written in the book, supercede the usual restrictions for making moves, but only makes a statement on the intesity of the move.



"Time consuming?" "Risky?" Given that the party should be cooperative(Which they kinda have to be, because *World twists its head 180 degrees and projectile vomits if PVP comes up), there isn't risk, it's pretty much all benefit unless there's a battlebabe involved, so I don't see why everyone can't get involved in a quickie for mechanical boosts.

Should they be? And I dunno if I'd describe a system with explicit rules for how to handle PvP application of moves that would potentially be usable for PCs (Up to and including an example about "Hindering the other person at hitting you with their gun") as "twisting sideways and vomiting". Or do you consider the fact that PCs and NPCs are treated differently by rules an absolute no-go?

And the reason is simple: Because you play characters, not mechanics. Because you think about your characters motivations and goals first, and whether or not it is mechanically efficient... not at all, really, cause it is not a system where optimisation is a thing that matters for the intended playstyle. Would all characters bang before a battle? Unlikely. Would a Gunlugger take a joint or a swig of moonshine? Or hell, go get his nerves sorted out by having a quickie? Possible, if there is the time (Outside an enemy encampment, unlikely, waiting for them to come after their threat, possibly) and he might get +1 forward, but... so ****ing what?

[Cluedrew]

To Selene Sparks: I had written a bunch of smaller points, but then I realized there is one that might actually be the hang up. So I made it my main point. You can find the other stuff I wrote out in a spoiler. It is a lot of questions and if this isn't it hopefully some of them will help this conversation move forward.

I realized there is one example that is a major contrast between the two sides. The others are a little bit more gray but the sneaking in by killing a guard seems pretty clear cut to me. Clear cut in that I think I see why from a Powered by the Apocalypse perspective it is a success and from a Dungeons & Dragons* view it is a failure.

So the example Keeler is trying to sneak into Dremmer’s camp. She gets a partial success and so has to kill a sentry on the way in. Now in Powered by the Apocalypse the question being resolved by the roll here is "Can Keeler get into the camp and get the drop on Dremmer?" In Dungeons & Dragons the question is "Can Keeler get into the camp unseen?" If you looking at the example, Keeler was seen, but she also got into the camp and is about to get the drop on Dremmer. So the answer to the two different questions is the different.

It the action resolution vs. conflict resolution thing (although this is in the middle of the extremes I have seen... attempt resolution?) in that they look at a different level of the problem. Or how much you resolve in a single roll. With the higher view on it the fact that Keeler was seen but then "unseen" is (almost) inconsequential, because it is worried about the end state, not stuff in the middle.

Does that make sense?

* Hopefully this is not the Playgrounder's Fallacy, but you have referenced it enough I think you play that a lot is a reasonable guess.
** Actually it depends on what she is planning to do once she is in. I don't know the full example and that seems match.


Have you ever played OWoD? Or, more accurately, have you ever played with anyone who's played more than a session or two of OWoD?I played about half a dozen sessions of Vampire: The Masquerade. We were unusually heroic and un-ansty vampires, but we used the setting, rules and power types. Actually how much Powered by the Apocalypse have you played (any variant)? And what is the connection between OWoD and Apocalypse World?


Or, as a more personal example, I have a friend who used to love 5e, because we had a pretty good GM. He never realized something was amiss for two campaigns, even. He eventually asked me why I disliked 5e so much. My response was to have him read the hiding rules and walk me through exactly how they were supposed to work. He damn near threw his book across the room when he realized that it, and by extension the rest of the 5e ruleset, wasn't actually there at all and that we were pretty much running a patchwork of 3.5 outside of the combat system, save on a stupid RNG. It's just that, because we had a good GM, he never noticed this.Wait was your GM running 3.5 and claiming that it was 5th or are you describing 5th as being constructed from a patchwork of 3.5 rules? In the former case that is not a system problem. In the latter case I'm not entirely sure what the thing that reduced him to a book throwing rage was. Could you please elaborate?


Again, they aren't, as the rules themselves have shown.I don't mean to state the obvious, but if the rules had shown that to me I don't think we would be having this discussion. We might be having a similar discussion about the parts of Apocalypse World that are worth saving, but not this one.

{Where the main point was originally.}


I do, in fact. As I've said, under a good GM, if you have one that actually runs this awful "game," [...]How does this relate to your previous statement: "No. The game is GM wankery disguised as a game, and no amount of having a good storyteller will change that." Are storyteller and GM different in some way? Also quotes don't help make your "point".


And, seriously, if a game closer to MTP is what you want, I suggest Munchhausen.What does Munchhausen do better? You have brought it up several times but if you have explained why it does a good job I missed it.

[ImNotTrevor]

You mean my explicit quotes about how rolling a successes results in not successes is "interpretation?" Because that's the explicit text of the book.
Pretty much this.
But that has been dealt with.



No, she rolled a 7-9, which is a hard bargain, worse outcome, or ugly choice. There is no such result as a "partial success." And, in the example, there was no "ugly choice," she failed on a successful role because something something fire narrative hurt something.
Worse Outcome, you say?
You mean like getting not-quite-the-ideal outcome?
And making a choice between that and sparing a life?

Wow. Its almost like allowing you to talk is the best argument against you.

I'm gonna stick to this strategy



You mean that she failed completely at her objective, and now you're making stuff up to try to cover that.
As I've cited multiple times, a 7-9 can result in, by the tex examples, an objective failure.
You've attempted to cite. But have not succeeded at convincing anyone.



Yeah, the example player is "looking at [the GM] like [they're] cheating," and that's the impetus for the correction. Try to read what I write.
The more important is to read what the author wrote. Because just before that sentence he says that it "doesn't seem quite right."
Meaning he knows it's wrong at this point.
That the player ALSO knows it's wrong is solidifying the point. (Also that players can and should check BS when it happens.)

Condescension only works if you know what you're talking about.



And, again, what we're talking about isn't fundamentally a success. The desire was to hide from those two specific people. The result is that the player fails to hide from the two specific people they wish to hide from.
But they're hidden. Just not permanently.
Almost as if this is a Worse Outcome than the Ideal Outcome.
Crazy how the system is working as advertised.



That is, again, a load of nonsense.

To break it down, first of all, if you desired to spend a maximum of 10 dollars, you obviously failed if you spent 11. It's flatly obvious. If you wanted a "partial success" there are plenty of obvious ways you could do that
Your partial successes can be explained as explicit failures by logic you've already used. Let's do that now!



Drinks are more expensive, so you go without
Now the GM is forcing me to buy drinks, a thing I didn't want to do! Nothing in the example suggests drinks, but now drinks exist?
Why are you forcing me to fail?



Oh, so now I have to get tacos I won't eat, or not get tacos at all.
GM forcing me to fail again!

[QUOTE]
but to say that you spent more than what you wanted to spend was succeeding at not spending more than you wanted to spend is so obviously wrong I genuinely am having trouble believing you're arguing this.
You seem to have trouble imagining a world where multiple goals interact. Such as having
Acquire Tacos+ Spend 10 dollars.
Such that spending 11 dollars to accomplish the first goal is still accomplishing the goal, just a non-ideal version.



That depends on the objective of taking the test.

We both know the objective of taking a test. This is being obtuse for no reason.



No, you're making assumptions. There is no evidence that they were there prior, and generating hordes of enemies is a valid response to the situation.
So...
In a situation where no indication is given either way, the version you prefer is NOT and assumption and the one I prefer IS.




Are you even bothering to read the damned book?

Are you? I quoted that part and pulled in the other relevant core mechanics.
You've bolded the one sentence as if that's the end.

Almost like I've taken the system as a whole, amd you're cherrypicking about phrasing.

Please keep talking.



In other words, the answer doesn't exist until the question is asked. "Is there a horde of whatever the GM's weird fetish is around the corner" is a question that can, in fact, generate a horde of whatever the GM's weird fetish is around the corner.
Sure. That can happen, SO LONG AS
-it is what Prep demands
-it is what Honesty demands

If no such thing has existed in prep, then it shouldn't come to be.



But, please, continue to insult me and either deliberately or negligently vomit out incorrect statements in your mindless defense of this non-system.
Uhuh. Mk.



You know, it's really annoying when people use words they clearly have no idea what they mean. "Strawman" is right up there with "ad hominem" in that category, and it's
In response to my objection of outputs with no relation to inputs, you said That is, you're saying that generating logical outputs isn't the goal.

No. I said AW and D&D have different overall system goals.



No, it has you write up "Fronts," which are meaningless nonsense.
You dislike that style of prep.
I find it very useful and use it in other systems. It's very portable.
Ironic you assert this without merit and accuse me of doing the same.
Hypocrisy is IN, this season.



While you are correct in that I did remembered how the clock works, because seriously, I can't think of a worse HP system, you're, in fact, adding text that's not there.
I'm using the 2e rulebook. Lots of things are clarified in it. What I gave is a direct quote from the 2nd edition book.



There is no text indicating that 5+ wounds are, in fact, instantly fatal, and in fact the book references fatally wounded people not being dead multiple times. So you are, again, arguing something the system itself doesn't say.
Again, 2e rulebook has some changes. If you're on 1e, that explains some of the confusion.



Got a citation on that, buddy? Please, go find me text that says that armor flatly doesn't go above 2 for individual NPCs. Or are you arguing from your headcanon rather than the text again?
Lemme see if I can find that:

"Bomb squad suits and the like would be armor worth 3-armor, if you feel like including such things, but they’d be pretty rare. Nobody gets them by default."

So they'd be rare and nobody will have them as of Session 1. Nobody means no person, PC or NPC.
PCs have a route to it via their moves.
NPCs don't without a custom move, which happens during Prep. So you can't arbitrarily decide that in the moment.
See: Principles



Funny, considering how I'm the one with rules on my side. You, yourself said "most weapons have codified harm," without seeming to understand the implications thereof or the definition of "most."
Well, if you want to be a nitpicky as possible, yes. Not every conceivable post-apocalyptic weapon is codified. Only a representative portion.




Common firearms:
• .38 revolver (2-harm close reload loud)
• 9mm (2-harm close loud)
• Hunting rifle (3-harm far loud)
• Magnum (3-harm close reload loud)
• Sawed off (3-harm close reload messy)
• Shotgun (3-harm close messy)
• Sleeve pistol (2-harm close reload loud)
• SMG (2-harm close autofire loud)
Other common weapons:
• Big knife (2-harm hand)
• Crowbar (2-harm hand messy)
• Grenades (4-harm hand area reload messy)
• Kitchen knife (2-harm hand)
• Machete (3-harm hand messy)
• Many knives (2-harm hand infinite)
• Stun gun (s-harm hand reload)
I say .38 and 9mm but of course what I really mean is any revolver or
semiautomatic handgun (respectively). I don’t actually give a **** about
caliber. Also, smg means submachine gun.
I’d just go ahead and let everyone in Apocalypse World have easy access to
any or all of the above. If you feel like making them buy, 1-barter should
cover it. Maybe 2-barter for a smg. I never make anybody buy a crowbar.
Also, the hardholder playbook says “a few pieces of non-specialized gear
or weapons from any character playbook”—any of these above certainly
qualify.

Axes are listed as 3 harm. So made out of a stopsign or a sawblade or just a hatchet, it's 3 harm.

If someone has a shotgun, they deal 3 harm. Doesn't really matter what kind of shotgun. It's 3 harm.



Again, you're arguing something the text doesn't say. The player asked no such question, the GM just says "oh, hey, you can probably run away if you don't bother to kill the antagonist you wanted to kill."
He doesn't take the time to explicitly state which questions the player is asking to save space. But everything he notes is in direct relation to a question, and the rule explicitly states that the player chooses what questions they ask. Unless you're purposefully reading it wrong (which surely you aren't doing) it is obvious that he's responding to the questions:
Which Enemy is the biggest threat?
What's my enemy's true position?
And
Where's my best escape route/way in/way past?

Which is 3 questions, in accordance with a Hit.
Tadah. Reading comprehension will take you far.



That is exactly what it means. You are free to make a hard move if you get a "perfect opportunity on a golden plate," of which the GM is who decides. But I guess the "Nuh-uh" of a self-proclaimed "expert" outweighs the actual text of the game.
Or people can understand that "When a good opportunity arises" and "whenever you want" have different meanings.



You've done no such thing. You've simply been wrong about what the text has said, as I've quoted. And you really can't talk about "basic English" if you're arguing that being detected can be described as successfully hiding.
Question of scale. If by the time the move is resolved, I'm unseen? Then I'm unseen. You dislike Worse Outcomes and nonbinary success. That's ok.



No. You're nitpicking individual phrases without the context of the Agenda, Principles, or the majority of how the game wants the MC to operate.

In fact, it explicitly states that it is ok to **** with the players, but not okay to **** them over.
[QUOTE=Principles]
Respond with ****ery and intermittent rewards. As in “**** around
with,” not “**** over.”


It tells you that if you plan to be adversarial, you're playing the game wrong.


If you’re playing the game as the players’ adversary, your decision-making
responsibilities and your rules-oversight constitute a conflict of interests.
Play the game with the players, not against them.



Beyond that, though, I really don't believe you because we have examples of how the writer thought the game should be played, which I've been quoting, but that's beside the point.
Trying to quote and not understanding even when the meaning is plain and others have no problem seeing where you're misreading. Again, you keep saying you're right but you can't explain why. Just that I'm wrong, as if saying it enough will make it true.



No, but we can criticize mustard for being having spoiled and having bugs growing inside.
Sure. But that's not what's happening here.



The only thing that needs clarification, I think, is whether or not you've actually bothered to read the book, because it looks pretty much like you haven't,
Again, dismissiveness without support. Of course you must be right because you say you're right and you say you're an expert(which must be true, because you say it is), so obviously anything you dismiss must be dismissed out of hand without rebuttal, not because it's right and you dislike that, but something something under fire snowball something.
The end of this rant is amazing.
You're dismissing the explanation of what is happening within the larger context of rhe rules as not valid because it's not the rules.

PLEASE keep talking. Watching you destroy your own position is hilarious.



You mean a Hocus who gets to have free assists if you jerk off a party member?
Or interference. And you could get that by just... having them there to assist you.



"Time consuming?" "Risky?" Given that the party should be cooperative(Which they kinda have to be, because *World twists its head 180 degrees and projectile vomits if PVP comes up), there isn't risk, it's pretty much all benefit unless there's a battlebabe involved, so I don't see why everyone can't get involved in a quickie for mechanical boosts.
1e struggled mpre with PvP than 2e does, but that's fairly hyperbolic.



The reason being that they're not into that and/or not creepers like the writer?
Sure. Not sure why adhomming the writer says anything about how the rules function.
Bill Cosby is a predator and a snake.
Cosby show is still funny.
Then again, I've got a flirtatious relationship with Death of the Author. I'm not 100% sold on it, but we've gone on a few dates.



Here's an anecdote, since you seem to love basing everything on them: Literally everyone I've ever actually talked to about *World, if those rules get brought up, say "oh, we don't use those."
Neat. I don't use 3.5 drown rules as written, either.



Theorycrafting isn't evil. It's just not producing outcomes matching the play experiences of myself and others. If I theorize that chlorine should make pools catch on fire, and nobody experiences that, then maybe the theory needs to be reevaluated.

[QUOTE]
Shock. When you have someone lying about how great a game is, even when I respond with facts, the waters are muddied enough people might try the flavor-aid.
Lol. I've been extremely frank that the system is not for everyone. People who haven't played the system disagree with your reading. People with lots of experience note that you're removing context to get to your conclusions, and that your particular stance on what constitutes a failure means the system isn't for you.

Again. I'm ok with that. You are free to have the opinion that the system is hot garbage and the author is a baby-eating Nazi. That doesn't bother me. But let's not sell the non-system-related issues and personal distaste as objective failures.

I call myself the resident expert because nobody else really talks about AW and usually I answer the questions about it. I've put in lots of work towards the title. But my ability to parse out the out-of-context stuff and reassert the context should be sufficient proof. You can dislike the context, but you can't just pretend it doesn't matter.



Have you ever played OWoD? Or, more accurately, have you ever played with anyone who's played more than a session or two of OWoD?
THE IRONY!
OH LORD THE IRONY


Now then.

If you want to claim a win here, feel free. But I'm done derailing this thread.

I genuinely don't need to say anything further at this point. Rant all you want, me and those who can hold a larger context in our head while reading a particular sentence will continue on.


Though I've never read 5e, I'm imagining I could explain how the hide skill works if I had 2 minutes to read it. One of these days I'll have a look and see.

[Selene Sparks]

Shouldn't you? Cause I'm kinda not seeing the horror.No, you should't. Experience as an in-game currency is a bad idea. Tying it specifically to sex is an even worse idea. It is both gameable and rather creepy.

Sure, I said that. Yes. You got me. GM just makes stuff up. Which is different, if we're arguing on this level, from every other game... how? If it is the "in the moment" part, are you averse to improvisation?I am averse to the system not having rules beyond "make something up lol." So, yes, I am against that, because that is literally the only output in the game.

No, my response is "If you insist on using a system fundamentally not designed rules-first, where even thinking in terms of optimization is missing the point by a mile... At least optimize properly."You're saying that as if it either disproves my point, or that your proposed optimization is incompatible with a morning circle-jerk.

Beyond that, there is absolutely no system wherein optimization is missing the point, because it's something that comes innately to every system.

And why is it stupid? It's not obvious enough for me to see at least.First of all, you have made one behavior set basically mandatory, because doing it is strictly better than not doing it. Everyone gets +1 forward, everyone gets a 1-value item, everyone gets something of value, and all of this costs nothing. Furthermore, if one person sits out, they are potentially actively harming the party, because they are denying the party resources.That is bad design. Second, it's making a behavior set mandatory that, frankly, isn't one most people I know want to get into with their gaming groups. I've seriously never talked to someone in person about *World where their response is "Oh, yeah, we don't use those." Especially given the sexual harassment problems within gaming, this is a system that actively brings that up and incentivizes it. And that's just in Apocalypse World, without getting into the creepiness inherent in some of the spinoffs on the subject.

Why? What is your objection to the term precisely? It is of course to be taken in context, but with a Mad Maxesque Postapocalypse... That is an archetype that exists, and an evocative name for it. (A social/combat hybrid character, more concerned about looking cool and the kick than winning fights or strategy) Do you think it's sexist? Cause a) It is not a gender-restricted archetype, and b) while that isn't proof, this woman here really doesn't see it.Cool and this one thinks it's not both sexist and infantile. And, no, I don't care that it's not explicitly gender-limited. The imagery, the name, the examples, it's all obvious what it is.

Also, why are you seriously pretending that Apocalypse World actually models a Mad Max-esque anything

Sure. Because the only game I've seen that explicitly tells the GM "here are your limits, rule zero doesn't ****ing apply"; and "Play to find out what happens, let the players make the moves and respond to them" is purely GM ****ery.What limits? You can't make a move unless it's one of a handful of situations, one of which is whenever you feel like?

So, no, there are no meaningful limits, especially when, as I've noted and no one has even bothered to pretend that it's not the case, the GM decides how every action resolves. You attempt an action, roll a die, and the GM generates the output, not the system. Therefore, as I've quoted, "ambush" is a perfectly valid output of a hide attempt. There are no limits on the GM's power, because the GM is the only one who actually gets to affect change at all.

She only failed in your interpretation cause you insist on redefining her objective. Her objective was not "stay hidden", or even a vague "don't get seen (because reasons)". The objective, as outlined in the example, is to get to the Dremmer undetected. I think what the defenders of apocalypse world do, here, is take the rather strongly implied "by the Dremmer (or anyone that will warn him)", and apply it to their reading of the situation.
Which seems to me the most logical interpretation of things as well - because "Remain fully undetected" has no meaning.What are you talking about? Of course remaining undetected has a meaning. It means that you were not, in fact, detected. You're simply adding text into the passage to make it say what you want it to say.

What do you get from that for your plans, instead of feeling cool? No, what matters for the plan is to get to the Dremmer without him being any wiser. That? That bit she succeeded at, at the cost of gunning down an innocent kid.
Really, if you read the example without the assumption that it actually says something other than what it claims to say ("this is a success at a cost"), it falls perfectly in line with saying what it claims.Bull. The only thing that matters in that example is that, on a success, the result was failure. That's it. There was no hard choice on the subject. It's even pathetically easy to write one. "Oh, you see someone being tortured to death. There's an unlatched gate nearby, so you could probably get them out if you wanted, but it's right in the middle of the yard so you can't help the person without being seen by everyone." There, success at a cost, even the exact same proposed "cost," save for the fact that the person who succeeded on the roll didn't fail their roll.

Because it is an example for dysfunction. It is not literally grabbed from the table, and probably only written in first person for stylistic reasons. It is a constructed situation, made up to showcase a potential point of misinterpretation, so that this potential mistake gets cleared up before play. Guessing from that at the playstyle of the author seems wildly inappropriate. (And, no, "you have time pressure now" is not "you failed"...)First of all, it's not because I've read more about the person. I've even posted a couple of links earlier, and can get more if you want. And second, yes "You are unseen for a short period of time after which you will be seen" is a failure to not be detected, because in that declaration is a statement that you, in fact, will be detected.

Is it? Please show me a quote for that. My reading of the rules is a different one. "Make a new horde of enemies" is not on the list of MC moves, at any rate...Because the world is generate as you roll, a quote which I've already provided.

"So she gets to ask three questions. I answer...". Since the move, as explained, lets you ask question from the list, but the specific questions aren't (I'd argue for stylistic choice) explicit, they can only be inferred from the answers. Which fit to... "Which enemy is the biggest threat"; "what is my enemies true position"; and "Where's my best escape route", and... none else, really. Since the questions belonging to those answers literally have to be from the list, as per the rules... Yes, the player asked for an escape route, pretty explicitly.Whatever, you're quoting is not from the passage that generated the psychic cultists out of the formless chaos, so I'm genuinely not sure what you're talking about and I really don't want to waste more time scouring the rulebook. In the passage in question, there were no questions asked.

Although, worth pointing out that, upon reread that whole section, there are no psychic bodyguards in the example worksheet featuring Tum Tum and the water cult. So there is no indication anywhere at all I can find that the psychic bodyguards had any existence at all prior to the perception check.

The "as hard a move as you like" does not, as it is written in the book, supercede the usual restrictions for making moves, but only makes a statement on the intesity of the move.I'm genuinely confused as to where you're getting this. It gives a simple statement that if something occurs, you must then do something else. This contradicts nothing in it, unless you're once again adding text mentally.

Should they be?Of course they should. RPGs are a cooperative activity. Having PVP as a constant thing as a matter of course, outside of extreme fringe cases, is obviously bad design.

And I dunno if I'd describe a system with explicit rules for how to handle PvP application of moves that would potentially be usable for PCs (Up to and including an example about "Hindering the other person at hitting you with their gun") as "twisting sideways and vomiting". Or do you consider the fact that PCs and NPCs are treated differently by rules an absolute no-go?What the hell are you talking about? If you have the PCs engage in any reasonable opposed test I can think of, whether Rubik's Cube solving, foot racing, or trying to get in an NPC's pants, the person in the party with the highest Cool will win. It's even worse than that. Act Under Fire and Read the Sitch are opposition-independent, so it doesn't matter if I'm playing a super perceptive detective-type character and someone else is playing a glorified fishmalk, another player will have just as good of chances fooling either character with a disguise or lie or whatever.

There is no meaningful player conflict that generates results that aren't stupid.

And the reason is simple: Because you play characters, not mechanics. Because you think about your characters motivations and goals first, and whether or not it is mechanically efficient... not at all, really, cause it is not a system where optimisation is a thing that matters for the intended playstyle. Would all characters bang before a battle? Unlikely. Would a Gunlugger take a joint or a swig of moonshine? Or hell, go get his nerves sorted out by having a quickie? Possible, if there is the time (Outside an enemy encampment, unlikely, waiting for them to come after their threat, possibly) and he might get +1 forward, but... so ****ing what?He might get one forward, and have the Hocus able to aid him from a distance, and get a free item that may be useful, and another +1 forward from a skinner, and so on, and if you're denying the party these bonuses, you're actively hurting the party.

To Selene Sparks: I had written a bunch of smaller points, but then I realized there is one that might actually be the hang up. So I made it my main point. You can find the other stuff I wrote out in a spoiler. It is a lot of questions and if this isn't it hopefully some of them will help this conversation move forward.

I realized there is one example that is a major contrast between the two sides. The others are a little bit more gray but the sneaking in by killing a guard seems pretty clear cut to me. Clear cut in that I think I see why from a Powered by the Apocalypse perspective it is a success and from a Dungeons & Dragons* view it is a failure.

So the example Keeler is trying to sneak into Dremmer’s camp. She gets a partial success and so has to kill a sentry on the way in. Now in Powered by the Apocalypse the question being resolved by the roll here is "Can Keeler get into the camp and get the drop on Dremmer?" In Dungeons & Dragons the question is "Can Keeler get into the camp unseen?" If you looking at the example, Keeler was seen, but she also got into the camp and is about to get the drop on Dremmer. So the answer to the two different questions is the different.

It the action resolution vs. conflict resolution thing (although this is in the middle of the extremes I have seen... attempt resolution?) in that they look at a different level of the problem. Or how much you resolve in a single roll. With the higher view on it the fact that Keeler was seen but then "unseen" is (almost) inconsequential, because it is worried about the end state, not stuff in the middle.

Does that make sense?No, it doesn't, because "getting the drop on Dremmer" wasn't the stated objective. Being undetected("sneaking") was. And the character failed, because there is literally no other way to see being detected as anything other than being detected.

And, here's the other thing: You cannot have an end-state without the "stuff in the middle." A story is a logical series of events. Now, flashbacks and the like are tools to fill that in(and, frankly, a good way to give narrative control to players), but you can't have the stuff in the middle conflict with the end result and have a story.

I played about half a dozen sessions of Vampire: The Masquerade. We were unusually heroic and un-ansty vampires, but we used the setting, rules and power types. Actually how much Powered by the Apocalypse have you played (any variant)? And what is the connection between OWoD and Apocalypse World?Where I was going with it was the fact that it's extremely unlikely you actually played VtM as it's written, because the game is very dysfunctional. Humanity was literally unsustainable in most circumstances, the combat system is a joke, if you have multiple different splats at the table, they all actually soak differently, and so on. There was little editing and what looked like an active disdain for good mechanics, so all the White Wolf books wound up like that. So if you sit down with a different group who also play Vampire, they're likely to have a somewhat different mess of houserules to patch the gaping holes in the system(often without realizing they've done it), so you'll have to figure out what those houserules are, up to and including simple magical tea party.

Wait was your GM running 3.5 and claiming that it was 5th or are you describing 5th as being constructed from a patchwork of 3.5 rules? In the former case that is not a system problem. In the latter case I'm not entirely sure what the thing that reduced him to a book throwing rage was. Could you please elaborate?The 5e we were playing was patched together out of 3.5, because there aren't actual rules for 5e. There are no rules for most skills, no DCs for anything, there aren't even rules for being set on fire. Oh, there are specific different set on fire effects that all do different damage, but there is no generic "You got set on fire" condition, unlike in 3.X, so all these things we had to make up, by patching 3.5 into the holes.

As for hide, do you have the 5e PHB? I can walk you through it if you want, but it's a lot of text, so if you have a copy, I recommend first getting rid of any preconceived notions about how it works and really go line by line as to what it actually says. It's word salad at best, unparsable when not being self-contradictory.

I don't mean to state the obvious, but if the rules had shown that to me I don't think we would be having this discussion. We might be having a similar discussion about the parts of Apocalypse World that are worth saving, but not this one.Again, a system for which the output of a successful hide attempt is "you fail, but you can maybe ambush someone" isn't a good system. It's not even a real system at all, it's just the GM narrating at you.

How does this relate to your previous statement: "No. The game is GM wankery disguised as a game, and no amount of having a good storyteller will change that." Are storyteller and GM different in some way?You can definitely have fun with magical tea party. It's one of the worse forms of it, mind you, but it still MTP that can be enjoyed. If you devolve the game into MTP under the GM, that's still mechanically GM wankery, the GM just going against the advice of the book and not being an ass.

In order for it to be anything but GM wankery, other people would have to have some degree of narrative control. They simply don't. Hell, they don't even get to decide what they, themselves, are even trying to do.

What does Munchhausen do better? You have brought it up several times but if you have explained why it does a good job I missed it.The big reason I'm bringing up Munchhausen is that it spreads the narrative control equally. Essentially, each person takes their turn telling the story, with the other's input, rather than the GM getting off in a corner while the rest sit by because their actions don't matter. Also, unlike *World, Munchhausen actually has real resolution for mechanical disputes, which is the in-game currency or rock paper scissors, depending, both of which are better than "the gm just says whatever happens."

Worse Outcome, you say?
You mean like getting not-quite-the-ideal outcome?
And making a choice between that and sparing a life?No, it's not a not-quite-ideal outcome, and there is no choice about sparing a life. The character failed. That's the bottom line. One could have easily constructed a scenario where the choice was between sneaking and an innocent life, that was not what was presented.

You've attempted to cite. But have not succeeded at convincing anyone. No, I've not convinced you. To be frank, it's obvious at this point that nothing I say could possibly convince you. At this point, I'm only pushing back because I don't want others to buy the nonsense you're spewing out.

Condescension only works if you know what you're talking about. I agree, which is why yours has been so sad.

But they're hidden. Just not permanently.
Almost as if this is a Worse Outcome than the Ideal Outcome.
Crazy how the system is working as advertised.Bull. "You're hidden for a minute after which you auto-fail" is not successfully hiding.

*snipping deliberate misrepresentation on the subject of tacos*So you enjoy arguing yourself.

You seem to have trouble imagining a world where multiple goals interact. Such as having
Acquire Tacos+ Spend 10 dollars.
Such that spending 11 dollars to accomplish the first goal is still accomplishing the goal, just a non-ideal version. No, if your objective was to spend no more than 10 dollars, you obviously failed, because having spent more than ten dollars has no middle ground.

We both know the objective of taking a test. This is being obtuse for no reason. I know the objective of taking a test, but it seems that you don't, frankly.

So...
In a situation where no indication is given either way, the version you prefer is NOT and assumption and the one I prefer IS.No, your version involves making unsupported assumptions, and mine does not.

Are you? I quoted that part and pulled in the other relevant core mechanics.
You've bolded the one sentence as if that's the end.

Almost like I've taken the system as a whole, amd you're cherrypicking about phrasing.No, it's like you've decided what you want the system to be, so you're arguing for that rather than what the system is.
Sure. That can happen, SO LONG AS
-it is what Prep demands
-it is what Honesty demands

If no such thing has existed in prep, then it shouldn't come to be. [/quote]That's wrong, as I've quoted. You can answer questions that you don't have an answer to. There is nothing stopping "yes" being the answer being honest, so asking the question can, in fact, generate the horde of fetishes from the formless chaos.

No. I said AW and D&D have different overall system goals.In response to the idea that a system should have logical outputs, you said that it has different goals.

You dislike that style of prep.
I find it very useful and use it in other systems. It's very portable. No, it's not.

Ironic you assert this without merit and accuse me of doing the same.
Hypocrisy is IN, this season. I'm finding it both amusing how both you don't seem to understand what "irony" is nor do you seem to have any idea what "baseless" means beyond you not liking it.

Lemme see if I can find that:

"Bomb squad suits and the like would be armor worth 3-armor, if you feel like including such things, but they’d be pretty rare. Nobody gets them by default."

So they'd be rare and nobody will have them as of Session 1. Nobody means no person, PC or NPC.
PCs have a route to it via their moves.
NPCs don't without a custom move, which happens during Prep. So you can't arbitrarily decide that in the moment.
See: PrinciplesUnless it got updated, which I'm skeptical of, there's no text I can find limiting "custom moves" to prepared antagonists.

Well, if you want to be a nitpicky as possible, yes. Not every conceivable post-apocalyptic weapon is codified. Only a representative portion. And therefore the horde of the GM's fetish can come into existence with whatever damage code it desires.

Reading comprehension does, indeed, take you far, but adding text where it isn't won't, and that's what you're doing.
[quote]Or people can understand that "When a good opportunity arises" and "whenever you want" have different meanings. Not when your whim is the only determiner of "when a good opportunity arises" it doesn't.

Question of scale. If by the time the move is resolved, I'm unseen? Then I'm unseen. You dislike Worse Outcomes and nonbinary success. That's ok. Now you're putting words in my mouth here. Degrees of success and failure are all good things, the problem is when you have a success that is objectively a failure at what it's supposed to succeeding at.

And, no, especially in a basically formless narrative thing like *World is supposed to be, a single instant is not how long an action lasts. By your standard, I could say that both people were blinking when I rolled it, so for one eyeblink I was hidden, so I "succeeded" in hiding and am now plainly visible with no options.

No. You're nitpicking individual phrases without the context of the Agenda, Principles, or the majority of how the game wants the MC to operate. Except for the fact that I'm quoting directly from what it says to be like and what you're saying isn't, in fact, the majority of how the game says the GM should behave.

In fact, it explicitly states that it is ok to **** with the players, but not okay to **** them over. One, both terms aren't defined. I have explicit examples, you have empty platitudes. Second of all, keeping in line with the creepiness of the writer, it suggests to behave in a way that's frankly both being an ******* and evocative of some real bull****. Seriously, read this:

Intermittently, though, right, give one of the players’ characters exactly what she hoped for, and maybe go a little beyond. Do it just enough, and not when they expect it, so that they always hope that this time is one of the times that it’ll work out. A third of the time? Half? Not rare, just not predictable.In other words, slap them around, but make sure to set up just enough honeymoon periods that they won't up an leave.

It tells you that if you plan to be adversarial, you're playing the game wrong. Are you kidding me? See every quote I've made. See the direct above quote. Or see this, from the previous freaking page:

Marie makes it super clear to Roark that she doesn’t care who he kills, but he’s to bring Joe’s Girl (an NPC) back to her alive. For “questioning” or “examination” or something — Marie wants access to Joe’s Girl’s living brain. So Roark goes out, murders a batch of people, and comes back with Joe’s Girl alive. Here’s where I **** around, though: he’s beaten the **** out of her. Marie has access to her brain (because always give the characters what they work for) but she’s in a coma, her back is broken, her face is smashed in. Joe’s Girl is alive for now, but ruined for good. I gave Marie what she worked for, but not really what she hoped for. See it? Throw curves. Put your bloody fingerprints all over everything you touch.Now you have, in the example you, yourself, put forward, the idea of having a characters actions go wildly out of what they said(There is no world were "questioning" or "examination" means "glorified corpse"), deliberately denied the players resources, and otherwise been pretty adversarial, without getting into the above.

Trying to quote and not understanding even when the meaning is plain and others have no problem seeing where you're misreading. Again, you keep saying you're right but you can't explain why. Just that I'm wrong, as if saying it enough will make it true. Again, your "argument" is "nuh-uh." I'm unimpressed.

You're dismissing the explanation of what is happening within the larger context of rhe rules as not valid because it's not the rules. No, I'm dismissing what is not written in the book. Cite explicit sources, please.

1e struggled mpre with PvP than 2e does, but that's fairly hyperbolic. See above, no it really isn't. The system runs on flat DCs, and pretty much all of it would be handled under a single stat. It's non-functional.
[quote]Sure. Not sure why adhomming the writer says anything about how the rules function.
Bill Cosby is a predator and a snake.
Cosby show is still funny.
Then again, I've got a flirtatious relationship with Death of the Author. I'm not 100% sold on it, but we've gone on a few dates.Oh, for crying out loud. Why do people use words they don't understand?

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy wherein the arguer attacks the other side rather than the opposing argument. If I had insulted you in place of an argument, that would be an ad hominem. Insulting anyone in addition to making an argument doesn't qualify as an ad hominem, nor would even calling Vincent Baker a creeper qualify as such if you were secretly him, as I've already put forward reasoning as to why he is a creeper earlier in the thread.

Theorycrafting isn't evil. It's just not producing outcomes matching the play experiences of myself and others. If I theorize that chlorine should make pools catch on fire, and nobody experiences that, then maybe the theory needs to be reevaluated.Holy false analogy, Batman!

But this is actually a good way to frame this. Before you even put forward the idea that pools should be on fire, you'd need to define your terms, and verify that you're observing things in the first place. So, you'd need to define what qualifies as a pool, observe whether or not the pools in question are, in fact, chlorinated, and if they are, what else is added, and even define what you would consider to be "on fire." Things you have failed to do. To take this analogy further, you've decided that the pools should, in fact, be on fire, but have neglected to do the basic background work to verify that the pools are, in fact, being chlorinated.

Lol. I've been extremely frank that the system is not for everyone. People who haven't played the system disagree with your reading. People with lots of experience note that you're removing context to get to your conclusions, and that your particular stance on what constitutes a failure means the system isn't for you. So, again, we have an appeal to authority(the idea that having more experience with a system renders your views more valid) and an appeal to popularity(that is, others are agreeing with you, so you must be right), without, again, dealing with the cited facts.

Again. I'm ok with that. You are free to have the opinion that the system is hot garbage and the author is a baby-eating Nazi. That doesn't bother me. But let's not sell the non-system-related issues and personal distaste as objective failures. That's why I'm not talking about things that aren't facts. If I was merely going on about how I dislike it, I'd be mocking the idiotic language in it. But I'm not, because I'm sticking to things that are objective, or the things I don't want to associate with people who disagree with me on(specifically, the RNG rape thing).

I call myself the resident expert because nobody else really talks about AW and usually I answer the questions about it. I've put in lots of work towards the title. But my ability to parse out the out-of-context stuff and reassert the context should be sufficient proof. You can dislike the context, but you can't just pretend it doesn't matter.Except you haven't. All you've done is shout "Nuh-uh" and pretend that one can possibly define being detected as successfully hiding.

If you want to claim a win here, feel free. But I'm done derailing this thread. I'd be a lot more likely to believe that if you could restrain yourself from trying to get the last word in before leaving.

[1337 b4k4]

Again, you're arguing something the text doesn't say. The player asked no such question, the GM just says "oh, hey, you can probably run away if you don't bother to kill the antagonist you wanted to kill."

Honest and serious question Selene, is english not your first language? Because this is the second time in recent past where you have gotten into a rules argument over an implication that other people see just fine and you insist does not exist because it's not in black and white in the text of the rules.

The rule being demonstrated was clearly the "Read a Sitch" rule, which very clearly states that there are a specific set of questions to be asked, and then answered. The fact that the example is providing 3 answers, one to each of 3 of the specific questions implies pretty strongly that the prompting for answering the questions was the player asking those questions.


Especially given the sexual harassment problems within gaming, this is a system that actively brings that up and incentivizes it.

This is a topic for an entirely different thread, but it is possible (and indeed even common) for adults to engage in activities that deal with "adult" subject matter without actually being abusive towards each other. A game is not bad because it has mechanics and rules for dealing with adult subject matter just because some people are unable to deal with that subject in a way that isn't abusive to their fellow gamers. I really hate this neo-puritan streak that's been running through some parts of the TTRPG community in recent years, especially given that most of us are playing games with rules (and indeed rewards and incentives) for generally being horrible people. I mean we're talking about a game that's heavily aping "post-apocalyptic" themes and designed to depict a crapsack world with roving gangs of thieves and murderers, where people starve to death or die of tainted water and where there are crazy psycho bastards that can literally mind control you ... but mechanics handling PCs and NPCs having sex is a step too far?

Also, why are you seriously pretending that Apocalypse World actually models a Mad Max-esque anything
What limits? You can't make a move unless it's one of a handful of situations, one of which is whenever you feel like?



What are you talking about? Of course remaining undetected has a meaning. It means that you were not, in fact, detected. You're simply adding text into the passage to make it say what you want it to say.

Undetected to what end? What is the purpose of being undetected, what is here goal? Being undetected is not a goal unto itself, unless you think the player would be satisfied with being in the exact same spot she was before she rolled, just undetected.


Bull. The only thing that matters in that example is that, on a success, the result was failure. That's it. There was no hard choice on the subject.

Ok, if we're going to stick with you very strict and RAW only readings on the rules, then by your own definition, she didn't have a successful roll. Since you said "there's no such thing as a partial success", let's quote the actual rules for the roll:


DO SOMETHING UNDER FIRE
When you do something under fire, or dig in to endure fire, roll+cool. On a 10+, you do it. On a 7–9, you flinch, hesitate, or stall: the MC can offer you a worse outcome, a hard bargain, or an ugly choice. On a miss, be prepared for the worst.

By the rules as written, the ONLY way to do what you want to do is to roll a 10+. 7-9 by your arguments in this thread is not a success roll. In fact, not only is it not a success, but the GM doesn't even have to give the player anything, it says they "can" do so, but not that they must. So the fact that she had to kill the sentry or would otherwise have been detected is perfectly in line with the outcome of the die roll, since it wasn't a success, and is in fact a better result than the player had any right to expect if we read the rule as strictly as possible.


And second, yes "You are unseen for a short period of time after which you will be seen" is a failure to not be detected, because in that declaration is a statement that you, in fact, will be detected.

So in your D&D games, do characters only ever have to roll one "hide" skill to remain hidden forever? If a player has snuck into the prince's room, and guards are coming down the hall way and they successfully hide behind the tapestries, will they remain forever hidden regardless of who comes and goes from the room?

Also, you've again swapped between insisting only the black and white letters on the page are what matter and what's in your head matters, because the example of provided does not say that they will in fact be detected, it merely says that they are undetected at the moment, but that the guards are also getting closer and closer. No one has said anything about the player being detected once they get closer.

[Max_Killjoy]

To Selene Sparks: I had written a bunch of smaller points, but then I realized there is one that might actually be the hang up. So I made it my main point. You can find the other stuff I wrote out in a spoiler. It is a lot of questions and if this isn't it hopefully some of them will help this conversation move forward.

I realized there is one example that is a major contrast between the two sides. The others are a little bit more gray but the sneaking in by killing a guard seems pretty clear cut to me. Clear cut in that I think I see why from a Powered by the Apocalypse perspective it is a success and from a Dungeons & Dragons* view it is a failure.

So the example Keeler is trying to sneak into Dremmer’s camp. She gets a partial success and so has to kill a sentry on the way in. Now in Powered by the Apocalypse the question being resolved by the roll here is "Can Keeler get into the camp and get the drop on Dremmer?" In Dungeons & Dragons the question is "Can Keeler get into the camp unseen?" If you looking at the example, Keeler was seen, but she also got into the camp and is about to get the drop on Dremmer. So the answer to the two different questions is the different.

It the action resolution vs. conflict resolution thing (although this is in the middle of the extremes I have seen... attempt resolution?) in that they look at a different level of the problem. Or how much you resolve in a single roll. With the higher view on it the fact that Keeler was seen but then "unseen" is (almost) inconsequential, because it is worried about the end state, not stuff in the middle.

Does that make sense?

* Hopefully this is not the Playgrounder's Fallacy, but you have referenced it enough I think you play that a lot is a reasonable guess.
** Actually it depends on what she is planning to do once she is in. I don't know the full example and that seems match.


Whereas in any game I'm running and any game I want to play in, the question is always, "What is the task at hand?" The PC(s) might have an end goal of sneaking into someone's camp and getting the drop on them, but sneaking past the guard(s) is just one step, one task, in accomplishing that goal, and I'm rarely going to base success or failure of an entire intricate multistep goal on a single roll. If they also have to climb a rock face, that's a separate roll. If they also have to figure out which tent belongs to their target, that's a separate roll. If one of them is supposed to create a distraction, that's at least another roll of some sort. Etc.

What I don't like about these discussions, at all, is that there seems to be this assumption that it's "how D&D does it" (system first) vs "how narrative-games do it" (narrative first), and that especially on the "narrative" side the assumption seems to go a step further to "if you're not doing it our way, then you're doing it the D&D way" -- that the only way to do "fiction first" is to do "conflict resolution", and that if you're not doing "conflict resolution", you're doing "system first".

Never mind that there have been systems that have done it down the middle, or that have done it "fiction first" (not story, fiction, which are two VERY different things in this context) while sticking to purely task-resolution mechanics.

[Selene Sparks]

Honest and serious question Selene, is english not your first language? Because this is the second time in recent past where you have gotten into a rules argument over an implication that other people see just fine and you insist does not exist because it's not in black and white in the text of the rules.English is, in fact, my first language.

The rule being demonstrated was clearly the "Read a Sitch" rule, which very clearly states that there are a specific set of questions to be asked, and then answered. The fact that the example is providing 3 answers, one to each of 3 of the specific questions implies pretty strongly that the prompting for answering the questions was the player asking those questions.That's something you're adding, not the text as it is written, especially since the other examples on the same page have the GM and PC engaging in back-and-forth, whereas this one doesn't.

This is a topic for an entirely different thread, but it is possible (and indeed even common) for adults to engage in activities that deal with "adult" subject matter without actually being abusive towards each other. A game is not bad because it has mechanics and rules for dealing with adult subject matter just because some people are unable to deal with that subject in a way that isn't abusive to their fellow gamers. I really hate this neo-puritan streak that's been running through some parts of the TTRPG community in recent years, especially given that most of us are playing games with rules (and indeed rewards and incentives) for generally being horrible people. I mean we're talking about a game that's heavily aping "post-apocalyptic" themes and designed to depict a crapsack world with roving gangs of thieves and murderers, where people starve to death or die of tainted water and where there are crazy psycho bastards that can literally mind control you ... but mechanics handling PCs and NPCs having sex is a step too far?No, you're arguing against what I've not been saying. My primary objection to the sex rules is that not engaging in them is stupid. Again, a morning circle-jerk every day is objectively superior to not doing it on every level. In addition, in most cases, any party member not joining in is harming the party. In other words, it's not that it exists, it's how poorly and creepily handled it is, made worse by who the author is.

What limits? You can't make a move unless it's one of a handful of situations, one of which is whenever you feel like?
However, when a player’s character hands you the perfect opportunity on a golden plate, make as hard and direct a move as you like.

Undetected to what end? What is the purpose of being undetected, what is here goal? Being undetected is not a goal unto itself, unless you think the player would be satisfied with being in the exact same spot she was before she rolled, just undetected.Undetected and moving, obviously, because that's what sneaking is.

Ok, if we're going to stick with you very strict and RAW only readings on the rules, then by your own definition, she didn't have a successful roll. Since you said "there's no such thing as a partial success", let's quote the actual rules for the roll:



By the rules as written, the ONLY way to do what you want to do is to roll a 10+. 7-9 by your arguments in this thread is not a success roll. In fact, not only is it not a success, but the GM doesn't even have to give the player anything, it says they "can" do so, but not that they must. So the fact that she had to kill the sentry or would otherwise have been detected is perfectly in line with the outcome of the die roll, since it wasn't a success, and is in fact a better result than the player had any right to expect if we read the rule as strictly as possible.Funny, considering you cut out most of the relevant bits.

On a 7–9, when it comes to the worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice, you’ll need to look at the circumstances and find something fun. It should be easy to find something; if there weren’t things to go wrong, nobody’d be rolling dice. It can include suffering harm or making another move. However, remember that a 7–9 is a hit, not a miss; whatever you offer should be fundamentally a success, not fundamentally a failureEmphasis mine.

So in your D&D games, do characters only ever have to roll one "hide" skill to remain hidden forever? If a player has snuck into the prince's room, and guards are coming down the hall way and they successfully hide behind the tapestries, will they remain forever hidden regardless of who comes and goes from the room? If a PC beats the spot checks of those two guards, those two guards fail to see the NPC until such time as the guards would be entitled to a retry. Notably, not included in that situation? Having 10 rounds pass, after which they automatically spot you because I decree it to be so.

Again, in the example, the PC is trying to hide from two specific people, and the "success" is failing to hide from those two specific people. This is a problem.

Also, you've again swapped between insisting only the black and white letters on the page are what matter and what's in your head matters, because the example of provided does not say that they will in fact be detected, it merely says that they are undetected at the moment, but that the guards are also getting closer and closer. No one has said anything about the player being detected once they get closer.The statement was "they'll be on top of you." I do not know of any situation that could be described as being "on top of" that doesn't include some degree of awareness. Beyond that, the only option given is to get the drop on them, not anything like actually hiding. Again, input is a hide attempt, output is ambush.

[Cluedrew]

First off I am impressed by your (Selene Sparks) ability to respond to a bunch of little threads... I am not so good at that so I'm going to try and pick a few important ones to reply to. With preference to the ones that are in turn replies to me.


No, it doesn't, because "getting the drop on Dremmer" wasn't the stated objective. Being undetected("sneaking") was. And the character failed, because there is literally no other way to see being detected as anything other than being detected.So I looked at the original example and as far as I can tell, there is no stated example at all (which is why I had to guess at what it was last time). The introduction is merely "Keeler the gunlugger’s taken off her shoes and she’s sneaking into Dremmer’s camp, armed as they say to the upper teeth." If there is more than that in the book, could you add it? I do not have the rule-book.

So I guessed. And I guessed that Keeler was trying to get into the camp to do something that would not go so well if the camp was on high alert. I believe it is rather unlikely that the end-goal was to be unseen, unless she just sneaks back out after this. Come on she is a gunlugger, the end goal probably involves a machine gun or a rocket launcher.


And, here's the other thing: You cannot have an end-state without the "stuff in the middle."Yes that is true, but the end-state, which is the next "true" decision point carries a lot more weight. Let's put it this way: If the sentry had been about to turn around and Keeler strangled him from behind (or broke his neck or blew his head off with a super-silenced pistol or something so he died without ever knowing she was there) would that change your opinion? From what I understand it should, now no one ever saw Keeler.


[...]As for hide, do you have the 5e PHB? [...] other people would have to have some degree of narrative control. They simply don't. Hell, they don't even get to decide what they, themselves, are even trying to do.No, I haven't been able to enjoy a D&D game since I played Powered by the Apocalypse. Maybe I could with the right game, but most of the time I just feel I am walking though someone else's (the GM's) adventure, instead of guiding my character through their adventure, shaped by the other characters in the world instead of by the hand of some distant god. In other words my experiences are the opposite of what you describe.


and if you're denying the party these bonuses, you're actively hurting the party.You are saying that like it isn't something that happens all the time with Powered by the Apocalypse. I have had another PC open fire on me with a machine gun. The idea of a party doesn't really apply. Its not a big thing but I thought I would mention it.

To Max_Killjoy: I almost lost this post and I saw your post when I recovered it. I did list three scales of resolution (action, attempt, conflict) so I hope that hints that I understand there are more than two. I've looked into a lot of systems over the years, but had mentioned D&D (and Munchhausen, which I think I am also going to have to look into) so I used that as an example.

... And Selene Sparks has another post while I am fixing this one, great.

[Selene Sparks]

So I looked at the original example and as far as I can tell, there is no stated example at all (which is why I had to guess at what it was last time). The introduction is merely "Keeler the gunlugger’s taken off her shoes and she’s sneaking into Dremmer’s camp, armed as they say to the upper teeth." If there is more than that in the book, could you add it? I do not have the rule-book.

So I guessed. And I guessed that Keeler was trying to get into the camp to do something that would not go so well if the camp was on high alert. I believe it is rather unlikely that the end-goal was to be unseen, unless she just sneaks back out after this. Come on she is a gunlugger, the end goal probably involves a machine gun or a rocket launcher.Which is fine, but she's making a move under fire to sneak, not a harm action at this point.

Yes that is true, but the end-state, which is the next "true" decision point carries a lot more weight. Let's put it this way: If the sentry had been about to turn around and Keeler strangled him from behind (or broke his neck or blew his head off with a super-silenced pistol or something so he died without ever knowing she was there) would that change your opinion? From what I understand it should, now no one ever saw Keeler.I'd still find it objectionable. But it would most certainly be vastly less bad, and not something I'd find it worth the time to complain about. A better framing of the same would be having to remove said sentry before you can enter, rather than failing or almost failing and covering it up. But, basically, to be an "ugly choice" there must be actual choice involved that doesn't directly involve failing, while in both your example and the default one, no choice is really being made as the action is already being undertaken.

You are saying that like it isn't something that happens all the time with Powered by the Apocalypse. I have had another PC open fire on me with a machine gun. The idea of a party doesn't really apply. Its not a big thing but I thought I would mention it.So, to be clear, this cooperative social activity you're holding up as a good example isn't, in fact, cooperative? Man, I really don't get what even the elevator pitch is supposed to be, much less the actual merits.

[Knaight]

So, to be clear, this cooperative social activity you're holding up as a good example isn't, in fact, cooperative? Man, I really don't get what even the elevator pitch is supposed to be, much less the actual merits.

The game is intended to produce interesting narratives by way of interesting character interactions, where there are a lot of small decisions being made to highlight these characters. At no point does that sort of thing require a classic adventuring party, and players cooperating towards that end goal in no way requires characters cooperating in a consistent manner for anything.

[Cluedrew]

Which is fine, but she's making a move under fire to sneak, not a harm action at this point.Yes, but I think the points of this sneaking is to set up that harm action, if the harm action is set up than being unseen or not is... mute*. It doesn't really matter.


I'd still find it objectionable. But it would most certainly be vastly less bad, and not something I'd find it worth the time to complain about. A better framing of the same would be having to remove said sentry before you can enter, rather than failing or almost failing and covering it up. But, basically, to be an "ugly choice" there must be actual choice involved that doesn't directly involve failing, while in both your example and the default one, no choice is really being made as the action is already being undertaken.I was going to make a comment about the two examples having the same final end state, which holds true, but I'm going to focus on a different part. I think there is a choice here. Keeler could have bolted for the hills and giving up the infiltration attempt if she didn't want to kill the sentry (if Keeler's player felt kind of broken up about it, she might have asked before making the choice). I think this one falls under the "success with cost" case. The cost being an extra murder, if you don't pay the cost you don't succeed and the action moves forward accordingly. At least that is how I understand it.

On a different note: what would you have considered to be a good ugly choice for this situation?


So, to be clear, this cooperative social activity you're holding up as a good example isn't, in fact, cooperative? Man, I really don't get what even the elevator pitch is supposed to be, much less the actual merits.What Knaight said. Or as I like to put it "I would never allow player vs. player in the game. Which is not to say the PCs aren't allowed to try and kill each other."

* I discovered that that is not what moot means at all.

[1337 b4k4]

Whereas in any game I'm running and any game I want to play in, the question is always, "What is the task at hand?" The PC(s) might have an end goal of sneaking into someone's camp and getting the drop on them, but sneaking past the guard(s) is just one step, one task, in accomplishing that goal, and I'm rarely going to base success or failure of an entire intricate multistep goal on a single roll. If they also have to climb a rock face, that's a separate roll. If they also have to figure out which tent belongs to their target, that's a separate roll. If one of them is supposed to create a distraction, that's at least another roll of some sort. Etc.

In my games it largely depends on what's the interesting thing to be dealing with. If sneaking past each individual guard is interesting enough for a roll, then we roll. On the other hand if getting in isn't the particularly interesting thing, then one or two rolls is sufficient. Personally I didn't interpret the given example as covering everything from getting into the camp to getting into the bedchamber of the target. But getting into the "inner sanctum" of the camp can be sufficient to be covered in a single roll.



That's something you're adding, not the text as it is written, especially since the other examples on the same page have the GM and PC engaging in back-and-forth, whereas this one doesn't.


And again you're back to "if it's not in black and white text, it doesn't exist"



No, you're arguing against what I've not been saying. My primary objection to the sex rules is that not engaging in them is stupid. Again, a morning circle-jerk every day is objectively superior to not doing it on every level.

Then why bring up sexual harassment in the TTRPG community at all?



Undetected and moving, obviously, because that's what sneaking is.


So "you remain undetected as you move further and further away from the camp" is to your mind a proper success roll for this event? You're intentionally dancing around what the actual action being attempted is.



Funny, considering you cut out most of the relevant bits.
Emphasis mine.

I already said I didn't have the rule books, just the PDFs freely available. However, even using your quote, how is "continuing to be able to sneak without being detected further into the camp save for having to murder a single sentry and thus leave evidence of your having been there" not fundamentally a success for the action?


If a PC beats the spot checks of those two guards, those two guards fail to see the NPC until such time as the guards would be entitled to a retry. Notably, not included in that situation? Having 10 rounds pass, after which they automatically spot you because I decree it to be so.

So far the only one saying anything about being automatically spotted is you. Now you've switched back to "things that aren't black and white in the text are there because I say so". I really wish you would pick and stick to either reading and arguing the exact lettering of the text, or reading the implications and subtext of the text. I'm happy with either, but you picking or choosing the one you want based on which ever makes it easier for you to make your case is frustrating to say the least, not to mention vastly contributing to the fact that no one else seems to be able to understand you.


Again, in the example, the PC is trying to hide from two specific people, and the "success" is failing to hide from those two specific people. This is a problem.

They are hidden. They have succeeded. That they may not remain so indefinitely does not change that fact.



The statement was "they'll be on top of you." I do not know of any situation that could be described as being "on top of" that doesn't include some degree of awareness. Beyond that, the only option given is to get the drop on them, not anything like actually hiding. Again, input is a hide attempt, output is ambush.

Again, you're reading things that aren't in the text. "On top of" is a phrase that's about being extremely close by, it says nothing about whether or not the thing close by to you is aware of you. Source A (see item 4) (https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/on-top-of) Source B (see item 4) (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/on_top_of). You could be walking through your yard, and not notice a snake until you were right on top of it, or you could be right on top of it and still not see it until someone points it out to you.

[Selene Sparks]

The game is intended to produce interesting narratives by way of interesting character interactions, where there are a lot of small decisions being made to highlight these characters. At no point does that sort of thing require a classic adventuring party, and players cooperating towards that end goal in no way requires characters cooperating in a consistent manner for anything.I'm calling bull on two points. First of all, you're the one bringing in "classic adventuring party." Second of all, yes it most certainly does. You cannot have characters interacting, with the exception of direct violence, without cooperation, especially if you're going for anything that could be "interesting" or otherwise something seen at a gaming table.

So you're proposing a social activity in which people are engaging in antisocial behavior, for a character-driven narrative in which the characters' actions have no impact on the narrative, I really don't get what y'all are going for.

Yes, but I think the points of this sneaking is to set up that harm action, if the harm action is set up than being unseen or not is... mute*. It doesn't really matter.

I was going to make a comment about the two examples having the same final end state, which holds true, but I'm going to focus on a different part. I think there is a choice here. Keeler could have bolted for the hills and giving up the infiltration attempt if she didn't want to kill the sentry (if Keeler's player felt kind of broken up about it, she might have asked before making the choice). I think this one falls under the "success with cost" case. The cost being an extra murder, if you don't pay the cost you don't succeed and the action moves forward accordingly. At least that is how I understand it.Except there isn't, because in that case, the alert still would have been drawn. In both instances, the fact that the alert will be raised without death(Thus, being a failure to sneak) is already established. For it to be both a success and a choice, you would need to have the options be sneak without problems after dealing with the obstacle that emerged from the formless chaos, or avoid said obstacle and not take the action, thus not failing.

On a different note: what would you have considered to be a good ugly choice for this situation?Assuming you want the same "cost?" Have a kid being tortured to death by the bad guys. You can either save the kid, which will involve actively electing to not sneak, or you can ignore the kid, leaving them to a horrible fate, and sneak by just fine. There a choice is being actively made. I can choose to save the kid, which would be actually saving someone and not electing to not harm an enemy combatant in a situation where they'll be doing me harm, and doesn't involve presupposing failure on a successful roll.

Now if you're not as obsessed with dead kids as the writer is, I can think of plenty of other ways. Maybe the one of the vents or holes or however you got in was too small, so you can only carry in small guns. Or maybe you leave evidence that you were there after the fact, especially something personally identifiable. I can keep going, if you want.

And again you're back to "if it's not in black and white text, it doesn't exist"Shock, things that don't exist don't exist. Quick, stop the presses.

Then why bring up sexual harassment in the TTRPG community at all?Because *World itself actively brings it up. Not engaging in it is an active detriment to the party.

In other words, even in White Wolf games, which are hardly prudish, the sex is something that the game doesn't bring up by itself. Neither the writers or the system as a whole are pushing for it, and, frankly, when people are awful enough without that, why would you want to include something wherein the players not getting in on it is objectively a bad thing?

And, beyond that, why do you actually need mechanics for it? What value is there in having it? I'm not even talking about incentivising it, which is bad for the reasons I've already gone over, but why on Earth do you need mechanics? I mean, I like my in-depth mechanics, but what, exactly, are you wanting the system to generate? What outputs are desired? How do you even want to quantify what you're look for?

So "you remain undetected as you move further and further away from the camp" is to your mind a proper success roll for this event? You're intentionally dancing around what the actual action being attempted is.That is a far better result than the given one, but it's still bad because that is not "sneaking into Dremmer's camp." To be an acceptable success, it cannot fail on any part of the above, or it is not a success.

I've not been dancing around the action at all. The action is exactly what the text says it is, which is sneaking into the camp.

I already said I didn't have the rule books, just the PDFs freely available. However, even using your quote, how is "continuing to be able to sneak without being detected further into the camp save for having to murder a single sentry and thus leave evidence of your having been there" not fundamentally a success for the action?Because, in the text, they were detected. Therefore, they failed to hide. The death of the sentry is ultimately irrelevant, it's the fact that the sentry saw the PC that is the problem.

They are hidden. They have succeeded. That they may not remain so indefinitely does not change that fact.No, it does. Again, the output to trying to hide is "you get to ambush them." There is no "hiding" output. Successfully hiding is not a thing that's presented as an option.

Again, you're reading things that aren't in the text. "On top of" is a phrase that's about being extremely close by, it says nothing about whether or not the thing close by to you is aware of you. Source A (see item 4) (https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/on-top-of) Source B (see item 4) (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/on_top_of). You could be walking through your yard, and not notice a snake until you were right on top of it, or you could be right on top of it and still not see it until someone points it out to you.Again, you're incorrect. We have "No, you fail," to "maybe you get to ambush them." There is no hide output. Hence the issue. If my desire to is to hide and the result is I get to do something other than hide, how can you consider that successfully hiding?

I am genuinely unsure how you can parse that as anything other than a failure to hide because the output wasn't simply "you hide from these people."

[1337 b4k4]

Or maybe you leave evidence that you were there after the fact, especially something personally identifiable. I can keep going, if you want.

Like maybe a dead sentry who didn't sound the alarm?



Shock, things that don't exist don't exist. Quick, stop the presses.


And yet when it suits you, you will gladly invent things out of whole cloth in order to argue your ridiculous interpretations of the examples or the rules themselves.



Because *World itself actively brings it up. Not engaging in it is an active detriment to the party.


And not engaging in killing things is also an active detriment to the party. So again I find myself miffed that murder, arson and mayhem are unobjectionable, but sex is.


frankly, when people are awful enough without that, why would you want to include something wherein the players not getting in on it is objectively a bad thing?

I don't know, why would you want to include rules for lethal combat.


That is a far better result than the given one, but it's still bad because that is not "sneaking into Dremmer's camp." To be an acceptable success, it cannot fail on any part of the above, or it is not a success.

This is insane, you realize that right? You are arguing that a result of "do not sneak into the camp, but remain undetected" is a better outcome than "sneak into the camp, killing a sentry who detects you along the way for free, without setting off the alarms". And had the GM had instead narrated that "You get half way in and realize you're not making it past the sentry shack without killing the sentry" and the player agrees to kill said sentry, the outcome is exactly the same.

Two resolutions, with the exact same outcome, leaving the exact same evidence, but one would be a complete success in your book, and the other is a complete failure.


I've not been dancing around the action at all. The action is exactly what the text says it is, which is sneaking into the camp.

And yet you just argued that the outcome in which they do not sneak into the camp is superior to the outcome in which they do sneak into the camp. You can see where the rest of us might be confused about your argument.


Because, in the text, they were detected. Therefore, they failed to hide. The death of the sentry is ultimately irrelevant, it's the fact that the sentry saw the PC that is the problem.

Yes, it was a problem, that would be that "worse outcome" bit. And the player was given the option to resolve the problem, for free, without requiring an invocation of any other moves, and obtain their goal which was to quote your own argument right above this: "sneaking into the camp".


No, it does. Again, the output to trying to hide is "you get to ambush them." There is no "hiding" output. Successfully hiding is not a thing that's presented as an option.
Again, you're incorrect. We have "No, you fail," to "maybe you get to ambush them." There is no hide output. Hence the issue. If my desire to is to hide and the result is I get to do something other than hide, how can you consider that successfully hiding?

I am genuinely unsure how you can parse that as anything other than a failure to hide because the output wasn't simply "you hide from these people."

At the resolution of the move, the player is hidden yes? Then they have succeeded in hiding.

[Selene Sparks]

Like maybe a dead sentry who didn't sound the alarm?Which is irrelevant, because the sentry detected the PC, so the PC failed at stealth on a rolled success.

So walk me through where your problem with that is. Is it A: You don't think that a successful roll as per the Under Fire rules is a success, or B: That failing to sneak is somehow the same as successfully sneaking?

And yet when it suits you, you will gladly invent things out of whole cloth in order to argue your ridiculous interpretations of the examples or the rules themselves.Nope. I've been the only one actually citing sources for all my arguments in this thread.

And not engaging in killing things is also an active detriment to the party. So again I find myself miffed that murder, arson and mayhem are unobjectionable, but sex is.And you were wondering why I was bringing up sexual harassment in my post.

Beyond just that, though, basic violence against designated bad guys is a necessary buy-in to the genre of pretty much every RPG. Sex, however, is not, and it's definitely not something that should be actively pressured in a game. You'll note that I'm not harping on White Wolf over how much sex they have in their books, because it's not a central part of the game where not engaging in it constantly is dumb. And, as a final note, you're wrong. killing bad guys isn't actually important in pretty much every game I can think of. Incapacitation is, of which killing is only one option out of many.

I don't know, why would you want to include rules for lethal combat.I genuinely am unsure as to whether or not you're being deliberately obtuse or just completely clueless, although I'm leaning towards the former.

This is insane, you realize that right? You are arguing that a result of "do not sneak into the camp, but remain undetected" is a better outcome than "sneak into the camp, killing a sentry who detects you along the way for free, without setting off the alarms". And had the GM had instead narrated that "You get half way in and realize you're not making it past the sentry shack without killing the sentry" and the player agrees to kill said sentry, the outcome is exactly the same.Not really. You fail to sneak but enter the camp is a lot more dangerous to your character than sneaking but failing to enter the camp.

And, as to the second, you're wrong. In one, you were detected, which is to say you failed at the task that you explicitly succeeded in, whereas what you put forward as an alternative does not involve failing at the task you succeeded in.

Two resolutions, with the exact same outcome, leaving the exact same evidence, but one would be a complete success in your book, and the other is a complete failure.Because one objectively fails at the stated goal and the other succeeds. This isn't complicated.

And yet you just argued that the outcome in which they do not sneak into the camp is superior to the outcome in which they do sneak into the camp. You can see where the rest of us might be confused about your argument.No, I really don't. While what this is a really good example of is why having the GM narrate the outcome of every action result with no player input is bad, having the player flatly fail is, in fact, worse than not doing so. Both are awful, one is marginally less bad than the other.

Yes, it was a problem, that would be that "worse outcome" bit. And the player was given the option to resolve the problem, for free, without requiring an invocation of any other moves, and obtain their goal which was to quote your own argument right above this: "sneaking into the camp".No, they failed to sneak. Dead stop.

At the resolution of the move, the player is hidden yes? Then they have succeeded in hiding.So, by that standard, why isn't "both guards blink when you roll, so when the dice land their eyes are closed so they don't see you. Then, they open their eyes and see you as part of the move snowball after that" not a success by your own standards?

[Floret]

No, you should't. Experience as an in-game currency is a bad idea. Tying it specifically to sex is an even worse idea. It is both gameable and rather creepy.

Experience is an in-game currency now? What? (Also, please outline why that is a bad idea, besides being your opinion). Secondly, what is wrong with gameability of systems? Thirdly, what makes it creepy (Keep in mind we are talking consensual sex, here; as explicitly said by the designer)?



I am averse to the system not having rules beyond "make something up lol." So, yes, I am against that, because that is literally the only output in the game.
You're saying that as if it either disproves my point, or that your proposed optimization is incompatible with a morning circle-jerk.

Ah yes, the numerous rules regarding the basic moves; the playbook moves; the MC moves, agenda, principles; the gear rules; the threat types... all of those don't exist. Obviously. But I suppose they are meaningless, and somehow you out of all people here can see it, while getting (as the only person in the discussion) results out of AW that are diametrically opposed to both the systems' stated goals, but also everyone elses' experiences. How do you explain that, btw? How do you explain that so far, numerous people seem to have played the system, on both sides of the table, just fine, and gotten opposite impressions than you did? Are you saying we are all delusional?

What is your point, btw? Optimising in systems yields weird results? Because sure. That happens. Usually, the thing to do is laugh and then not do it, cause it would be stupid (See also drownhealing; or 5Rings having Ninja attacks against you be more efficient when you're mounted, so travelling the countryside by foot is more secure).



Beyond that, there is absolutely no system wherein optimization is missing the point, because it's something that comes innately to every system.

I think this is a rather telling statement. You are working under assumptions about TRPGs, probably coming from your own playstyle, that do not hold as universally true as you may believe.



First of all, you have made one behavior set basically mandatory, because doing it is strictly better than not doing it. Everyone gets +1 forward, everyone gets a 1-value item, everyone gets something of value, and all of this costs nothing. Furthermore, if one person sits out, they are potentially actively harming the party, because they are denying the party resources.That is bad design. Second, it's making a behavior set mandatory that, frankly, isn't one most people I know want to get into with their gaming groups. I've seriously never talked to someone in person about *World where their response is "Oh, yeah, we don't use those." Especially given the sexual harassment problems within gaming, this is a system that actively brings that up and incentivizes it. And that's just in Apocalypse World, without getting into the creepiness inherent in some of the spinoffs on the subject.

Yes, it is a system that actively brings up sex, and intra-party sex at that. Now, a) consenting adults, and all that jazz; b) Harming "the party" is assuming the PCs are actually describable as "a party"; c) "optimal" and "mandatory" are not synonymous and you know it; d) if someone's character is being pressured into stuff the player is uncomfortable with, that is a table-level problem, not really a rules problem.
The rules themselves do not describe something immoral - they give mechanical results to consensual sex. You may not like the fact that they bring it up and incentivise it. But that's just, like, your opinion, you know?

And am I guessing correctly you are referring to Monster Hearts here? Because a system with a stated goal of "coming of age stories, including the parts where your body suddenly shifts and reacts to things in ways out of your control" having rules that serve to take certain things, like your characters sexuality (I suppose you didn't choose yours either, did you?) out of the players control... That is theme, and I cannot see the wrongness inherent in simulating such things.

I do, however suspect, that you, like many others, hold your characters choices and internals to be sacrosanct? Which is fine, but again, not a universal preference. I would suggest just not playing games that take parts of your character away from you like that, instead of making value judgements about the matter.



Cool and this one thinks it's not both sexist and infantile. And, no, I don't care that it's not explicitly gender-limited. The imagery, the name, the examples, it's all obvious what it is.

So, we are at an impasse, I suppose. Two women disagreeing over something being sexist. I suppose we'll have to put forth arguments. "Evocative name for a genre trope" was mine. Do you have any, outside of "Sexist"? (I am asking this seriously, btw, since I don't see objections of that nature holding up beyond a superficial glance. I do care about sexism; check my post history if you don't believe me, I just don't think the objection applies here well)

(Besides, the examples? What examples in the book have a battlebabe along? And interestingly enough, after reading the playbook, the first example my mind jumped to was Nux from Fury Road. Whom everyone i spoke to enthusiastically agreed on. So what it is seems obvious to me, too, but we have different opinions on what it is, it seems. I posted mine (In my last post), what do you assert the battlebabe obviously is, if not that?)



What limits? You can't make a move unless it's one of a handful of situations, one of which is whenever you feel like?

The limits of a) The agenda; b) the principles; c) always say; d) the moves. You may not step outside them. Custom moves only go on threats, threats are made out of session. Seriously. Everything the MC is to do, it is inside that framework.
(And no, one of those situations is not whenever you feel like it, but I suppose we just have different readings of the text, mine in line with the stated goals of the game and everyone else in the thread; and most importantly the way I actually have fun playing and GMing AW.)



Of course they should. RPGs are a cooperative activity. Having PVP as a constant thing as a matter of course, outside of extreme fringe cases, is obviously bad design.

Cooperative between players? Probably. Cooperative between characters? Why? I have played games that are exclusively PvP. They were fun.

Again we come to the point where you decree your opinion on how game design should work (What should be in rules, action resolution, cooperative party) to be "obviously correct". I am sorry, but no. RPGs are far broader than you give them credit for, while still being enjoyable to a bunch of people. So either you are gonna call thousands delusional? Or you accept you have biases that cloud your opinion here.



What the hell are you talking about? If you have the PCs engage in any reasonable opposed test I can think of, whether Rubik's Cube solving, foot racing, or trying to get in an NPC's pants, the person in the party with the highest Cool will win. It's even worse than that. Act Under Fire and Read the Sitch are opposition-independent, so it doesn't matter if I'm playing a super perceptive detective-type character and someone else is playing a glorified fishmalk, another player will have just as good of chances fooling either character with a disguise or lie or whatever.

Okay, so trying to get into an NPCs pants would obviously be +Hot. And no, it does matter... Cause if you are actually playing a "detective-type", I would expect you to probably have a playbook move for that. (Likewise a good disguise might get mechanised) You can't just make up facts about your character, not tie them to rules and get offended the don't matter for the rules, that seems... a bit bull****.
Now, you can object to lack of customisation options; you can complain that such a decision from you about your character should matter (In which case I recommend FATE); you can complain about lack of stat differentiation. (Otherwise, who's the better detective might just be the question of who has the higher Sharp.) But you can not seriously object to something not in the rules not affecting the rules? :smallconfused:



He might get one forward, and have the Hocus able to aid him from a distance, and get a free item that may be useful, and another +1 forward from a skinner, and so on, and if you're denying the party these bonuses, you're actively hurting the party.

So what if you are "hurting the party", the party is not a concept that meaningfully exists. And if the party decides to get it on before a battle for those benefits... so ****ing what? Does it hurt you personally when people at other tables play with sex being part of their games? Cause noone's gonna force you to play AW, you know that, right?

[Selene Sparks]

It's stupid late where I am, so I'll try(and probably fail) to make this brief.

Experience is an in-game currency now? What? (Also, please outline why that is a bad idea, besides being your opinion). Secondly, what is wrong with gameability of systems? Thirdly, what makes it creepy (Keep in mind we are talking consensual sex, here; as explicitly said by the designer)?Experience as an in-game currency is bad because it creates and enforces a power differential between the group. This is a problem.

Ah yes, the numerous rules regarding the basic moves; the playbook moves; the MC moves, agenda, principles; the gear rules; the threat types... all of those don't exist. Obviously. But I suppose they are meaningless, and somehow you out of all people here can see it, while getting (as the only person in the discussion) results out of AW that are diametrically opposed to both the systems' stated goals, but also everyone elses' experiences. How do you explain that, btw? How do you explain that so far, numerous people seem to have played the system, on both sides of the table, just fine, and gotten opposite impressions than you did? Are you saying we are all delusional?As I've repeatedly pointed out, the results of every action are up to the GM, because they get to describe it with no input from the player. The actions and moves are, in fact, meaningless, because they flatly don't impact how resolution works.

And I've explained how everyone else came to an incorrect conclusion: Mind caulk. People go out of their way to avoid incongruous results, so they'll put together, without even thinking about it, a whole set of headcanons and houserules that make the game playable. It's most obvious with long-term OWoD players, but you can see bits of it in almost anyone who's played any White Wolf games.

And, as to your final note, an implicit appeal to popularity isn't good reasoning. I can find examples of people who pretty firmly agree with me if you want, but who agrees with who isn't the basis of a good argument.

What is your point, btw? Optimising in systems yields weird results? Because sure. That happens. Usually, the thing to do is laugh and then not do it, cause it would be stupid (See also drownhealing; or 5Rings having Ninja attacks against you be more efficient when you're mounted, so travelling the countryside by foot is more secure).In this, you're wrong. Drown healing is the result of the writers not thinking things through. The sex XP and bonuses were a deliberate incentive structure. The only logical result from the premise alone is gangbangs before anything important, and as often as possible.

I think this is a rather telling statement. You are working under assumptions about TRPGs, probably coming from your own playstyle, that do not hold as universally true as you may believe.No, it's not. It is true that, unless there is no outcome or option more desirable than any other, optimization is inevitable, because that's how systems work. Hell, I've heard people coming up with optimized strategies in Munchhausen, which is pretty much magical tea party.

Yes, it is a system that actively brings up sex, and intra-party sex at that. Now, a) consenting adults, and all that jazz; b) Harming "the party" is assuming the PCs are actually describable as "a party"; c) "optimal" and "mandatory" are not synonymous and you know it; d) if someone's character is being pressured into stuff the player is uncomfortable with, that is a table-level problem, not really a rules problem.First of all, if the PCs are actively doing anything together at all(which is pretty much essential in any game played at a table) and not actively engaged in a free-for-all, they're describable as a party. Secondly, no, it's a rules problem because anyone not engaging in the behavior is not adequately pulling their weight. If you fail to do so, you are not only failing to benefit both yourself and your allies, you are losing out on advancement, putting you at a permanent and ever-increasing disadvantage.

The rules themselves do not describe something immoral - they give mechanical results to consensual sex. You may not like the fact that they bring it up and incentivise it. But that's just, like, your opinion, you know?No. My dislike of it being mechanical at all is an opinion. The fact that it was implemented how it was is awful design is not.

And am I guessing correctly you are referring to Monster Hearts here? Because a system with a stated goal of "coming of age stories, including the parts where your body suddenly shifts and reacts to things in ways out of your control" having rules that serve to take certain things, like your characters sexuality (I suppose you didn't choose yours either, did you?) out of the players control... That is theme, and I cannot see the wrongness inherent in simulating such things.I cannot approve of and will dismiss out of hand the value of a system that can enforce in-game positive response to sexual harassment. That's a thing in Monster Hearts. And, no, I don't care if that's what they were deliberately going for, FATAL was deliberately designed in the way it was and it's garbage too.

Monster Hearts, like the rest of the PbtA drek, is actively hostile to player agency in any way.

I do, however suspect, that you, like many others, hold your characters choices and internals to be sacrosanct? Which is fine, but again, not a universal preference. I would suggest just not playing games that take parts of your character away from you like that, instead of making value judgements about the matter.If the player cannot make meaningful choices, it is not, in fact, a game. And if you want to watch someone sit in a corner and play with themselves while others watch, the internet can provide that just fine.

So, we are at an impasse, I suppose. Two women disagreeing over something being sexist. I suppose we'll have to put forth arguments. "Evocative name for a genre trope" was mine. Do you have any, outside of "Sexist"? (I am asking this seriously, btw, since I don't see objections of that nature holding up beyond a superficial glance. I do care about sexism; check my post history if you don't believe me, I just don't think the objection applies here well)You say "evocative name," I say "dismissive name," and I regard the genre trope itself as sexist, a product that is the product of a directly male-focused creative process in which the value of women are reduced to their appearance or perceived (sexual) value to men.

And I suggest you read the descriptions of them in the book. The first description is all about their appearance with no other value. Their first two powers are are "dangerous and sexy," which seriously involves distracting opponents with your "hot" and I really don't think I have to explain what's wrong here beyond that, and "Ice cold," which has obvious connotations, especially given how theoretically active women are treated in the genre in question. Hell, even their sex move is obviously fraught with issue, as the whole "sperm-jacking matriarchy" nonsense that shows up with absurd frequency in the genre. Beyond even that, they're explicitly called out as being ineffective combatants, especially in comparison to the other combat class, which is, again, in line with the worst portrayals of women in the genre - the fake action girls whose only real value is to either make the men look good or be props for the men.

The limits of a) The agenda; b) the principles; c) always say; d) the moves. You may not step outside them. Custom moves only go on threats, threats are made out of session. Seriously. Everything the MC is to do, it is inside that framework.Nope, custom moves can be explicitly put on players, and I see no such limitation on them. Furthermore, again, the GM can make a move whenever they feel like and decree the result of every roll. The text examples I've been posting support this, and I've seen no real argument beyond "that's not how we play it," which is fine but still not a response to the point.

(And no, one of those situations is not whenever you feel like it, but I suppose we just have different readings of the text, mine in line with the stated goals of the game and everyone else in the thread; and most importantly the way I actually have fun playing and GMing AW.)Actually, for this discussion, the last item in your list is, in fact, the least important. We're talking about the rules of a game. Houserules, mind caulk, and so on, are not, in fact, valuable responses to the argument of the system being flawed. That's basic Oberoni Fallacy stuff right there.

Cooperative between players? Probably. Cooperative between characters? Why? I have played games that are exclusively PvP. They were fun.You're contradicting yourself. A RPG is a cooperative activity by definition. Players engaging in conflict(you know, as in "player versus player") is actively detrimental to that, as it is by definition not a cooperative event.

Again we come to the point where you decree your opinion on how game design should work (What should be in rules, action resolution, cooperative party) to be "obviously correct". I am sorry, but no. RPGs are far broader than you give them credit for, while still being enjoyable to a bunch of people. So either you are gonna call thousands delusional? Or you accept you have biases that cloud your opinion here.Again, I don't see how you can argue that not having a real action resolution system is, in fact, an acceptable action resolution system.

See all my previous comments on White Wolf. And an appeal to popularity is not a good argument. By that reasoning, I could defend Michael Bay's Transformers or 50 Shades.

Okay, so trying to get into an NPCs pants would obviously be +Hot. And no, it does matter... Cause if you are actually playing a "detective-type", I would expect you to probably have a playbook move for that. (Likewise a good disguise might get mechanised) You can't just make up facts about your character, not tie them to rules and get offended the don't matter for the rules, that seems... a bit bull****.Oh for crying out loud. Getting into a competition makes it an action under fire, and therefore is dependent solely on your cool stat, no matter what it is. A hypothetical detective's sharp stat is thus entirely useless for seeing though a disguise of a hostile.

[Now, you can object to lack of customisation options; you can complain that such a decision from you about your character should matter (In which case I recommend FATE); you can complain about lack of stat differentiation. (Otherwise, who's the better detective might just be the question of who has the higher Sharp.) But you can not seriously object to something not in the rules not affecting the rules? :smallconfused:I didn't think I needed to spell out that a detective type character would have the stats to back it up any more than I'd need to specify that a black widow-archetype has a high hot. And, yes, I do object when my character's stats that are supposed to be relevant aren't, because the action resolution in *World is stupid.

So what if you are "hurting the party", the party is not a concept that meaningfully exists.Yes it is. Any time there is group cooperation, that is describable as a party.

And if the party decides to get it on before a battle for those benefits... so ****ing what? Does it hurt you personally when people at other tables play with sex being part of their games? Cause noone's gonna force you to play AW, you know that, right?Is this a joke? "Oh, you can just ignore the rules" as a defense for the rules, combined with a decent side-dose of "not for critics?" Really? Beyond that, you're bringing in nonsense I'm not even sure where you got it in your head from.

[Max_Killjoy]

In my games it largely depends on what's the interesting thing to be dealing with. If sneaking past each individual guard is interesting enough for a roll, then we roll. On the other hand if getting in isn't the particularly interesting thing, then one or two rolls is sufficient. Personally I didn't interpret the given example as covering everything from getting into the camp to getting into the bedchamber of the target. But getting into the "inner sanctum" of the camp can be sufficient to be covered in a single roll.


I'm not talking about rolling to get past one guard or multiple guards -- I've no problem with "roll stealth once to avoid all the guards in this immediate area".

1) I'm talking about the examples I've seen that start to glomp climbing the rocks, sneaking past the guards, and picking the lock or whatever, into a single roll, and often rolled against an NPC who isn't even involved in any of those actions, because the "conflict" is with that NPC (rather than the guards, or the rocks even, evidently).

2) What's without getting into systems that are so aggressively "story-driven" that they even allow the winner of a roll to edit what came before, change backstory, or otherwise engage in retcon.


Personally, I don't care who the "conflict" is with, I care about what the character is trying to do, right now, at this moment. If you're trying to sneak past guards, then it's the guards that matter, not the end target. If you're trying to climb rocks, then it's the rocks that matter, not the end target.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Personally, I don't care who the "conflict" is with, I care about what the character is trying to do, right now, at this moment. If you're trying to sneak past guards, then it's the guards that matter, not the end target. If you're trying to climb rocks, then it's the rocks that matter, not the end target.

I see this as a sliding scale. For me, the proper level of generality for a roll is the minimum unit of time/effort/goal coherence that has a) interesting consequences for both success and failure and b) has a significant in-fiction chance of failure.

Different types of things need different levels of generality, because both a) and b) vary depending on what you're doing. Make the generality too low (at the extreme) and you approach "roll to climb up this one foot of rock. Now roll again." Make it too high (also at the extreme) and you approach "roll to win the game."

Climbing might be any of auto-success (either low chance of failure or no factors that make failure interesting), auto-failure (cliff made of atomically-smooth, super-lubricated material in a "realistic" game), or anything in-between. Generally, if they're just climbing a difficult cliff I'd give a choice--

a) climb carefully, taking 10X time but no chance of failure (no check).
b) climb quickly, taking X time but with a chance of falling for Y damage and doubling the time on a failed check.
c) use some resource (if available) to bypass/modify the cliff. This might be someone who can climb without difficulty (or fly) taking up a rope, etc.

However, if they're being chased or are climbing under fire then the options might be
a) climb extra quickly (disadvantage on the check); failure means you can't get up and get caught, degrees of success from there.
b) climb normally (normal check); critical failure (rolled more than 5 under) means you get caught, regular failure means you take extra time/damage, success means you get up without issue.

Social situations are another case where I feel that the appropriate level of generality is pretty high--you're rolling to see if you get the outcome you've stated--will he help you or not? If so, how much?

On the other hand, something like an attack roll is "did you manage to successfully deplete your opponent's resources this round"--interesting consequences are built in and you'll make a lot more checks.

So for me, there isn't a universal "best" level of generality for checks. It depends on what's being done and how. Some things just get hand-waved (walking down a normal corridor), others require multiple checks for fundamentally the same action (walking down a corridor, blindfolded, not stepping on legos strewn across the path) depending on the fiction.

[Cluedrew]

Hold Up A Moment



So, to be clear, this cooperative social activity you're holding up as a good example isn't, in fact, cooperative? Man, I really don't get what even the elevator pitch is supposed to be, much less the actual merits.The game is intended to produce interesting narratives by way of interesting character interactions, where there are a lot of small decisions being made to highlight these characters. At no point does that sort of thing require a classic adventuring party, and players cooperating towards that end goal in no way requires characters cooperating in a consistent manner for anything.I'm calling bull on two points. First of all, you're the one bringing in "classic adventuring party." Second of all, yes it most certainly does. You cannot have characters interacting, with the exception of direct violence, without cooperation, especially if you're going for anything that could be "interesting" or otherwise something seen at a gaming table.So our two options for interaction are:
Cooperation
Violence
I'm really glad we are not having this disagreement in person.

OK you probably mean something broader than what I probably understand it to mean. Because that is just insane. What exactly do you mean by cooperation? For example do semi-cooperative situation count as they contain some cooperation even if it is not the focus? One of the more interesting Apocalypse World campaigns I have heard about was a Hardholder and a Hocus trying to keep a holding up while also trying to improve their control of it in a church vs. state battle. I'm sure there were moments of cooperation, but there were also some moments of very-not-cooperation that probably couldn't escalate to violence without destroying their little holding. The main example I know about had to do with food rations.

[Florian]

@Selene Sparks:

Jain. You're right and wrong at the same time. The difference here is based on mindset and you seem unable to switch between them and evaluate the situation accounting both, accepting a different outcome. Ironically, Max_Killjoy did the heavy mental lifting here....

If you come from the Sim/Wargaming angle and are used to rather primitive mechanics, you're absolutely right: The whole things breaks down into a series of pass/fail checks and the moment a fail happens, things break down and you'll have to switch tracks as a reaction.

Now let's talk about systems that work with margins of failure/success first, like everything Dark Heresy and go on from there. What exactly does a "Yes, and", "Yes, but", "No, and", "No, but" mean as a result?

While personally, I tend to understand where you're coming from, 3E more or less solidified the "Player empowerment" and "RAW!"-crowd, this is not how RPGs have to be run.

[Floret]

Experience as an in-game currency is bad because it creates and enforces a power differential between the group. This is a problem.

Is it? Because sure, in an average game I heartily object to giving out extra XP for "good roleplaying" or such nonsense, or denying XP for missing a session. I generally agree that as a base assumption, XP being equal between PCs is a good way to go.
But it is hardly the only one. Depending on what you want your system to achieve, possibly the wrong one. Dark Eye 5th edition has suggestions for group dynamics where PCs start out at wildly different XP levels (A knight and his squire, for example; and the learned priest that travels with them). Is that wrong? (As long as the table agrees to it?)



As I've repeatedly pointed out, the results of every action are up to the GM, because they get to describe it with no input from the player. The actions and moves are, in fact, meaningless, because they flatly don't impact how resolution works.

As you have repeatedly asserted, yes. But a) that's not actually, yaknow, true, at least you haven't sufficiently proven it is, and b) a certain amount of GM fiat is... always in resolution? Do your games have the players decide upon seeing the result of the roll what exactly happens in follow-up? Cause that's kinda not how any game I've seen tells you to do things.



And, as to your final note, an implicit appeal to popularity isn't good reasoning. I can find examples of people who pretty firmly agree with me if you want, but who agrees with who isn't the basis of a good argument.

I agree. The problem is, though, as with the ever-true "correlation =/= causation", that that is only half the matter. If a massive number of people disagree with you, in unison, it doesn't mean anything in and of itself, but maybe that you should take a closer look at why this disparity arises. To call this number of people wrong and delusional seems like hubris. But maybe I haven't played enough World of Darkness to understand your wisdom. Rereading the AW rules after your criticism has somehow left me with the same interpretations that I've had the first time. I am more aware that they are written rather prosaicly in part, but I do find my interpretations - the one that yield a game, playable with the results the system proposes to produce - to be likely correct.



In this, you're wrong. Drown healing is the result of the writers not thinking things through. The sex XP and bonuses were a deliberate incentive structure. The only logical result from the premise alone is gangbangs before anything important, and as often as possible.

No, you are measuring with different yardsticks. Sex moves are indeed an incentive structure (as is a friend being healed, or not giving the ninjas bonuses) but the "so all have orgies" is the equivalent action to drowning your dying friend, or dismounting in face of a Ninja attack (And don't even dare to take the higher ground against them). Taking the rules to its (silly) conclusion. (Which, as I have pointed out, would for reasons of time consumed, go right past orgies into passing a joint around. So I guess the game incentivises playing stoners.)



No, it's not. It is true that, unless there is no outcome or option more desirable than any other, optimization is inevitable, because that's how systems work. Hell, I've heard people coming up with optimized strategies in Munchhausen, which is pretty much magical tea party.

So I suppose the playbooks that get optional armor don't *actually* have it be optional? Someone who spends points on knowlege skills in Shadowrun is doing it wrong?
And I will note that theoreticising about optimisation being a thing does not mean optimisation is a thing. A friend of mine is a notorious optimizer, building builds that are rather disgusting... And never playing them, because hell that would be boring. Playing a mundane Face in SR5E because he wants to play the concept, not the optimisation.
"Unless any other outcome is more desirable" is a rather important and essential thing covering vast amounts of circumstances that apply almost anywhere (Especially where "I want to play my character consistently" is concerned...)



First of all, if the PCs are actively doing anything together at all(which is pretty much essential in any game played at a table) and not actively engaged in a free-for-all, they're describable as a party. Secondly, no, it's a rules problem because anyone not engaging in the behavior is not adequately pulling their weight. If you fail to do so, you are not only failing to benefit both yourself and your allies, you are losing out on advancement, putting you at a permanent and ever-increasing disadvantage.
No. My dislike of it being mechanical at all is an opinion. The fact that it was implemented how it was is awful design is not.

Read the examples of play in the AW book and then come back to me about how the players are all working together and that is an assumption the game has. I remember "not stopping your gang from beating up a fellow PC" and "actively shooting another PCs brains out", for example. You calling the design awful repeatedly, with no argument beyond ones that boil down to opinion in second instance (Incentivises behaviour I don't want; creates a power imbalance I dislike) does nothing to actually argue for the rules being fundamentally bad.



I cannot approve of and will dismiss out of hand the value of a system that can enforce in-game positive response to sexual harassment. That's a thing in Monster Hearts. And, no, I don't care if that's what they were deliberately going for, FATAL was deliberately designed in the way it was and it's garbage too.

Yup, FATAL is Garbage, Monster Hearts not. Because there is a difference between them (And we have to keep in mind depiction =/= endorsement and stuff...). The question, what is depicted, with what framing, for what reason, to what (intended) effect.
FATAL? Racist, sexist, ableist "trueisms" and "jokes"; framed as "realism" of the simulation or hilarious; because the designers wanted to be realistic and funny; spreading the view that that is how the world works.
Monster Hearts? Your characters can get turned on by ****ed up ****, without your input; framed as something that happens (Without an explicit value judgement by the rules iirc); to simulate the experience of puberty where your desires are out of your control; to go through such things in a somewhat controlled game environment and feel out how these things might be for people with different effects than we had.

I see a massive difference. Exploration of theme and mindset is fundamentally distinct from bigotry "for realisms sake".



Monster Hearts, like the rest of the PbtA drek, is actively hostile to player agency in any way.
If the player cannot make meaningful choices, it is not, in fact, a game. And if you want to watch someone sit in a corner and play with themselves while others watch, the internet can provide that just fine.

Player agency is not an absolute value unto which everything else has to be sacrificed (Sure, no agency would have it cease to be a game. But taking parts can be worth it, depending on what is gained.). Players being denied parts of agency about their characters does not mean they have no meaningful choices.

And I do wanna point out that the rules for seduce and manipulate on fellow PCs are one of the best compromises known to me for "ability of social characters to affect stuff" and " agency of the target"; preserving both. AW does seem to care about player agency...



You say "evocative name," I say "dismissive name," and I regard the genre trope itself as sexist, a product that is the product of a directly male-focused creative process in which the value of women are reduced to their appearance or perceived (sexual) value to men.

And I suggest you read the descriptions of them in the book. The first description is all about their appearance with no other value. Their first two powers are are "dangerous and sexy," which seriously involves distracting opponents with your "hot" and I really don't think I have to explain what's wrong here beyond that, and "Ice cold," which has obvious connotations, especially given how theoretically active women are treated in the genre in question. Hell, even their sex move is obviously fraught with issue, as the whole "sperm-jacking matriarchy" nonsense that shows up with absurd frequency in the genre. Beyond even that, they're explicitly called out as being ineffective combatants, especially in comparison to the other combat class, which is, again, in line with the worst portrayals of women in the genre - the fake action girls whose only real value is to either make the men look good or be props for the men.

Alright, so all of that would indeed be a problem... If the playbook were restricted to women in any way. It isn't, though, it is, as any other, for both male and female characters, and its approach to a fighter that takes style over function, not inherently gendered. The archetype called upon may skew female in the genre, but is not restricted as such.

You may need to explain what's wrong with being "dangerous and sexy" after all, cause it is something people can aspire to be (and also, the move makes people flinch and freeze at your intimidating presence; or single you out as the biggest threat. "Distracting people with your hot" seems like a mischaracterisation at best; better to be fitting the Skinner (That has a male pic, incidentally)). How you get "sperm-jacking matriarch" from "Denying sex (with you) any real influence" is... while maybe not beyond me, a rather big jump. And how you get "Being an ineffective combatant" from a piece of text that starts off "Battlebabes are good in battle, of course" is then, in fact, beyond me.

Besides that, there is the fact that the description of the battlebabe does not focus on hotness, ****ability and stuff like that... at all.


Even in a place as dangerous as Apocalypse World, battlebabes are, well. They’re the ones you should walk away from, eyes down, but you can’t. They’re the ones like
the seductive blue crackling light, y’know? You mistake looking at them for falling in love, and you get too close and it’s a zillion volts and your wings burn off like paper.

Dangerous


But sure. This is reducing them to their looks. I am not convinced.

The only thing female about the battlebabe is the picture. Which goes for the "baddest ass", the gunlugger, as well; with the example gunlugger used throughout the book beimg female. I cannot in good conscience read an aversion to or degradation of women as combatants into the system.



You're contradicting yourself. A RPG is a cooperative activity by definition. Players engaging in conflict(you know, as in "player versus player") is actively detrimental to that, as it is by definition not a cooperative event.

Okay, so by my knowlege, "RPG" is short for "Roleplaying game", as in, a game, where you play a role. ...Player characters engaging in conflict with one another does not seem detrimental to that, or in... any sort of relationship at all with whether or not something is an RPG; and I see nothing in the term that suggests a relation to cooperation... In any way at all?



Again, I don't see how you can argue that not having a real action resolution system is, in fact, an acceptable action resolution system.

It isn't. And Apocalypse World doesn't have an action resolution system. It has a resolution system that varies between being an attempt resolution system, and a conflict resolution system. Action resolution systems are not mandatory, but your framing of the examples has indeed shown that you hold them to be such. Try to understand the difference, please, it is kind of necessary for understanding how a system not based o action resolution works.



See all my previous comments on White Wolf. And an appeal to popularity is not a good argument. By that reasoning, I could defend Michael Bay's Transformers or 50 Shades.

And something about those things must be there, otherwise the mass appeal is inexplicable and irrational. It does not make them any good, mind you, but it does mean dismissing them as unimportant is unwise. "Everyone is just sheep" is not a good perspective, ever.



Oh for crying out loud. Getting into a competition makes it an action under fire, and therefore is dependent solely on your cool stat, no matter what it is. A hypothetical detective's sharp stat is thus entirely useless for seeing though a disguise of a hostile.

Does it? I'd like a citation on the claim that competing with someone supercedes move assignment. Competition automatically makes anything you attempt at least roll-worthy, with it becoming act under fire if not move-worthy before, but that's about it. There is an example for rolling to hinder the person reading you for crying out loud; and that has the reader roll +Sharp. Somehow, I think your desire to dislike the rules clouds your ability to comprehend them.



Is this a joke? "Oh, you can just ignore the rules" as a defense for the rules, combined with a decent side-dose of "not for critics?" Really? Beyond that, you're bringing in nonsense I'm not even sure where you got it in your head from.

I am not telling you to ignore the rules. Where should I be supposedly doing that? I am arguing that following the rules is... fine, ultimately. And I am not saying not for critics. I am recommending you to choose your RPG by your preferences, since all RPGs cannot fullfill all preferences. Some will be outside yours. Some are outside mine (I will never touch D20, for example). And that's fine. But it doesn't make them bad.

[Max_Killjoy]

To Max_Killjoy: I almost lost this post and I saw your post when I recovered it. I did list three scales of resolution (action, attempt, conflict) so I hope that hints that I understand there are more than two. I've looked into a lot of systems over the years, but had mentioned D&D (and Munchhausen, which I think I am also going to have to look into) so I used that as an example.




I see this as a sliding scale. For me, the proper level of generality for a roll is the minimum unit of time/effort/goal coherence that has a) interesting consequences for both success and failure and b) has a significant in-fiction chance of failure.

Different types of things need different levels of generality, because both a) and b) vary depending on what you're doing. Make the generality too low (at the extreme) and you approach "roll to climb up this one foot of rock. Now roll again." Make it too high (also at the extreme) and you approach "roll to win the game."

Climbing might be any of auto-success (either low chance of failure or no factors that make failure interesting), auto-failure (cliff made of atomically-smooth, super-lubricated material in a "realistic" game), or anything in-between. Generally, if they're just climbing a difficult cliff I'd give a choice--

a) climb carefully, taking 10X time but no chance of failure (no check).
b) climb quickly, taking X time but with a chance of falling for Y damage and doubling the time on a failed check.
c) use some resource (if available) to bypass/modify the cliff. This might be someone who can climb without difficulty (or fly) taking up a rope, etc.

However, if they're being chased or are climbing under fire then the options might be
a) climb extra quickly (disadvantage on the check); failure means you can't get up and get caught, degrees of success from there.
b) climb normally (normal check); critical failure (rolled more than 5 under) means you get caught, regular failure means you take extra time/damage, success means you get up without issue.

Social situations are another case where I feel that the appropriate level of generality is pretty high--you're rolling to see if you get the outcome you've stated--will he help you or not? If so, how much?

On the other hand, something like an attack roll is "did you manage to successfully deplete your opponent's resources this round"--interesting consequences are built in and you'll make a lot more checks.

So for me, there isn't a universal "best" level of generality for checks. It depends on what's being done and how. Some things just get hand-waved (walking down a normal corridor), others require multiple checks for fundamentally the same action (walking down a corridor, blindfolded, not stepping on legos strewn across the path) depending on the fiction.


I'm fine with and actually support the adjustment of the "timeframe" (can't think of a better word right now) of the roll to avoid lots of little rolls for the same thing on something like climbing a wall. Typically roll once to climb something, unless there's some extenuating circumstance, and the roll might be for how long it takes rather than pass/fail. Typically roll once for stealth in order to get through an area unnoticed, and no "gotcha guards" barring very special circumstances. Etc.

To me, combat requires more rolls and specific rolls because each attack or defense or whatever actually has consequences that affect the subsequent events -- process of events, decisions, causes, and effects gets really fast and important. Systems that attempt to reduce combat to a few rolls fail to make combat feel like combat, and might as well just go ahead and say "flip the coin to see if who won".


However...

I'm absolutely against rolling on some disassociated ambiguous "assassin skill" mechanic that encompasses and conflates different steps / tasks, such as scouting out the camp, climbing the rock face, sneaking past the guards, finding the tent, slipping into the test unseen, and so on.

I'm absolutely against confusion as to where the "challenge" in each step, such as the assertion that the "general of the army" is who the "conflict" is with, so supposedly you should be be rolling against that general for the whole thing -- not against the landscape to scout, or the rocks to climb, or the sentries to remain unnoticed, or a lock if you were picking a lock, or... whatever.

I'm absolutely against confusing use of the term "fiction", the attempt to establish a false equivalence between things that originate "in world/setting" with things that originate with "story concerns", and establish a false dichotomy between "story mechanics" (claiming all fiction-first focus) and "game mechanics" (lumping in all system-first focus).

By story mechanics, I mean things like the "Bad Motivator" talent in FFG's Star Wars, which allows the player to insert a story element of something failing or malfunctioning, without any action or even awareness on the part of the character.

I'd really like to be able to use "the fiction" or another term as shorthand for all the character and setting and background and so on, while having zero story-focus or story-element implied or inferred. The attempts I see to claim everything that isn't mechanical for "story" drive me up the damn wall, because it comes across as a deliberate effort to negate an entire "wing" of gamers and force everyone to choose between two sides in someone else's fight; it's the same nonsense that ends up with D&D 3.P being called "simulationist".

A system, and a campaign, can put the "fiction" elements first and make the mechanics follow the "fiction", without incorporating even an iota of disassociated mechanics, "conflict resolution" mechanics, or "story" mechanics.

[kyoryu]

I'm not talking about rolling to get past one guard or multiple guards -- I've no problem with "roll stealth once to avoid all the guards in this immediate area".

1) I'm talking about the examples I've seen that start to glomp climbing the rocks, sneaking past the guards, and picking the lock or whatever, into a single roll, and often rolled against an NPC who isn't even involved in any of those actions, because the "conflict" is with that NPC (rather than the guards, or the rocks even, evidently).

If you're trying to get into a castle or whatever, coming up with an overall difficulty to represent that seems reasonable. Apart from that, if the castle lord has something like "Organize Castle Defense", then you could argue for that as being the difficulty. This is a bit of Devil's Advocate, to be clear. I'm looking at "in what cases would something like that make any sense at all?" not "how do I actually run games?"

I've never actually seen that, or heard advocates of that, though, and unless we're talking about the type of things I've mentioned above, it seems really silly.

I mean, I don't argue that there are some people that take things to that level, but it's a pretty extreme position that's not mainstream in any scenario I've seen.


2) What's without getting into systems that are so aggressively "story-driven" that they even allow the winner of a roll to edit what came before, change backstory, or otherwise engage in retcon.

I've never really seen anything allowing retcons. Even games like Fate generally prefer to use techniques to avoid retcons. Usually, what's established is pretty set.

Again, I'm not saying that some people don't have that view, but in my experience (and I'm fairly involved in a number of story-gamish communities) that's a pretty fringe position.

I think you're either misunderstanding a few things, or are taking the extreme position as a mainstream one. There's reasonable people that are doing gaming that aren't going that far off into lala land.

[Max_Killjoy]

If you're trying to get into a castle or whatever, coming up with an overall difficulty to represent that seems reasonable. Apart from that, if the castle lord has something like "Organize Castle Defense", then you could argue for that as being the difficulty. This is a bit of Devil's Advocate, to be clear. I'm looking at "in what cases would something like that make any sense at all?" not "how do I actually run games?"

I've never actually seen that, or heard advocates of that, though, and unless we're talking about the type of things I've mentioned above, it seems really silly.

I mean, I don't argue that there are some people that take things to that level, but it's a pretty extreme position that's not mainstream in any scenario I've seen.



I've never really seen anything allowing retcons. Even games like Fate generally prefer to use techniques to avoid retcons. Usually, what's established is pretty set.

Again, I'm not saying that some people don't have that view, but in my experience (and I'm fairly involved in a number of story-gamish communities) that's a pretty fringe position.

I think you're either misunderstanding a few things, or are taking the extreme position as a mainstream one. There's reasonable people that are doing gaming that aren't going that far off into lala land.


I've got examples of both -- roll against the "lord of the keep" and "success allows you to write backstory to justify the thing you wanted to happen actually happening" -- saved somewhere on the computer at home, will try to find and post them tonight.

[PhoenixPhyre]

@Max_Killjoy

I use "fiction" to mean the circumstances of the ongoing scenario. As in what's actually happening in the in-universe reality. Nothing about the narrative or larger "story". It's to specify that the difficulty (or consequences, or etc.) of an action should depend on what's going on in-universe, on the circumstances and situation.

A common source of issues that I see is a desire to have unified mechanics--one mechanic to rule them all. But different things work best with different mechanics. One skill/action/circumstance might work best with a very specific, task-oriented resolution system. Another might work best with a more general "action" resolution system (action in quotes here because I don't think it's the best word, but can't think of another). Still others might work best at a very highly abstracted level.

And which things work best where is also a function of the circumstances and the table--some tables want to focus on certain things. Others want to just hand-wave them and move on. I have a table where traveling is done purely narrative. Because no one cares. I know there are tables that prefer a more hour-by-hour take on traveling.

There isn't a universal answer. There isn't a global right answer or a global wrong answer. There are just answers that work for some purposes and don't for others. The only right way to play is to do more of what is fun for your group and less of what isn't fun for your group.

[kyoryu]

I've got examples of both -- roll against the "lord of the keep" and "success allows you to write backstory to justify the thing you wanted to happen actually happening" -- saved somewhere on the computer at home, will try to find and post them tonight.

I don't doubt that there are some people that hold these views.

They're not a significant majority in any situation I've seen - online or other.

What *is* more common in many storygames is that there is a lot of stuff that's purposefully left as "undeclared". So if you say something happened in the past, that's can be considered fair game, provided that it's not contradicted by something that's already been established. So, in Fate I can make a Declaration that I really did bring something along with me. That's fine, because we never really established whether I did or didn't. If we had established postiively that I didn't bring it, or had done some things to make it unfeasible that I brought the thing, then you can't make that declaration. Like, if you're stripped naked you can't suddenly declare "But I have a machine gun!" without any intervening scenarios that would actually give you access to said machine gun. And if you had previously said "I'm leaving my weapons at home", you can't just Declare "but I brought one!"

Now, to be clear, that "undetermined" category might be something you're uncomfortable with in your gaming, and I'm not arguing that you should like it. But, at least from its own perspective, it is not refuting past facts.

[Pex]

While personally, I tend to understand where you're coming from, 3E more or less solidified the "Player empowerment" and "RAW!"-crowd, this is not how RPGs have to be run.

You say that like player opinions and clear rules are abominations to be avoided.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You say that like player opinions and clear rules are abominations to be avoided.

Player empowerment =/= player opinions.

RAW uber-alles =/= clear rules.

In fact, RAW doesn't exist as a special thing. There is the text of the rules and then there are the various ways it's been interpreted. All texts require interpretation. RAW is merely one way that people have chosen to interpret the text, and has no special privilege. In many cases it's a particularly stilted, context-rejecting interpretation. And those that propose that everything must exist in cold text are imposing their own rule on the game that never has existed. That is, they're the ones denying others agency and forcing their own opinions onto the gameplay of others.