Mike Mearls on the underlying philosophy of 5e

[PhoenixPhyre]

I find one of the biggest differences between 5e and 4e/3e to be one of philosophy. The why of the design. The aims of the designers, which influence the "proper" flow of the game.

Apropos of that, I ran across a set of tweets from Mike Mearls on this.

Link: https://mobile.twitter.com/mikemearls/status/1041062500282773504

Transcribed text (each paragraph is one tweet in the original):



3.5 and 4 were very much driven by an anxiety about controlling the experience of the game, leaving as little as possible to chance. They aimed for consistency of play from campaign to campaign, and table to table.

The fear was that an obnoxious player or DM would ruin the game, and that would drive people away from it. The thinking was that if we made things as procedural as possible, people would just follow the rules and have fun regardless of who they played with.

The downside to this approach is that the rules became comprehensive to a fault. The game’s rules bloated, as they sought to resolve many if not all questions that arise in play with the game text.

At the same time, 3.5 and 4 were driven by the idea that D&D players wanted as many character options as possible, presented in a modular framework meant to encourage the search for combinations that yielded characters who broke the power curve.

These two aims play together in an extremely terrible way, at least from a design perspective. Your core system has to cover everything... meanwhile you are adding more cases and content to your game. Good luck with keeping those things in balance!

IMO, the basic design premise suffers from a fatal flaw. It misses out on a ton of the elements that make RPGs distinct and doesn’t speak to why people enjoy D&D in the first place.

With 5th, we assumed that the DM was there to have a good time, put on an engaging performance, and keep the group interested, excited, and happy. It’s a huge change, because we no longer expect you to turn to the book for an answer. We expect the DM to do that.

In terms of players, we focus much more on narrative and identity, rather than specific, mechanical advantages. Who you are is more important than what you do, to the point that your who determines your what.

In broad terms - and based on what we can observe of the community from a variety of measures - we went from a community that focused on mechanics and expertise, to one focused on socializing and story telling.

Mechanical expertise is an element of the game, but no longer the sole focus. Ideally, it’s a balanced part of all the other motivators. If balanaced correctly, every has their fun. Enjoyment isn’t zero sum.

As D&D is descriptive rather than prescriptive, individual groups had different experiences. However, that was the design trend and what we saw in the community as a whole. It’s been interesting to see things change with the change in rules and the flood of new players.


This meshes well with my experience, and it's nice to see that my understanding matches the original intent of the designers.

Thoughts?

[NRSASD]

As a player who made the jump from 2nd to 5E, that is basically my thoughts on the subject as well. I feel the rules and gameplay should enhance the story, not dictate to it. Since the DM is the storyteller, rules should make their job easier, not harder.

[hymer]

Who you are is more important than what you do, to the point that your who determines your what.

My bold. What? I think that thought could do with some elaboration. Unless it actually means as little as it seems to, in which case it should be cut.

Anyway, I personally see no real difference in the community side from 3.X to 5e. I play with much the same mix of people now as I did then (indeed, much the same people period). I don't think 5e is any more enabling (whether for DM or player) or constructive, or even conducive to joyful storytelling. It is, however, less time consuming to prepare for, and faster at play, and that's a lot. It's also better balanced between classes.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My bold. What? I think that thought could do with some elaboration. Unless it actually means as little as it seems to, in which case it should be cut.

Anyway, I personally see no real difference in the community side from 3.X to 5e. I play with much the same mix of people now as I did then (indeed, much the same people period). I don't think 5e is any more enabling (whether for DM or player) or constructive, or even conducive to joyful storytelling. It is, however, less time consuming to prepare for, and faster at play, and that's a lot.

I think that the bold part means that the "proper" flow is to reason from character to mechanics instead of vice versa. That is, the fictional layer comes first. Instead of thinking "do I have that ability? No, so I can't do that," it's a thought process more of "is my character the type of person that would attempt that?" and letting the mechanics fall out of that.

To contrast, a common idea in 3e character building was to ignore things like fluff requirements for PrCs and to read roleplaying "advice" as being much less important than mechanical powers. So you'd dance between a bunch of thematically-ill-fitting classes in order to get the abilities you wanted. 5e is designed to integrate the fluff and the crunch, so that isn't as much of a temptation.

Again, this is a philosophical shift, not necessarily even a mechanical one. I see a big distinction between 4e's "the fluff of abilities is explicitly discard-able/mutable" philosophy (which put the fluff in italics, visually separating it from the crunch) and 5e's intermixed description and mechanics. One says that fiction is a separate layer that can be traded out at will, the other says that the fiction is part of the rules and must be considered together.

And maybe you don't see a change because you're playing with people who have been playing for a while (and thus have developed their own philosophies)? I see it when I go from playing with 3e-era people to my usual new players. The 3e-era players are much more mechanics-first and prone to trying to "break the system" while the new players are much more story/narrative/fiction focused. The first group tends to default to checking the book for answers, while the second asks "what should happen? How can we make the rules fit this, even if we have to tweak things?"

It's the difference between a rules-first approach (the rules define the game, so there must be a rule for everything, even if we have to add one) and a fiction-first approach (the rules only help us resolve questions where the fiction is uncertain, and the rules take a backseat to the fiction).

[Unoriginal]

I think that Mearls hit the nail on the head here.

Additionally, most of the issues I've seen people have with 5e were due to them having expectations from previous editions or trying to apply 3.X mindset/concepts to 5e.

[Millstone85]

I think 4e could also have been better on the mechanical part.

For instance, why did classes have non-overlapping lists of powers? Huge waste of PHB space, especially when powers ended up being so similar anyway.

[hymer]

I think that the bold part means that the "proper" flow is to reason from character to mechanics instead of vice versa. That is, the fictional layer comes first. Instead of thinking "do I have that ability? No, so I can't do that," it's a thought process more of "is my character the type of person that would attempt that?" and letting the mechanics fall out of that.

To contrast, a common idea in 3e character building was to ignore things like fluff requirements for PrCs and to read roleplaying "advice" as being much less important than mechanical powers. So you'd dance between a bunch of thematically-ill-fitting classes in order to get the abilities you wanted. 5e is designed to integrate the fluff and the crunch, so that isn't as much of a temptation.

Again, this is a philosophical shift, not necessarily even a mechanical one. I see a big distinction between 4e's "the fluff of abilities is explicitly discard-able/mutable" philosophy (which put the fluff in italics, visually separating it from the crunch) and 5e's intermixed description and mechanics. One says that fiction is a separate layer that can be traded out at will, the other says that the fiction is part of the rules and must be considered together.
In that case, perhaps the difference of perception is that I've never (for a given value of 'never') considered that one had to come before the other. If you see a cool mechanic you like, you can make a character that fits narratively. If you have a cool character concept, you can pick mechanics that fit. You can do both of those in 3.X and you can do them in 5e. And then there are the times when you don't have one or the other come first. The intuitive leap happens so fast you don't know what sparked the idea.


And maybe you don't see a change because you're playing with people who have been playing for a while (and thus have developed their own philosophies)?
That's what I was trying to say. :smallsmile: However:


The 3e-era players are much more mechanics-first and prone to trying to "break the system" while the new players are much more story/narrative/fiction focused.
Some players power play, some play more story focused. And some just struggle to keep up, because they're new. But I see absolutely no indication that 3.5 players are more prone to power play and 5e players are more prone to story play. It's down to their personalities and tastes (and just maybe experience, but that's complicated even if it is correct), not to what system they're playing (or learned first for that matter) as far as I can tell.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Some players power play, some play more story focused. And some just struggle to keep up, because they're new. But I see absolutely no indication that 3.5 players are more prone to power play and 5e players are more prone to story play. It's down to their personalities and tastes (and just maybe experience, but that's complicated even if it is correct), not to what system they're playing (or learned first for that matter) as far as I can tell.

I was only talking there about my experiences personally, not trying to generalize. I have heard lots of complaints that 5e doesn't give enough support to mechanical optimization, mostly from people who prefer 3.PF, though. In my personal experience, 3e seems to demand more of a mechanics focus (pre planned builds, juggling prerequisites, avoiding trap options, planning action economy, etc) even down to the tactical level while 5e leaves me much more mental space for adapting to the fiction.

Because as much as people cry stormwind, mental space is limited. The more you're spending mental effort about mechanics, the less you can focus on other things, character included. That's a natural consequence of human nature.

[the secret fire]

My bold. What? I think that thought could do with some elaboration. Unless it actually means as little as it seems to, in which case it should be cut.

He's just referring to backgrounds in a vainglorious way.

[Sigreid]

I was only talking there about my experiences personally, not trying to generalize. I have heard lots of complaints that 5e doesn't give enough support to mechanical optimization, mostly from people who prefer 3.PF, though. In my personal experience, 3e seems to demand more of a mechanics focus (pre planned builds, juggling prerequisites, avoiding trap options, planning action economy, etc) even down to the tactical level while 5e leaves me much more mental space for adapting to the fiction.



This was always my issue with 3.5. If you didn't know where you were going to take your character from the very beginning, you were very likely going to find yourself having made a choice at the very beginning that stops you from achieving a viable character at even mid levels.

[hymer]

I was only talking there about my experiences personally, not trying to generalize. I have heard lots of complaints that 5e doesn't give enough support to mechanical optimization, mostly from people who prefer 3.PF, though. In my personal experience, 3e seems to demand more of a mechanics focus (pre planned builds, juggling prerequisites, avoiding trap options, planning action economy, etc) even down to the tactical level while 5e leaves me much more mental space for adapting to the fiction.
No argument there. But I don't agree entirely with

Because as much as people cry stormwind, mental space is limited. The more you're spending mental effort about mechanics, the less you can focus on other things, character included. That's a natural consequence of human nature.
The first objection I have to this is time. Planning a character, e.g., takes time. But once you're done with it, it doesn't take up any of your mental resources while playing. You return to your plan when you level up. I agree that if someone is struggling with just understanding the system, then they may be distracted from roleplaying. But that's far from guaranteed, and in any case should be another temporary phenomenon until you get up to speed on the mechanics.
Another objection is that mechanics can be very conducive to role and story. They give you something to hang on to. If a character has vulnerability to cold and resistance to fire, it will give you something to use when you choose how the character dresses, and how they react to a given scene or environment. It can also be used by the DM to hook a given PC, and hopefully also the player. The above-mentioned character might be particularly interested in the latest developments in making clothes made from fire hydra leather, e.g.

[LudicSavant]

Because as much as people cry stormwind, mental space is limited. The more you're spending mental effort about mechanics, the less you can focus on other things, character included. That's a natural consequence of human nature.

This is like saying that you better not learn to dance if you want to sing.

The reality is that real human skill acquisition doesn't really work this way. A programmer doesn't get worse at programming if they learn some biology... and often they even find out that learning one makes them better at the other in unexpected ways (which you have to thank for both a number of modern computer technologies as well as breakthroughs in biology, incidentally).

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is like saying that you better not learn to dance if you want to sing.

The reality is that real human skill acquisition doesn't really work this way. A programmer doesn't get worse at programming if they learn some biology... and often they even find out that learning one makes them better at the other in unexpected ways (which you have to thank for both a number of modern computer technologies as well as breakthroughs in biology, incidentally).

It's not about learning. It's about juggling competing demands during play. If I'm worrying about how to mechanically represent a particular action in a way that fits a complex rule set, I don't have the brain power to simultaneously consider the character-based stuff as much. The two conflict because they're both competing for limited focus at any one instant.

[GaelofDarkness]

I was more of a wargamer before getting into ttrpgs and I'd say I agree with 5e's philosophy. The focus on "narrative and identity" is what got me into rpgs and it's what most players I know go to rpgs for. Of course, this doesn't mean we don't appreciate mechanical optimization - but it's not the thing that sells most of us on an rpg. Instead, it's how the mechanics complement the narrative and empower story-telling. I think 5e cuts a nice balance there - right around the sweet spot for getting different styles of gamers having fun at the same table. Heavily homebrewed systems are the norm for us and it's only really with 5e that we're looking to dnd for ideas, mechanics or monsters to steal.

I'm still partial to a game with more of a focus on mechanical intricacies - but I wasn't really looking to dnd for that.

[ZorroGames]

I find one of the biggest differences between 5e and 4e/3e to be one of philosophy. The why of the design. The aims of the designers, which influence the "proper" flow of the game.

Apropos of that, I ran across a set of tweets from Mike Mearls on this.

Link: https://mobile.twitter.com/mikemearls/status/1041062500282773504

Transcribed text (each paragraph is one tweet in the original):



This meshes well with my experience, and it's nice to see that my understanding matches the original intent of the designers.

Thoughts?

Well, I think that plays out differently on forums like this one.

[ZorroGames]

I was more of a wargamer before getting into ttrpgs and I'd say I agree with 5e's philosophy. The focus on "narrative and identity" is what got me into rpgs and it's what most players I know go to rpgs for. Of course, this doesn't mean we don't appreciate mechanical optimization - but it's not the thing that sells most of us on an rpg. Instead, it's how the mechanics complement the narrative and empower story-telling. I think 5e cuts a nice balance there - right around the sweet spot for getting different styles of gamers having fun at the same table. Heavily homebrewed systems are the norm for us and it's only really with 5e that we're looking to dnd for ideas, mechanics or monsters to steal.

I'm still partial to a game with more of a focus on mechanical intricacies - but I wasn't really looking to dnd for that.

If I want a fantasy war game I have a basement collection on rules, terrain, and miniatures from some almost 60 years of playing “toy soldiers” but I want the FRPG to layer in the experience with the environment as a priority.

[McSkrag]

In terms of players, we focus much more on narrative and identity, rather than specific, mechanical advantages. Who you are is more important than what you do, to the point that your who determines your what.

In broad terms - and based on what we can observe of the community from a variety of measures - we went from a community that focused on mechanics and expertise, to one focused on socializing and story telling.


The emphasis on storytelling and game flow makes it way more fun and is THE REASON I came back to D&D.

I think it also makes the game way more accessible to a broader audience which is a great thing for the community.

[Beelzebubba]

He's just referring to backgrounds in a vainglorious way.

Nah. It means the choices in your mechanical build are less important than the choices you make at the table.

It's the opposite of 3E, from my experience.


Some players power play, some play more story focused. And some just struggle to keep up, because they're new. But I see absolutely no indication that 3.5 players are more prone to power play and 5e players are more prone to story play. It's down to their personalities and tastes (and just maybe experience, but that's complicated even if it is correct), not to what system they're playing (or learned first for that matter) as far as I can tell.

I'm sure that's true of a lot of tables, but not at ours.

At mine, fully 50% of our players are new to D&D, and half of them are completely new to RPGs. They heard about how fun and awesome the new D&D was, and wanted to give it a shot. They don't even have a clue what 'powergaming' is, and built everything from the character/personality outward.

Hell, even when I explained what it was, a few said 'eh, that's not why I want to play this game' and even turned down some advice to get some more synergy with abilities and stats.

[Pex]

I was only talking there about my experiences personally, not trying to generalize. I have heard lots of complaints that 5e doesn't give enough support to mechanical optimization, mostly from people who prefer 3.PF, though. In my personal experience, 3e seems to demand more of a mechanics focus (pre planned builds, juggling prerequisites, avoiding trap options, planning action economy, etc) even down to the tactical level while 5e leaves me much more mental space for adapting to the fiction.

Because as much as people cry stormwind, mental space is limited. The more you're spending mental effort about mechanics, the less you can focus on other things, character included. That's a natural consequence of human nature.

I don't apologize for optimizing and can optimize with 5E just fine. The simpler and fewer rules make it easy. All it took for my monk game is to play variant human 14 CON with tough feat and I have the highest hit points of the party, including the fighter. I'm playing a kinsei monk. At level 5 with 18 DX 16 WI my AC is 17 and can be 19 with a class ability plus Dodge as a bonus action if I want. I'm not a skirmisher like a typical monk. I'm the tank of the party.

My paladin game. With 15 CO 16 CH, all it took was one feat, Resilient Con, and now I autosucceed all concentration checks for spells of the more common DC 10. Multiclassing Sorcerer for a few levels, the Shield spell alone has prevented character death by negating a hit at the most important time it was needed with Absorb Elements keeping me conscious 1 important round more to defeat the bad guy.

I can nitpick specific rules of 5E I don't like, but I recognize that's more personal taste. Where I claim it's more than personal taste and the 5E design philosophy fails is in skill use which we've debated ad infinitum. It's too vulnerable to DM control. It's great to assume the DM won't be a donkey cavity, but when he is only experienced players know to vote with their feet. When the newbie learns that vote he may vote to leave the game altogether because that's how he thinks the game is supposed to be. Even when the DM is not being a donkey cavity, it still comes down to "mother may I". 5E has shown it is capable of not being that way by giving defined DC examples for tool use and object hardness. The game needs to advise DMs better on what constitutes various tasks being easy or hard more than just what DC to assign.

[ad_hoc]

I'm still partial to a game with more of a focus on mechanical intricacies - but I wasn't really looking to dnd for that.

This is important.

There are a lot of complex and heavy games out there with tough competitive scenes.

I have gone deep into a couple of them and have found the experience rewarding. A consequence of that is that I don't care for the 'optimization' of an RPG. There is no challenge, no outcome, and it's a waste of a good game.

Story comes first in an RPG, otherwise what's the point.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I can nitpick specific rules of 5E I don't like, but I recognize that's more personal taste. Where I claim it's more than personal taste and the 5E design philosophy fails is in skill use which we've debated ad infinitum. It's too vulnerable to DM control. It's great to assume the DM won't be a donkey cavity, but when he is only experienced players know to vote with their feet. When the newbie learns that vote he may vote to leave the game altogether because that's how he thinks the game is supposed to be. Even when the DM is not being a donkey cavity, it still comes down to "mother may I". 5E has shown it is capable of not being that way by giving defined DC examples for tool use and object hardness. The game needs to advise DMs better on what constitutes various tasks being easy or hard more than just what DC to assign.

But that's exactly what MM was talking about. That assumption that, given power, the DM will be a jerk. Which, it turns out, is really independent of the system. No system can constrain a jerk. You're still very much in the 3e philosophy, which conflicts strongly with 5e's philosophy. But he talks about how 3e's philosophy ended up making things suck, both as a designer and as a player. It encourages a particular type of play that's very stifling to a lot of people.

I know it's hard to believe, but most players I play with don't care what the DC is. At all. They don't care about the mechanical bits whatsoever, except when it gets in the way. The rules are one of many tools, and they're happy leaving those up to the DM to fiddle with. They want to interact with the fiction and have a playable, flexible, fun system. Consistency and tight definitions are not even on their radar.

[bloodshed343]

I think that the bold part means that the "proper" flow is to reason from character to mechanics instead of vice versa. That is, the fictional layer comes first. Instead of thinking "do I have that ability? No, so I can't do that," it's a thought process more of "is my character the type of person that would attempt that?" and letting the mechanics fall out of that.

...

5e is designed to integrate the fluff and the crunch, so that isn't as much of a temptation.

Again, this is a philosophical shift, not necessarily even a mechanical one. I see a big distinction between 4e's "the fluff of abilities is explicitly discard-able/mutable" philosophy (which put the fluff in italics, visually separating it from the crunch) and 5e's intermixed description and mechanics. One says that fiction is a separate layer that can be traded out at will, the other says that the fiction is part of the rules and must be considered together.
...

It's the difference between a rules-first approach (the rules define the game, so there must be a rule for everything, even if we have to add one) and a fiction-first approach (the rules only help us resolve questions where the fiction is uncertain, and the rules take a backseat to the fiction).

I feel that this is a poor design philosophy. The purpose of the books is to provide clear arbitration for the resolution of conflicts, and I think the strength of separating the lore aspects from the mechanical aspects is that it allows a character to choose any method they wish to resolve conflicts while playing to any theme they can think of. Your twin-dagger ranger|rogue hybrid could be a pirate wielding a pair of flintlock pistols loaded with primordial ice that double as clubs, or it could be a feral half elemental sprouting claws of frozen blood, without changing any of the mechanical features, whereas in 5e the "lore first" approach encourages picking a character from the explicit themes in the book rather than writing your own.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I feel that this is a poor design philosophy. The purpose of the books is to provide clear arbitration for the resolution of conflicts, and I think the strength of separating the lore aspects from the mechanical aspects is that it allows a character to choose any method they wish to resolve conflicts while playing to any theme they can think of. Your twin-dagger ranger|rogue hybrid could be a pirate wielding a pair of flintlock pistols loaded with primordial ice that double as clubs, or it could be a feral half elemental sprouting claws of frozen blood, without changing any of the mechanical features, whereas in 5e the "lore first" approach encourages picking a character from the explicit themes in the book rather than writing your own.

Be wary of conflating "poor design" with "design I don't like." Wanting disconnected descriptions from mechanics is a valid choice, but it's not superior (or inferior) to wanting merged descriptions and mechanics. Both have strengths and weaknesses.

Merged fluff/crunch promotes strong archetypes and narrative/mechanics consonance. I'd wonder why your pirate with pistols is doing the same damage as the half-elemental (both type and numbers and range), and why the feral elemental has skills with lock-picking and has expertise in skills. Or why your pirate is casting spells. To me, those matter.

Merged fluff/crunch has the downside of potentially restricting the build space. But to some people, that's not a downside, it's an advantage. This is especially true of new players who often don't really know what they want to play or what works in the system. Leaving things wide open and focusing on mechanics makes it easy for them to lose track and get overwhelmed by the choices.

Disconnected fluff/crunch does increase the design space. And for some people, that's important.

Disconnected fluff/crunch also runs the strong risk of fluff becoming only incidental. You pick your mechanical elements for maximum effectiveness and tack on whatever theme you want. This discards the idea of tradeoffs or opportunity cost--you can always pick the most effective options and call them whatever you want. I saw this with 4e--it was easy to build a mechanical monster and then make the fluff as an after-thought. Which is not conducive to strong narrative or to good characterization.

Both are possible, neither is wrong. Just different.

[ad_hoc]

whereas in 5e the "lore first" approach encourages picking a character from the explicit themes in the book rather than writing your own.

Which I think is much better - only I would say 'pick an archetype' rather than 'pick a character'. I want to lay the groundwork and then have the character emerge during play.

There are a plethora of options in 5e, really, a bit more than I would like. I want my D&D to have strong themes, archetype, and world building.

I don't want to play at a table with Mr. Ice Guns.

The options in the game and the themes they represent greatly inform the play experience. I don't want them to be freeform. I have no interest in GURPS Fantasy.

[Pex]

But that's exactly what MM was talking about. That assumption that, given power, the DM will be a jerk. Which, it turns out, is really independent of the system. No system can constrain a jerk. You're still very much in the 3e philosophy, which conflicts strongly with 5e's philosophy. But he talks about how 3e's philosophy ended up making things suck, both as a designer and as a player. It encourages a particular type of play that's very stifling to a lot of people.

I know it's hard to believe, but most players I play with don't care what the DC is. At all. They don't care about the mechanical bits whatsoever, except when it gets in the way. The rules are one of many tools, and they're happy leaving those up to the DM to fiddle with. They want to interact with the fiction and have a playable, flexible, fun system. Consistency and tight definitions are not even on their radar.

The difference is in 5E a newbie doesn't know the DM is being a jerk. If a DM is a jerk in 3E the newbie can look at the rules and see where the DM is ignoring them, so he knows it's the DM's fault. In 5E the rules say and encourage the DM to make up anything he wants, so it's the game's fault and thus don't want to play it anymore. It's still the DM's fault, I agree, but the perception is it's the game's fault. It was worse in 2E when the DMG specifically taught DMs to be a jerk, but I bias digress rant. I've said before 5E does not teach DMs to be a jerk. It does encourage DMs to play with their players, not against them, but the vagueness that creeps in by design facilitates the jerk behavior.

Lack of consistency hurts the game even when the DM is not a jerk. The infamous tree example. It becomes a problem when I play a game and can climb a tree just because I want to even though I have 10 strength and not proficient in Athletics, but when I play a different game with 18 ST and proficient in Athletics I have to roll DC 20 and can fail to climb the tree. The second DM is not wrong or a jerk. In his opinion trees are harder to climb than what the first DM thought. That lack of consistency means I have to relearn how to play the game. I don't have control over what my character can do. It's "mother may I". I want to play my character, not the DM play my character.

[MaxWilson]

This was always my issue with 3.5. If you didn't know where you were going to take your character from the very beginning, you were very likely going to find yourself having made a choice at the very beginning that stops you from achieving a viable character at even mid levels.

This problem still exists in 5E due to path dependencies in multiclassing rules: too many choices you can never undo, which place a lot of emphasis on "builds" instead of play.

I have no opinion on 3.x vs. 5E, but relative to AD&D 5E seems fiddly and mechanically heavyweight. In fact that's it's whole selling point: it has a more complex action economy in combat. Outside of combat it is inferior in every respect to AD&D (or GURPS), so if you're running 5E you'd better be running something hack-and-slashy for players who like lots of fiddly abilities or you're getting no benefit.

And that's how I view 5E.

[ad_hoc]

The difference is in 5E a newbie doesn't know the DM is being a jerk.

I don't need a game to tell whether someone is being a jerk.

[Pex]

I don't need a game to tell whether someone is being a jerk.

You're not a newbie.

[Twigwit]

I would agree with Mearls view more if the rules existed to let people make characters that were utterly their own. In my view they don't. The PHB classes and rules push you to play as something that fits into the already established identity of D&D instead of a character that is entirely player-driven. This in and of itself is not bad, we've had plenty of editions that worked that way and most of them were great fun and had lots of options to make your character your own.

For as much Mearls touts how 5e has great "narrative design," I would like to ask exactly what kind of narrative they're trying to encourage via the rules. I've had this weird feeling about 5e I couldn't articulate until recently, and that it's that the game doesn't feel like a simulation of a fantasy world. Instead it feels like a simulation of a more complex simulation (read: AD&D, 3.5) of a fantasy world. We have the same classes with the same combat gimmicks, mostly, but the stories we can tell with them haven't changed: clerics still worship their gods, barbarians hate civilization, monks cloister themselves, all that.

I would appreciate the effort of making D&D more narrative driven if the narrative they wanted to design for wasn't the story of a bunch of people that kill monsters in dungeons and take their loot. The way Short Rests and Long Rests work clearly encourage a style of play that favors many petty combats a day, but given the narrative focus the edition is advertised on having many groups have far fewer combats in a day, which we hear about all the time from salty Warlock players. Rules for things that help guide out-of-combat encounters and skills started out at "almost nothing" for years. The majority of the guidance of the book is dedicated to replicating the dungeon crawling style story of ye olde D&D, and when you want something different you're mostly left stranded on your own by designers that believe a lack of guidance is more helpful than an abundance of it. And to be clear, I don't think a dungeon crawling or heavy combat style game is bad, it's just different.

[Tanarii]

Meh on the "storytelling" thing. My players (and I when I get a chance to play) are more focused on deciding what their characters want to do in any given situation, and I encourage that. Storytelling is for the birds. Playing characters in-universe, and experiencing what happens, is what we're there for, not telling stories.

5e is a decent system to that, for a certain range of characters and experiences. Namely adventurers going into dungeons and wilderness adventures or planar adventures, coming out rich and powerful, and maybe having saved the world (or part of it) in the process. It can do other things, of course. But that's not its forte.

There's definitely a philosophical difference in the design though. I feel it every game I run, now that I've cottoned on to it. The core mechanic (ability checks) are there as a DM tool when a question of resolution arises in her mind. Not a go-to function for any player decision made or action taken.

[Pelle]

Some players power play, some play more story focused. And some just struggle to keep up, because they're new. But I see absolutely no indication that 3.5 players are more prone to power play and 5e players are more prone to story play. It's down to their personalities and tastes (and just maybe experience, but that's complicated even if it is correct), not to what system they're playing (or learned first for that matter) as far as I can tell.

Possibly, but I at least think I saw a change in the play of my players when we switched from 3.5 to 5e. With 3.5 if was more focus on build and mechanics, keeping track of situational modifers et al. Now, play is much more smooth, players have started to better ground their characters in the world through the inspiration Background gives, and people are more likely to just try doing things even though they haven't maxed out their ranks. Maybe they always were closer to this style deep down, but 5e certainly facilitates it much better.


The difference is in 5E a newbie doesn't know the DM is being a jerk.

You keep assuming that some DMs are jerks. That's not the design assumption of 5e. "With 5th, we assumed that the DM was there to have a good time, put on an engaging performance, and keep the group interested, excited, and happy." Maybe this is not your experience on this, but at least try to remember applying Hanlon's razor before condemning them.


I would appreciate the effort of making D&D more narrative driven if the narrative they wanted to design for wasn't the story of a bunch of people that kill monsters in dungeons and take their loot. The way Short Rests and Long Rests work clearly encourage a style of play that favors many petty combats a day, but given the narrative focus the edition is advertised on having many groups have far fewer combats in a day, which we hear about all the time from salty Warlock players.

I think this touches on what I take most issue with when running 5e. To make it feel good, I need to engineer situations so that there will be enough combats per adventuring day. I would prefer to instead let situations develop naturally from the context, often with far fewer combats. When many combats make sense, it is great fun though!

[DanyBallon]

The difference is in 5E a newbie doesn't know the DM is being a jerk. If a DM is a jerk in 3E the newbie can look at the rules and see where the DM is ignoring them, so he knows it's the DM's fault. In 5E the rules say and encourage the DM to make up anything he wants, so it's the game's fault and thus don't want to play it anymore. It's still the DM's fault, I agree, but the perception is it's the game's fault. It was worse in 2E when the DMG specifically taught DMs to be a jerk, but I bias digress rant. I've said before 5E does not teach DMs to be a jerk. It does encourage DMs to play with their players, not against them, but the vagueness that creeps in by design facilitates the jerk behavior.

Please, sincerely, please, would you stop using this argument? I already gave you proof in an other discussion that when you read in context the section you are referring to, the 2e DMG favors fair ruling from the DM, and only in extreme case to shut down players that try to break the game, and even so, advise to do this with caution.
We are very far from teaching DMs to be jerk.


Lack of consistency hurts the game even when the DM is not a jerk. The infamous tree example. It becomes a problem when I play a game and can climb a tree just because I want to even though I have 10 strength and not proficient in Athletics, but when I play a different game with 18 ST and proficient in Athletics I have to roll DC 20 and can fail to climb the tree. The second DM is not wrong or a jerk. In his opinion trees are harder to climb than what the first DM thought. That lack of consistency means I have to relearn how to play the game. I don't have control over what my character can do. It's "mother may I". I want to play my character, not the DM play my character.
This is where the difference in design philosophy MM talk about come into play. What you are expecting from the game is closer to 3e-4e design, where the mechanics are the foundation of everything, while in 5e, the mechanics are there to support the storytelling.
5e gameplay follows these steps:
- DM describe the environment;
- Players tell the DM want their characters do;
- DM describe the outcomes

Players are free to try anything they want, and based on what they told the DM, the later decide if a roll is needed and what are the chance of success based on the situation and the task the character attempts.
I can't say for you, but most DM I know will allow characters to attempts even the craziest stuff instead of just saying no. They may ask the player for more details on how their character would achieve their task in order to better rule the outcome.

[ad_hoc]

For as much Mearls touts how 5e has great "narrative design," I would like to ask exactly what kind of narrative they're trying to encourage via the rules. I've had this weird feeling about 5e I couldn't articulate until recently, and that it's that the game doesn't feel like a simulation of a fantasy world. Instead it feels like a simulation of a more complex simulation (read: AD&D, 3.5) of a fantasy world. We have the same classes with the same combat gimmicks, mostly, but the stories we can tell with them haven't changed: clerics still worship their gods, barbarians hate civilization, monks cloister themselves, all that.


I'm not sure exactly what you are saying. Are you saying that D&D is D&D Fantasy rather than generic fantasy? Because that's true and a good thing.


Meh on the "storytelling" thing. My players (and I when I get a chance to play) are more focused on deciding what their characters want to do in any given situation, and I encourage that. Storytelling is for the birds. Playing characters in-universe, and experiencing what happens, is what we're there for, not telling stories.


Those are the exact same thing to me. Maybe I misunderstand but I think that is what Mearls means when he speaks of storytelling too.

[Unoriginal]

No offense meant, Tanarii, but you use the term "storytelling" in a very different way than most people, or at least than most people I've seen use the term.

[Millstone85]

No offense meant, Tanarii, but you use the term "storytelling" in a very different way than most people, or at least than most people I've seen use the term.I do wonder if Mearls is aware of people discussing "What would my character do?" versus "What would move the plot?".

[Unoriginal]

I do wonder if Mearls is aware of people discussing "What would my character do?" versus "What would move the plot?".

Of course he is. There's no really meaningful distinction between the two, though.

What your character are doing is the plot, and the plot moves as your character do things.

It's just a different way to do the thought process.

[Whit]

From what I see at local games and conventions. The majority of players “optimizing” ie “minimax” for mechanics still. A simple example are the following.
1. Human variant for lvl 1 feats. I have never seen 1 person play the standard human.
2. Very rare is the person who picks a race that does not give optimal stat to class.
3. Multiclass dips to 1-2- or 3 lvls.
4. Stats 8,8,8,15,15,15.

I don’t see much difference from the above in 5th as there was in all previous editions going back to A&D&D. In fact Adventure League (which I find the most equal way to play as far as stats and magic items) losses the most important factor of play. Ongoing story creation of each PC.

Adding parts of the characters backstory to progress through the story. Example. 5 players. Each has a background story.
1. Monk ran from Monastery after learning it’s secret shadow style inleague with X.
2. Dwarf X class wants to create the finest beer brew and own a tavern.
3. Warlock with patron.
4. Cleric establish ministries.
5. Fighter. Create training centers.
During lvl progression theses back stories are included and develop overtime which can include rivals that appear, or be one secondary parts or main hidden plots. Such as the patron is the evil source behind the plot. Etc. etc. which builds a more in depth character “story” that is memorable than. Generic above classes with x story that never see the light of day in AL or any other game that the DM doesn’t use abs stay in track with just modules

So is 5th better. Yes. Do people mostly optimize. Yes. Nay sayers. Take a better look at your group. Ability stats ac race+ character
Damage max. Etc. not saying it’s a bad thing but saying it is a thing.

Mike Mearill's Quote
At the same time, 3.5 and 4 were driven by the idea that D&D players wanted as many character options as possible, presented in a modular framework meant to encourage the search for combinations that yielded characters who broke the power curve.

In terms of players, we focus much more on narrative and identity, rather than specific, mechanical advantages. Who you are is more important than what you do, to the point that your who determines your what.

In broad terms - and based on what we can observe of the community from a variety of measures - we went from a community that focused on mechanics and expertise, to one focused on socializing and story telling.

Mechanical expertise is an element of the game, but no longer the sole focus. Ideally, it’s a balanced part of all the other motivators. If balanaced correctly, every has their fun. Enjoyment isn’t zero sum.

[PhoenixPhyre]

From what I see at local games and conventions. The majority of players “optimizing” ie “minimax” for mechanics still.

Do remember that AL is not the whole game. It's a particularly warped piece that intrinsically rewards optimization/mechanics over narrative by its structure:

* drop-in games means less ongoing inter-character narrative threads as well as less teamwork, so each character must be an island in and of themselves
* Fixed story-lines (hardcovers) are necessarily somewhat linear, and AL rules prevent customization to a large degree
* The non-linear nature of AL (you can do part 1 of a hardcover, jump out and do modules for a while, then come back for part 2) means that progression and continuity are limited.

Most games aren't AL though. My tables (and I've had lots due to the nature of most of my games) rarely consider optimization. I've never seen SS/CBE or GWM/PAM in use. I've seen tiefling druids that dumped dex, I have a warforged wizard whose CON is is as high as his INT and who didn't dump STR, I've never seen a sorcadin or warlock dip (except for my own bardlock character that's quite unoptimized).

People pick abilities and skills based on their theme, instead of choosing the theme based on the best mechanics. They reason from what their character would pick, not on what's numerically optimal.


Of course he is. There's no really meaningful distinction between the two, though.

What your character are doing is the plot, and the plot moves as your character do things.

It's just a different way to do the thought process.

Agreed. Both of those are fiction-first, narrative focused processes. What MM is comparing them to is

"My character would do X, but since I didn't have the feat/skill-points for it, I can't do X" (like grappling or TWF or whatever). That is, making character decisions based on the mechanics of the game more than on the traits of the character. In the extreme, it's why, for high-op 3e games, despite the apparent bounty of possible builds, every martial was either a trip/lock-down build (which were all pretty similar) or an ubercharger.

3e had the illusion of build choice. I say illusion, because most of the options were either bad or worse. Many were outright counterproductive. And even good builds could be tanked by a poor choice or by lacking a few key items. And if you chose the right options (druid), you could break the game wide open by taking the obvious paths.

5e has much fewer apparent choices, but I'd say there is a wider range of things you can do and be effective. You can basically pick a supported theme, choose what seems to match the theme, and do pretty well. The only real exception I can think of is throwing specialists, where there's little support. You have to work to make an unusable character. And you have to really stretch to break the game.

[Willie the Duck]

I have no opinion on 3.x vs. 5E, but relative to AD&D 5E seems fiddly and mechanically heavyweight. In fact that's it's whole selling point: it has a more complex action economy in combat. Outside of combat it is inferior in every respect to AD&D (or GURPS), so if you're running 5E you'd better be running something hack-and-slashy for players who like lots of fiddly abilities or you're getting no benefit.


I would appreciate the effort of making D&D more narrative driven if the narrative they wanted to design for wasn't the story of a bunch of people that kill monsters in dungeons and take their loot. The way Short Rests and Long Rests work clearly encourage a style of play that favors many petty combats a day, but given the narrative focus the edition is advertised on having many groups have far fewer combats in a day, which we hear about all the time from salty Warlock players. Rules for things that help guide out-of-combat encounters and skills started out at "almost nothing" for years. The majority of the guidance of the book is dedicated to replicating the dungeon crawling style story of ye olde D&D, and when you want something different you're mostly left stranded on your own by designers that believe a lack of guidance is more helpful than an abundance of it. And to be clear, I don't think a dungeon crawling or heavy combat style game is bad, it's just different.

I feel that these are valid critiques of the edition (mind you, I'm not exactly sure what MW likes about AD&D/GURPS, but I'll guess), but I also think the answer to that is, "that battle was fought a long time ago, and a side lost. Mearls and crew are just designing around that reality." Personally I love some rules-based focus on non-combat (plus non-combat obstacles the work in a similar vein as combat situations)-- rules for wilderness adventuring that aren't pretty much 'the DM can impose penalties, and the guy who chooses to play a ranger (i.e. the person who cares the most about such things) most obviates them,' rules for tracking of scarce resources (that doesn't actively make it nightmarish to do so, rules for become a lord and ruler, and so on and so forth. However, the lord and liege thing probably never was played by the majority of gamers after the game left the wargamer crowd in ~'75. Tracking torches and encumbrance has always been burdensome at best (making it a self-imposed torture on groups who care about such things). Wilderness adventure rules-- honestly, the AD&D rules are much like the 3e skill rules are to the above conversation on that -- clear, well-delineated, and not really very good (mileage may vary, especially on any one specific).

And that's really where I stand. Like with skills, I've seen two versions of the game-- one where things are very vague and leave things in the DM's hands, or one's where the rules are very explicitly set up, and aren't good. I don't know if that's an inherent situation for writing a rule book to please a huge base (and no RPG's base is huge and varied in wants like D&D's is), but I at least get why 5e chose to be as it is.


Of course he is. There's no really meaningful distinction between the two, though.
What your character are doing is the plot, and the plot moves as your character do things.

Unless I am drastically misreading Millstone's comment, I think he is talking about Forge theory 'storygaming' and the like (Which, yes, I am sure Mearls is aware of, and also aware that it is like 0.5% of his audience that has even heard of the stuff).

[Twigwit]

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying. Are you saying that D&D is D&D Fantasy rather than generic fantasy? Because that's true and a good thing.

Let me explain it better. It feels like the races and classes, among other things, simply exist to reference past D&D works. New material which has little precedent in D&D are utterly neglected. Take the Dragonborn player race. They are entirely unexplored territory in terms of narrative. Outside of "they like to win and hate to lose, and grow up in clans" we have no idea what their history, ethos, mindset or morals are. Setting supplements have yet to give any depth to them. I cannot even think of a single Dragonborn NPC in th published adventures. The reason there's such a lack of content is that Dragonborn are relative newcomers, they're not D&D dejure. It's this needless kowtowing to the idea of what D&D should be narratively, instead of what it actually is now, that bugs me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Let me explain it better. It feels like the races and classes, among other things, simply exist to reference past D&D works. New material which has little precedent in D&D are utterly neglected. Take the Dragonborn player race. They are entirely unexplored territory in terms of narrative. Outside of "they like to win and hate to lose, and grow up in clans" we have no idea what their history, ethos, mindset or morals are. Setting supplements have yet to give any depth to them. I cannot even think of a single Dragonborn NPC in th published adventures. The reason there's such a lack of content is that Dragonborn are relative newcomers, they're not D&D dejure. It's this needless kowtowing to the idea of what D&D should be narratively, instead of what it actually is now, that bugs me.

Part of that is sacred cows, part of that is a lack of setting material (so far). The Sword Coast (the setting for much of the earlier AL modules) is not a home to many dragonborn at all. As such, dragonborn NPCs are rare. Since we don't have a full setting guide for any setting yet, all races are in this boat. So the newer ones (and the newer classes, etc) are less-well-fleshed out because they don't have the rich back catalog of previous editions to draw from.

There are dragonborn in the Sundering novels, however. As well as 5e tieflings. So they're there, they're just not prominent. Which makes some sense since these are rare races in general.

[Pex]

Please, sincerely, please, would you stop using this argument? I already gave you proof in an other discussion that when you read in context the section you are referring to, the 2e DMG favors fair ruling from the DM, and only in extreme case to shut down players that try to break the game, and even so, advise to do this with caution.
We are very far from teaching DMs to be jerk.



You gave me no proof, only your differing opinion of the matter. If you don't like it, too bad.





You keep assuming that some DMs are jerks. That's not the design assumption of 5e. "With 5th, we assumed that the DM was there to have a good time, put on an engaging performance, and keep the group interested, excited, and happy." Maybe this is not your experience on this, but at least try to remember applying Hanlon's razor before condemning them.




I know that's not a design assumption. That's not the point. Some DMs are jerks. I've played with them. The first time I tried a 5E game the DM was a jerk and I quit. I don't find it a coincidence that when I played 2E I played with jerk DMs not knowing any better to vote with my feet for a long time, when I played 3E/Pathfinder I never encountered a jerk DM, but the first time I try 5E, boom, jerk DM. I've acknowledged time and again that 5E does not teach DMs to be jerks. I know a DM when he is a jerk is a jerk because he's a jerk, not the fault of the game. What I've been saying is that DMs who are going to be a jerk have an easier time being one in 5E than they would in 3E because it's easier for them to hide behind the rules to legitimize their rulings.

[Ignimortis]

This feels more like an attempt to explain why exactly the content release schedule is dead by any other edition's standards. Even TSR before its' demise released more books per year, significantly so.

[DanyBallon]

You gave me no proof, only your differing opinion of the matter. If you don't like it, too bad.

I provided the exact text from 2e DMG and nowhere they encourage the DM to be a jerk. There is a single instance if you take it out of context wher they encourage the DM to shut down a player, but in context you get that it’s only when said player is trying to derail the game, and even then they warn the DM before doing so.
I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim. Unless you believe that the more you say it the more it will become true...

But I disgress, this is not the topic of this thread.

[Pex]

From what I see at local games and conventions. The majority of players “optimizing” ie “minimax” for mechanics still. A simple example are the following.
1. Human variant for lvl 1 feats. I have never seen 1 person play the standard human.


Perhaps if games rolled more than use Point Buy. I'm joining a new game and we had to roll. 4 out of 6 scores were odd. Regular human was very tempting for the +1s to bump them even. Next ASI the two now add scores will bump to even. I'm taking the opportunity to play a barbarian since I can have a high ST and CO with decent DX without 8s everywhere else since I'm not a fan of the 15, 15, 15, 8, 8, 8 array. With Point Buy it's easier to get the stats you want, lump the dump score 8, so might as well get a feat with variant human. Normally I would play variant human, but I've always played Point Buy. Having to roll and getting the result I got made regular human valuable.

[ad_hoc]

From what I see at local games and conventions.

As of May 2018 there were an estimated 12-15 million players in NA.

Gen Con attendance is 60 000.

Convention games are such a small amount of the players that they essentially don't count. Local public games have a higher count, but when compared to 15 million are also negligible.

[Unoriginal]

This feels more like an attempt to explain why exactly the content release schedule is dead by any other edition's standards. Even TSR before its' demise released more books per year, significantly so.

They don't have to "attempt" to explain it. They explained the reasons for that at length already.

[Pex]

Agreed. Both of those are fiction-first, narrative focused processes. What MM is comparing them to is

"My character would do X, but since I didn't have the feat/skill-points for it, I can't do X" (like grappling or TWF or whatever). That is, making character decisions based on the mechanics of the game more than on the traits of the character. In the extreme, it's why, for high-op 3e games, despite the apparent bounty of possible builds, every martial was either a trip/lock-down build (which were all pretty similar) or an ubercharger.

3e had the illusion of build choice. I say illusion, because most of the options were either bad or worse. Many were outright counterproductive. And even good builds could be tanked by a poor choice or by lacking a few key items. And if you chose the right options (druid), you could break the game wide open by taking the obvious paths.

5e has much fewer apparent choices, but I'd say there is a wider range of things you can do and be effective. You can basically pick a supported theme, choose what seems to match the theme, and do pretty well. The only real exception I can think of is throwing specialists, where there's little support. You have to work to make an unusable character. And you have to really stretch to break the game.

I can agree that's a 3E problem, but it is not a problem due to having concise rules. It's a problem due to them not being able to stop printing more books with more rules. Pathfinder had a glaring example relatively recently. They published a feat that allows a character to use Diplomacy in combat to end the combat peacefully. I don't recall the details, but that was the idea. Pathfinder players cried foul because that was always a possibility PCs had sometimes used. Even my groups have done it. They got upset Pathfinder says you can't do that now unless you have the feat. They ignore the feat and continue playing as normal.

I want concise rules, but there doesn't have to be a specific rule for absolutely everything. It's madness to try and rules will get lost in the shuffle. The solution is not to have vague rules and let the DM make everything up. There's a middle ground somewhere. Have concise rules and let the DM extrapolate from there. I disagree 5E skills give enough information for that extrapolation.

[Demonslayer666]

Regardless of philosophy of the designers, we play D&D to get together and roll dice, solve puzzles, plan, resolve conflict, crack jokes, rib each other, quote movies, and create fun memories.

This hasn't changed because of any intention of a designer.

All of our games have been the same regardless of system or edition, so I really don't agree that it influences it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I can agree that's a 3E problem, but it is not a problem due to having concise rules. It's a problem due to them not being able to stop printing more books with more rules. Pathfinder had a glaring example relatively recently. They published a feat that allows a character to use Diplomacy in combat to end the combat peacefully. I don't recall the details, but that was the idea. Pathfinder players cried foul because that was always a possibility PCs had sometimes used. Even my groups have done it. They got upset Pathfinder says you can't do that now unless you have the feat. They ignore the feat and continue playing as normal.

I want concise rules, but there doesn't have to be a specific rule for absolutely everything. It's madness to try and rules will get lost in the shuffle. The solution is not to have vague rules and let the DM make everything up. There's a middle ground somewhere. Have concise rules and let the DM extrapolate from there. I disagree 5E skills give enough information for that extrapolation.

The majority of the core choices are bad. I repeat--most of the PHB options are traps. It has little to do with trying to publish more (in fact, the later 1st-party books are generally better balanced), it has mostly to do with throwing a system together without actually checking your assumptions. Part of it is trying to have rules for everything--doing so guarantees that you'll have exploitable bits. Especially when you try to minimize DM involvement, so people believe that RAW == God. All it did was cause table fights and accusations of being a jerk.

[Willie the Duck]

I want concise rules, but there doesn't have to be a specific rule for absolutely everything. It's madness to try and rules will get lost in the shuffle. The solution is not to have vague rules and let the DM make everything up. There's a middle ground somewhere. Have concise rules and let the DM extrapolate from there. I disagree 5E skills give enough information for that extrapolation.

I am becoming convinced that--in a game with level based power advancement and class based role-distinction--with the level of character building diversity that 3e and 5e allows--maybe you can't. You can have 2 of the 3 (sacred cows of level and classes, build-a-bear characters, and reasonably balanced and resilient resolution rules), but adding the third will make either for massively imbalanced setups like PhoenixPhyre is complaining about, or a ruleset so convolutedly legalistic as to be nigh unplayable (and certainly uninviting to new gamers).

I mean, since the problems with 3e have become known, people have been talking about a theoretical remake (presumably with more forethought, playtesting, and other due diligence). I think a lot of the bile both 4e and 5e have gotten is that they aren't '3rd edition, take #3 (#4, #5, depending on if you include PF and PF2).'

Is there a theoretical game like that? Obviously. However, it might be so fragile that any change in any other assumptions (down to a give group's play-style) would upset the underlying framework enough to make it another system which is thorough, well-defines, and bad (or at least not-good).


Especially when you try to minimize DM involvement, so people believe that RAW == God. All it did was cause table fights and accusations of being a jerk.

The culture of 'RAW as a term synonymous with good/approved' is a real phenomenon I've seen and bemoaned, but I think that one can exist or not, alongside a 3e-like game. After all, although the vagueness in certain areas of 5e favor it, the rulings-over-rules aesthetic 5e has didn't have to come along with the game. It took separate insistence that it was the new status quo to make it a thing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I am becoming convinced that--in a game with level based power advancement and class based role-distinction--with the level of character building diversity that 3e and 5e allows--maybe you can't. You can have 2 of the 3 (sacred cows of level and classes, build-a-bear characters, and reasonably balanced and resilient resolution rules), but adding the third will make either for massively imbalanced setups like PhoenixPhyre is complaining about, or a ruleset so convolutedly legalistic as to be nigh unplayable (and certainly uninviting to new gamers).

I mean, since the problems with 3e have become known, people have been talking about a theoretical remake (presumably with more forethought, playtesting, and other due diligence). I think a lot of the bile both 4e and 5e have gotten is that they aren't '3rd edition, take #3 (#4, #5, depending on if you include PF and PF2).'

Is there a theoretical game like that? Obviously. However, it might be so fragile that any change in any other assumptions (down to a give group's play-style) would upset the underlying framework enough to make it another system which is thorough, well-defines, and bad (or at least not-good).


To me, it's like fitting a function to a curve. You can always add more parameters and get a tighter fit to the data at hand, but as you do so it often doesn't represent new data very well. Things with lots of intricately-interacting moving parts also tend to be sensitive to small changes. This isn't just true for games and rules--lots of things are very powerful and precise but break horrifically if you look at them wrong. And it's even worse when we can't decide what "right" means (because lots of it is down to taste).

This is a long-winded way of saying "I agree."



The culture of 'RAW as a term synonymous with good/approved' is a real phenomenon I've seen and bemoaned, but I think that one can exist or not, alongside a 3e-like game. After all, although the vagueness in certain areas of 5e favor it, the rulings-over-rules aesthetic 5e has didn't have to come along with the game. It took separate insistence that it was the new status quo to make it a thing.

The rulings over rules aesthetic is the core philosophy of the game that MM is describing here. The assumption that the DM is the best one to answer the detail questions and is generally more in tune with the fun of the group than a designer can possibly be. It wasn't that it was added later, it's the core operating assumption of the entire game system.

The idea of RAW uber alles is mostly a hold-over from earlier editions, and it's a toxic one IMO. It privileges those who can best twist words (because all texts must be interpreted) over the fun of the rest of the group and breeds mistrust. It was a mistake in 3e (and caused in part by mistaken design philosophy), and it's especially a mistake in 5e. Much more so because RAW > all is not even supported by RAW in 5e. In fact, it's explicitly disclaimed, explicitly denied in this edition.

The vehemence of people fighting back against RAW > all is mainly due to having to fight a decade+ of inertia and human nature--the entire 3.PF run relied on it, and 4e accepted it in its own way. It also makes a great way for jerk players (or DMs) to deny responsibility for their jerkitude--"It's not me, that's just what the rules say I have to do. It's not my fault..." as if the rules were compelling them to be a jerk.

[KorvinStarmast]

The rulings over rules aesthetic is the core philosophy of the game that MM is describing here. The assumption that the DM is the best one to answer the detail questions and is generally more in tune with the fun of the group than a designer can possibly be. It wasn't that it was added later, it's the core operating assumption of the entire game system.

The idea of RAW uber alles is mostly a hold-over from earlier editions, and it's a toxic one IMO. It privileges those who can best twist words (because all texts must be interpreted) over the fun of the rest of the group and breeds mistrust.
As Dave Arneson said: the rules lawyers are the enemy. It's still true (at the table) but rules lawyering/hair splitting/exploit diving is a way to have fun with the game away from the table. I mean, come on, Pun Pun was pure cheese, but part of the fun of doing that was to see how far one could take a loophole. Funnum ad absurdum) :smallcool:

[PhoenixPhyre]

As Dave Arneson said: the rules lawyers are the enemy. It's still true (at the table) but rules lawyering/hair splitting/exploit diving is a way to have fun with the game away from the table. I mean, come on, Pun Pun was pure cheese, but part of the fun of doing that was to see how far one could take a loophole. Funnum ad absurdum) :smallcool:

Which is fine as far as the individual goes, if they never bring it to the table. But a culture that promotes exploit-diving and loophole abuse often translates to new players or otherwise impressionable people as one where those tricks are OK or even desired in actual play. And no amount of disclaimers can convince them otherwise, sadly.

So it's a healthier community when its reaction to exploits is "great. Go away." or "that's fixed in the next patch as unintentional" or having books thrown at you. 3e (and forums like this) went way too far to glorifying rule abuse. It's not enough to be reasonably optimized, you have to go out of your whey to squeeze every dollop of cheddar out of a build so that it's an absolute muenster. Ok, I'll stop with the cheese jokes now before I become the target of flying rule-books.

[Tanarii]

Those are the exact same thing to me. Maybe I misunderstand but I think that is what Mearls means when he speaks of storytelling too.


No offense meant, Tanarii, but you use the term "storytelling" in a very different way than most people, or at least than most people I've seen use the term.Storytelling and trying to play a "living" character in a world are the antithesis of each other.


I do wonder if Mearls is aware of people discussing "What would my character do?" versus "What would move the plot?".Exactly. If youre asking the latter question, you're playing a storytelling game.

I like the former far more. But personally more as "what am I going to do here" where "I" is me in the role of my character.

[Unoriginal]

Storytelling and trying to play a "living" character in a world are the antithesis of each other.

Like I said, you're using a definition that's far different from what most people use.

[Oramac]

At mine, fully 50% of our players are new to D&D, and half of them are completely new to RPGs. They heard about how fun and awesome the new D&D was, and wanted to give it a shot. They don't even have a clue what 'powergaming' is, and built everything from the character/personality outward.

Hell, even when I explained what it was, a few said 'eh, that's not why I want to play this game' and even turned down some advice to get some more synergy with abilities and stats.

This has been my experience as well.

Players who start with 5e tend towards roleplay. Players who come from prior/other systems tend to optimize.

Note: This isn't to say that the optimizers don't roleplay. Simply that those coming from prior/other systems are more likely to optimize.

[Tanarii]

Like I said, you're using a definition that's far different from what most people use.May be a smidge of truth to that. ;)

When people talk about living the story of their life it makes me shudder.

[Cynthaer]

The rulings over rules aesthetic is the core philosophy of the game that MM is describing here. The assumption that the DM is the best one to answer the detail questions and is generally more in tune with the fun of the group than a designer can possibly be. It wasn't that it was added later, it's the core operating assumption of the entire game system.

I've found that the same principle makes for better houserules, too.

For instance, there are lots of little things about 5e that people have devised "fixes" for—the balance asymmetry of the weapons table and familiar list, the poor scaling of the dragonborn breath attack or two-weapon fighting, and so on. And to be clear, I like that people are analyzing these things and working on global fixes for people who like a little more mechanical balance in their system. I often draw on their work.

But in my own games, I've completely avoided proactively introducing houserules to try and fix imbalances before my players make choices. Instead, I tell my players up front (and repeat it at level-up to make sure they remember):

"If you ever feel unhappy because you have to pick between a thematically superior choice and a mechanically superior choice, let me know. If it's not actually suboptimal, I can explain why; if it is, we can work together to balance it. Same thing if you feel like my rulings are shutting down your character concept."

In practice, this has led to things like the following:

- The dragonborn paladin wanted to use a trident. Instead of rebalancing the entire weapons table, I just made tridents deal 1d8 damage (up from 1d6). (He didn't even ask for this one; I just gave it to him because he chose the trident for thematic purposes.)

- The same dragonborn never got a good chance to use his breath weapon, and also had almost no combat uses for bonus actions. I offered to let him change the breath weapon to (A) a bonus action, but recharges on a long rest, or (B) still a normal action, but with more aggressive damage scaling.

- The 1 hour short rest wasn't doing it for us, so I switched to an explicitly gamist approach of "short rests take 5 minutes; you get exactly 2 per day".

- The tiefling warlock wanted to do lots of sneaky telepathic shenanigans, so we worked out a detailed system around precisely what the GOOlock's telepathy "sounds" like in someone's head, and how it interacts with the Actor feat.

- The campaign didn't last long enough to fully explore it, but the players started collecting materials from fallen beasts, so I was going to introduce a crafting system of some kind.

My approach for all of these changes was pretty much an miniature game design workshop with the affected player(s), where I'd lay out the design goal and propose a solution, and then we'd go back and forth until we had something that felt satisfying to the player.

(Caveat: My group is all 28-30 years old, and we're all pretty mature and non-"greedy". This open approach may not work for all groups/players.)

Anyway, the point is that I was very much inspired to take this approach of "deal with it when it actually comes up" by the whole "rulings over rules" design philosophy. They both stem from the idea that a custom-fitted solution to whatever's actually going on is more robust than a pre-built system that tries to cover everything in advance.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Anyway, the point is that I was very much inspired to take this approach of "deal with it when it actually comes up" by the whole "rulings over rules" design philosophy. They both stem from the idea that a custom-fitted solution to whatever's actually going on is more robust than a pre-built system that tries to cover everything in advance.

I agree 100%. It's almost like social games work much better when you use your words and trust each other to do the right thing for the game and negotiate for desired outcomes like adults instead of pointing to the book and yelling "but the book says!". No blue, because I've actually heard that second one advocated seriously. Seriously.

This idea also allows a much wider array of actual games (despite the system having a narrower mechanical range), because my group and your group can adjust organically in completely different ways but all within the system, whereas if we have to bend and break the cage of the system, most will stick to a much narrower expressed range.

I run a school D&D club. I run 2 groups and a student runs a 3rd, all after school. My games are pretty standard, mostly unchanged RAW (except for the setting which is quite custom), while the student's game is...gonzo. Weird artifacts, way higher power levels, etc. As he told me today, "It's either going to be tons of fun or a disaster. Or likely (and hopefully) both." I'd not enjoy his game, but his players do. And that's totally fine. Neither he nor I are playing wrong, just differently. But a tight, RAW is everything game would prevent both of our games (me for my setting, him for his craziness).

[ad_hoc]

Storytelling and trying to play a "living" character in a world are the antithesis of each other.

Exactly. If youre asking the latter question, you're playing a storytelling game.

I like the former far more. But personally more as "what am I going to do here" where "I" is me in the role of my character.

Maybe this is the disconnect.

What my character does is the plot.

The thing that I care about is that there is a plot. Rather than an abstract challenge of getting enough numbers.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Maybe this is the disconnect.

What my character does is the plot.

The thing that I care about is that there is a plot. Rather than an abstract challenge of getting enough numbers.

As I understand it, Tanarii uses "story" to mean "pre-determined narrative arc with fixed points". And then reacts allergically to anyone using that word in any other context. So for him, "doing what's best for the plot" means something like

a) breaking character to paper over holes in the planned plot/pushing the narrative (flow of events) in a preferred direction without regard for what the character themselves would want
b) using narrative devices drawn from single-author fiction (idiot balls, etc) for the sake of creating a better "story" while disrespecting/disregarding existing characterization.

Basically anything that separates the player from the character's mindset.

I don't agree that that's what's meant there, but I think I'm understanding what he means. Please correct me if I'm wrong, though, @Tanarii.

For me, plot is what happens when players make choices that have consequences that snowball beyond the action itself. It's the dealing with (or running away from, either works) those consequences that shapes the coming sessions and ultimately changes the world itself (in greater or lesser ways). What forces do the characters tamper with to attain their goals? Which dominoes do they push over (wittingly or not)? How do the characters react when they force their own hands? When events beyond their control make them choose? When proverbial irresistible force meets proverbial immovable object? What mark do they leave on the world after they retire/die? These are the questions I love to answer, and all those are story concerns I want the players, through the medium of their characters, to address.

[ad_hoc]

As I understand it, Tanarii uses "story" to mean "pre-determined narrative arc with fixed points". And then reacts allergically to anyone using that word in any other context. So for him, "doing what's best for the plot" means something like

a) breaking character to paper over holes in the planned plot/pushing the narrative (flow of events) in a preferred direction without regard for what the character themselves would want
b) using narrative devices drawn from single-author fiction (idiot balls, etc) for the sake of creating a better "story" while disrespecting/disregarding existing characterization.

Basically anything that separates the player from the character's mindset.

I don't agree that that's what's meant there, but I think I'm understanding what he means. Please correct me if I'm wrong, though, @Tanarii.

For me, plot is what happens when players make choices that have consequences that snowball beyond the action itself. It's the dealing with (or running away from, either works) those consequences that shapes the coming sessions and ultimately changes the world itself (in greater or lesser ways). What forces do the characters tamper with to attain their goals? Which dominoes do they push over (wittingly or not)? How do the characters react when they force their own hands? When events beyond their control make them choose? When proverbial irresistible force meets proverbial immovable object? What mark do they leave on the world after they retire/die? These are the questions I love to answer, and all those are story concerns I want the players, through the medium of their characters, to address.

Yeah, I don't think that is what Mearls means when he talks about it.

I remember in one WotC adventure while in a dungeon the party met an eccentric NPC. After talking to him for a while he urges them to come with him so he can 'show them around'. After talking for a while one of the players said 'well we should go with him so we can move the plot along'. Turns out the NPC was just a random encounter. The place he took them to wasn't connected to their overall objective or particularly special.

I'm hoping after that the player learned to not have that mentality.

[Knaight]

The difference in philosophy seems to be a pretty standard one. 3e and 4e use rules as constraints, where the game is shaped by everyone following those rules. 5e is more of a toolkit system, where the rules are tools to be used as you see fit for other tasks - though by the standards of bonafide toolkit systems it's still pretty far on the constraints side.

There are a lot of games that come down on both sides of these, well further than any edition of D&D in either direction. To some extent that continuum is both one of the major factors in RPG design and one of the major things that separate RPGs from other forms of games (where boardgames, videogames, etc. tend to fall hard in rules-as-constraints).


No offense meant, Tanarii, but you use the term "storytelling" in a very different way than most people, or at least than most people I've seen use the term.


Storytelling and trying to play a "living" character in a world are the antithesis of each other.

Exactly. If youre asking the latter question, you're playing a storytelling game.

I like the former far more. But personally more as "what am I going to do here" where "I" is me in the role of my character.

We've already had one highly contentious fifty page thread on this where tempers were running hot. Let's not turn this thread into another.


To me, it's like fitting a function to a curve. You can always add more parameters and get a tighter fit to the data at hand, but as you do so it often doesn't represent new data very well. Things with lots of intricately-interacting moving parts also tend to be sensitive to small changes. This isn't just true for games and rules--lots of things are very powerful and precise but break horrifically if you look at them wrong. And it's even worse when we can't decide what "right" means (because lots of it is down to taste).
You can perfectly fit any number of data points with a sufficiently large polynomial ((n-1)th order polynomial for n data points) after all. You also start seeing wild, dramatic swings outside of your data points pretty quickly, to the point where you should think long and hard about fitting something with more than four terms. Cubic fits and smaller are common for a reason.

[MaxWilson]

You can perfectly fit any number of data points with a sufficiently large polynomial ((n-1)th order polynomial for n data points) after all. You also start seeing wild, dramatic swings outside of your data points pretty quickly, to the point where you should think long and hard about fitting something with more than four terms. Cubic fits and smaller are common for a reason.

Are you talking about this paper? https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/05/one-parameter-equation-can-exactly-fit-scatter-plot.html

[Pex]

The majority of the core choices are bad. I repeat--most of the PHB options are traps. It has little to do with trying to publish more (in fact, the later 1st-party books are generally better balanced), it has mostly to do with throwing a system together without actually checking your assumptions. Part of it is trying to have rules for everything--doing so guarantees that you'll have exploitable bits. Especially when you try to minimize DM involvement, so people believe that RAW == God. All it did was cause table fights and accusations of being a jerk.

Not that I agree, but even accepting that, that's not a problem of the philosophy of having concise rules. It's a problem of the particular concise rules not working as intended. As I understand it every RPG has its share of errata to fix the math, clarify how something works, change how something works, or even admit it was a big goof and will no longer exist.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Not that I agree, but even accepting that, that's not a problem of the philosophy of having concise rules. It's a problem of the particular concise rules not working as intended. As I understand it every RPG has its share of errata to fix the math, clarify how something works, change how something works, or even admit it was a big goof and will no longer exist.

Concise isn't the word you want here--that means brief or written in few words. You want complete or comprehensive.

But this problem was caused by

a) wanting to have rules for everything
b) wanting to have options for everything, all available at the same time.

Those two, while not essentially contradictory, certainly pull in different directions. And they failed at it. Horribly. It's also extremely more costly to do from a design perspective--every single thing you add increases the workload in a super-linear fashion (minimum O(N^2) if only pair-wise interactions are possible, probably O(N!)) because everything can interact with everything else. It's like playing Jenga with rules--as the tower gets higher and higher (more interacting rule pieces), the stability drops through the floor.

3e tried to be a rules-heavy system, but failed. GURPS does a much better job (from what I've heard) of it, but at the cost of lots and lots of work from the GM and having a modular design that 3e would never allow. GURPS doesn't have 1 rule for any particular thing--it has lots of interchangeable rules, in different modules. While 3e players complain if the DM starts limiting their book set, GURPS works on a white-list and character builds require explicit DM approval and balancing.

[ad_hoc]

Regardless of how people feel about the design philosophy, it is important to know it.

Most of the rules misunderstandings I see are a result of not understanding why the rules exist and what they're trying to accomplish.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Regardless of how people feel about the design philosophy, it is important to know it.

Most of the rules misunderstandings I see are a result of not understanding why the rules exist and what they're trying to accomplish.

"This shovel is bad! Everything falls through it!"
"Dude, that's a pitchfork."

Also CF Chesterton's Fence.

[Pex]

Concise isn't the word you want here--that means brief or written in few words. You want complete or comprehensive.

Noted :smallsmile:


But this problem was caused by

a) wanting to have rules for everything
b) wanting to have options for everything, all available at the same time.

Those two, while not essentially contradictory, certainly pull in different directions. And they failed at it. Horribly. It's also extremely more costly to do from a design perspective--every single thing you add increases the workload in a super-linear fashion (minimum O(N^2) if only pair-wise interactions are possible, probably O(N!)) because everything can interact with everything else. It's like playing Jenga with rules--as the tower gets higher and higher (more interacting rule pieces), the stability drops through the floor.

3e tried to be a rules-heavy system, but failed. GURPS does a much better job (from what I've heard) of it, but at the cost of lots and lots of work from the GM and having a modular design that 3e would never allow. GURPS doesn't have 1 rule for any particular thing--it has lots of interchangeable rules, in different modules. While 3e players complain if the DM starts limiting their book set, GURPS works on a white-list and character builds require explicit DM approval and balancing.

I disagree it failed. 3E was quite successful, and when WOTC abandoned it Paizo picked it up and continued its success. People can dislike the rules, but that's a matter of taste. Concede to be fair, my disliking of 5E skills can be a matter of taste. I do agree 3E got bloated as I said before, but it's a matter of they didn't know when to stop not its design philosophy. Marketing is also a factor in that they expected everything be used together. Accepting Incarnum, Psionics, and Tome of Battle were ok to be published, they should have emphasized they were meant to be their own thing. Be specific a fighter and warblade should not share the same universe. Have the Psion or Wizard, not both. WOTC appears to have learned that lesson by not publishing a new 5E book for players every year. They took their time before publishing Xanathar and got rewarded for it.

As for 5E, DMs can easily say no to Xanathar, Sword Coast Guide, or even feats just as much as a 3E DM would say no to a splat book. Denying materials and players complaining about it is not exclusive to 3E. 3E only has more material that can be excluded.

[Knaight]

Are you talking about this paper? https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/05/one-parameter-equation-can-exactly-fit-scatter-plot.html
No - though that paper potentially looks interesting. I'm talking about general curve fitting with a lot more than one parameter, and


Concede to be fair, my disliking of 5E skills can be a matter of taste.
Literally nobody is opposing disliking 5e skills as a matter of taste. It's the presentation of 5e skills as an objectively inferior design that should never be used that people take affront to.


As for 5E, DMs can easily say no to Xanathar, Sword Coast Guide, or even feats just as much as a 3E DM would say no to a splat book. Denying materials and players complaining about it is not exclusive to 3E. 3E only has more material that can be excluded.
The whole concept that not using a book is "denying materials" is extremely indicative of system side philosophy - and while it's not exclusive to 3e it's far more prevalent among that game's playerbase than most. Calling not using all of GURPS "denying materials" would be ridiculed by essentially the entire GURPS community. Meanwhile in 3e complaints about not getting to access every single class and feat has people calling it a sign that the GM can't really be your friend.

[Pex]

The whole concept that not using a book is "denying materials" is extremely indicative of system side philosophy - and while it's not exclusive to 3e it's far more prevalent among that game's playerbase than most. Calling not using all of GURPS "denying materials" would be ridiculed by essentially the entire GURPS community. Meanwhile in 3e complaints about not getting to access every single class and feat has people calling it a sign that the GM can't really be your friend.

I can't speak for others, but since I do talk about tyrannical DMing a lot I do not consider denial of a splat book to be an indicator. I can be disappointed, but that's as far as it goes. Tyrannical DMing is a method. Source books used are almost immaterial. A tyrannical DM will likely ban almost everything, but only using the Player's Handbook is not itself a definition of a tyrannical DM. The rules be Hoover, but I would never fault a DM who says a PC cleric cannot use nightsticks to fuel Divine Metamagic presuming nightsticks or Divine Metamagic even exist in the campaign.

[Spriteless]

The difference is in 5E a newbie doesn't know the DM is being a jerk. If a DM is a jerk in 3E the newbie can look at the rules and see where the DM is ignoring them, so he knows it's the DM's fault. In 5E the rules say and encourage the DM to make up anything he wants, so it's the game's fault and thus don't want to play it anymore. It's still the DM's fault, I agree, but the perception is it's the game's fault. It was worse in 2E when the DMG specifically taught DMs to be a jerk, but I bias digress rant. I've said before 5E does not teach DMs to be a jerk. It does encourage DMs to play with their players, not against them, but the vagueness that creeps in by design facilitates the jerk behavior.

Lack of consistency hurts the game even when the DM is not a jerk. The infamous tree example. It becomes a problem when I play a game and can climb a tree just because I want to even though I have 10 strength and not proficient in Athletics, but when I play a different game with 18 ST and proficient in Athletics I have to roll DC 20 and can fail to climb the tree. The second DM is not wrong or a jerk. In his opinion trees are harder to climb than what the first DM thought. That lack of consistency means I have to relearn how to play the game. I don't have control over what my character can do. It's "mother may I". I want to play my character, not the DM play my character.I mean, the question is what kind of tree. A peach tree is easier to climb than a sequoia. Just having one DC for tree climbing would be wrong.

So, if I felt I was asking 'mother may I, I would do some gentle nudging. With a friendly smile, of course! Perhaps say: 'I thought rolls were only for when failure had a consequence.' or 'man how high is this tree?' or 'this will be embarrasing if I fail a task children do all the time.' or 'just for reference, what is the DC for doing a pull up?'

I mean, just as much as the game encourages arbitrary DMing, it encourages players to ask for more than they're given. Those wishy washy rules roll both ways. And is learning different thresholds for applying the rules any different than learning the different personalities of people at the table?

And as a DM, I am happier for a player to ask, than to come in with a build that I will refuse, because it is 1.2 times as strong as a druid without making narrative sense. Or because Ur-Priest. Or because Vow of Poverty. Or they get pissy when I tell them they will need to find a teacher for each prestige class, and also that teacher will kill an ur-priest because their god tells them to.

Hmm. I guess I see what you were saying to begin with. It seems 3.P has nicer DMs and 5 has nicer players. But this is an illusion, caused by the relative power balance. In rules-heavy games, the player can do work and win, which makes the GM feel defeated. In rules-light games, players who are used to this power, be it from TRPGs or card games or computer games feel like the GM is unfairly changing the ground they stand on.

But the center of 5th ed is the social contract, not the rules. If a D

You might enjoy Mage: The Ascension. It is the best of both worlds. Everyone has too much power. What do you want do? Explain it in your character's fluff worldview. Pay for it on your character sheet. Don't let the muggles see. If they do, the unfair unpredictable pain of paradox is a feature, not a bug. If you feel like the rules of reality are shifting so you MUST FORCE IT TO YOUR OWN WILL, you're doing it right.

[Ignimortis]

Anyway, the point is that I was very much inspired to take this approach of "deal with it when it actually comes up" by the whole "rulings over rules" design philosophy. They both stem from the idea that a custom-fitted solution to whatever's actually going on is more robust than a pre-built system that tries to cover everything in advance.

While I like your style and strive to do the same things in the campaigns I run, I don't think many DMs do this. And the fact is, they might not be "bad" DMs - they might actually put players' fun first and everything else second, but not everyone is ready or willing to develop more complex solutions for things while simultaneously bothering about balance.

None of my 5e DMs could be swayed to look at ToB/PoW style mechanics and attempt to implement them, for instance, or even try and homebrew an archetype around desired abilities that are mostly thematic, and not number-driven. So that shut down a couple of concepts I had completely. In 3.5 it would only be a problem if a DM disallowed those supplements altogether, and it's much easier for people psychologically to allow content written by other people who presumably know what they're doing than it it to homebrew things themselves or approve their player's homebrew.

TL;DR: More content usually equals more concept support, and concept support should be a primary design goal for any RPG.

[mephnick]

concept support should be a primary design goal for any RPG.

Thematic and fitting concept support should be a goal, but support for every concept shouldn't be.

Those "what archetypes are we missing?" threads get ridiculous. I hope WotC never prints a Gunslinger class because that's not what D&D is about. A Cancer mage? What the f**k fantasy tradition did you pull that from? Seriously?

However it is a problem that fairly common fantasy concepts such as throwing weapons and dual-wielding are poorly represented.

[PhoenixPhyre]

TL;DR: More content usually equals more concept support, and concept support should be a primary design goal for any RPG.

I disagree with the bold part. Concept support is not a bad thing, but it should not necessarily be a primary goal. A "realistic" medieval courtly intrigue game has no need to support alien cat-girl ninja cyborgs, while a far-future mind-bending body-jumping game doesn't need to support a medieval shopkeeper. Not everything needs to be a kitchen sink (although there's nothing wrong with kitchen sinks either).

Thematic consonance (having a theme and supporting the essential concepts in that theme) is essential, but that doesn't take all that many options. A courtly-intrigue game might only have a few "classes" and put its emphasis on social mechanics. A game about fencing duels might have only options for a few different weapons, and the rest is about player skill. And those are valid designs.

And none of this requires alternate mechanical subsystems. Don't get me wrong, I like alternate mechanical subsystems. I've homebrewed a lot of base classes, most of which have their own subsystems. But none of those are necessary.

Another issue is the white-list vs black-list difference. 5e works on a whitelist--the DM says what sources are authorized; anything not authorized is off-limits. This is contrasted with the culture of 3e (not inherently the rules, but the gaming culture) which had a blacklist mentality--you can use anything except those sources that are banned.

In summary, the bold is part of the 3e-era philosophy that's directly rejected by the 5e designers. They seem to believe that more choices isn't necessarily as good as it seems in the abstract, citing analysis paralysis, the difficulty of making lots of good, quality player content (ie power creep), and the desire to focus on fictional coherence (building things that fit together well). And I agree with this change.

[Unoriginal]

IMO, one thing that should be noted is that 3.X tried to be an universal, or at least universalist system (as shown not only by the profusion of D&D books but also by d20 Modern and similar products), while 4e tried to break away from D&D's past, both in term of rules, but also in how underlying concepts were treated, not to mention the assumptions on what the audience would buy.

Those are not inherently bad ambitions for RPGs, but how they went about it was pretty tone-deaf.

Meanwhile, 5e is just trying to be D&D. And succeeding, as far as I'm concerned.

It's not a grand ambition, but it'll keep the game alive and healthy.

[Pex]

I disagree with the bold part. Concept support is not a bad thing, but it should not necessarily be a primary goal. A "realistic" medieval courtly intrigue game has no need to support alien cat-girl ninja cyborgs, while a far-future mind-bending body-jumping game doesn't need to support a medieval shopkeeper. Not everything needs to be a kitchen sink (although there's nothing wrong with kitchen sinks either).

Thematic consonance (having a theme and supporting the essential concepts in that theme) is essential, but that doesn't take all that many options. A courtly-intrigue game might only have a few "classes" and put its emphasis on social mechanics. A game about fencing duels might have only options for a few different weapons, and the rest is about player skill. And those are valid designs.

And none of this requires alternate mechanical subsystems. Don't get me wrong, I like alternate mechanical subsystems. I've homebrewed a lot of base classes, most of which have their own subsystems. But none of those are necessary.

Another issue is the white-list vs black-list difference. 5e works on a whitelist--the DM says what sources are authorized; anything not authorized is off-limits. This is contrasted with the culture of 3e (not inherently the rules, but the gaming culture) which had a blacklist mentality--you can use anything except those sources that are banned.

In summary, the bold is part of the 3e-era philosophy that's directly rejected by the 5e designers. They seem to believe that more choices isn't necessarily as good as it seems in the abstract, citing analysis paralysis, the difficulty of making lots of good, quality player content (ie power creep), and the desire to focus on fictional coherence (building things that fit together well). And I agree with this change.

I can agree with the change too. As mephnik said we don't need a 5E gunslinger or 5E cancer mage. Know when to stop. However, not continuously printing out new content is not the same thing as not having complete rules so that the DM has to make everything up. They're two separate concepts, the latter of which I think is a mistake.


I mean, the question is what kind of tree. A peach tree is easier to climb than a sequoia. Just having one DC for tree climbing would be wrong.


Irrelevant. I don't care if it's one DC for all trees or different DCs for different trees. Have a Climb DC table of different surfaces that's typically climbed and have as many different trees set with different DCs as needed to show the difference between the difficulties of climbing different types of trees.

[KorvinStarmast]

However, not continuously printing out new content is not the same thing as not having complete rules so that the DM has to make everything up. They're two separate concepts, the latter of which I think is a mistake. D&D 5e does not have that problem. Hyperbole, in this case, was not your friend. (Yes, we understand your distaste for the 5e ability check system).
The rules for magic are pretty good, with a few lumpy bits.
The rules for combat are coherent, and understandable, though they are a bit spread out and take some top to bottom review and note taking to "grok" when first encountered.
The action economy, once grasped, is useful and not overly complex.

Plenty of rules for the DM to apply, or to adjust, in the printed material.

I have read a few posts here, and some musings by Mearls, that WoTC are having some second thoughts about the bonus action, but quite frankly I like it when I compare the action ecnonmy to editions of older D&D (Not the d20 system D&D, but before that).

[Willie the Duck]

Are you talking about this paper? https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/05/one-parameter-equation-can-exactly-fit-scatter-plot.html


No - though that paper potentially looks interesting. I'm talking about general curve fitting with a lot more than one parameter

The paper in question broadly tap dances around this issue, but it is much more of a specific case than the general one we are talking about here. The concept is a pretty broadly discussed issue, much like in my own health sciences field there is too often a push to include factor1, factor2, factor3, interaction of factors 1&2, interaction of factor 2&3, ... and so on into your model that you can't get a p value to save your life (and is that a good thing...?). Data science is fun in that you can have these great big philosophical discussions about technique completely divorced from the actual subject you are discussing. :smalltongue:

Outside of the paper, the site you linked MW was enlightening. I'd heard of Cowen and Tabarrok having a blog, never been there. Good to know that economics blogs get troll posters too.



IMO, one thing that should be noted is that 3.X tried to be an universal, or at least universalist system (as shown not only by the profusion of D&D books but also by d20 Modern and similar products), while 4e tried to break away from D&D's past, both in term of rules, but also in how underlying concepts were treated, not to mention the assumptions on what the audience would buy.

Those are not inherently bad ambitions for RPGs, but how they went about it was pretty tone-deaf.

Meanwhile, 5e is just trying to be D&D. And succeeding, as far as I'm concerned.

It's not a grand ambition, but it'll keep the game alive and healthy.

I don't know about tone deaf, but the effort did clarify one thing for me--If I were to try to make a game that wanted to be a pure anything (except D&D), I wouldn't start with D&D. D&D is D&D and was a mongrel hybrid beast to begin with, and I like lots of people love it and don't think it needs to be pure along any parameter line to be good at being itself. However, a GURPS or Hero System or FATE or the like are much better starting points for universal-style systems.

[Ignimortis]

Thematic and fitting concept support should be a goal, but support for every concept shouldn't be.

Those "what archetypes are we missing?" threads get ridiculous. I hope WotC never prints a Gunslinger class because that's not what D&D is about. A Cancer mage? What the f**k fantasy tradition did you pull that from? Seriously?

However it is a problem that fairly common fantasy concepts such as throwing weapons and dual-wielding are poorly represented.

Gunslingers can be a part of fantasy. Indeed, many popular fantasy settings have primitive firearms, and some have advanced ones. Cancer Mage is a prestige class, a design component specifically created to do things that aren't in the purview of normal classes, and while I agree that having a Cancer Mage class isn't a necessity, it doesn't detract from anything in D&D.


I disagree with the bold part. Concept support is not a bad thing, but it should not necessarily be a primary goal. A "realistic" medieval courtly intrigue game has no need to support alien cat-girl ninja cyborgs, while a far-future mind-bending body-jumping game doesn't need to support a medieval shopkeeper. Not everything needs to be a kitchen sink (although there's nothing wrong with kitchen sinks either).

Thematic consonance (having a theme and supporting the essential concepts in that theme) is essential, but that doesn't take all that many options. A courtly-intrigue game might only have a few "classes" and put its emphasis on social mechanics. A game about fencing duels might have only options for a few different weapons, and the rest is about player skill. And those are valid designs.

And none of this requires alternate mechanical subsystems. Don't get me wrong, I like alternate mechanical subsystems. I've homebrewed a lot of base classes, most of which have their own subsystems. But none of those are necessary.

Another issue is the white-list vs black-list difference. 5e works on a whitelist--the DM says what sources are authorized; anything not authorized is off-limits. This is contrasted with the culture of 3e (not inherently the rules, but the gaming culture) which had a blacklist mentality--you can use anything except those sources that are banned.

In summary, the bold is part of the 3e-era philosophy that's directly rejected by the 5e designers. They seem to believe that more choices isn't necessarily as good as it seems in the abstract, citing analysis paralysis, the difficulty of making lots of good, quality player content (ie power creep), and the desire to focus on fictional coherence (building things that fit together well). And I agree with this change.


IMO, one thing that should be noted is that 3.X tried to be an universal, or at least universalist system (as shown not only by the profusion of D&D books but also by d20 Modern and similar products), while 4e tried to break away from D&D's past, both in term of rules, but also in how underlying concepts were treated, not to mention the assumptions on what the audience would buy.

Those are not inherently bad ambitions for RPGs, but how they went about it was pretty tone-deaf.

Meanwhile, 5e is just trying to be D&D. And succeeding, as far as I'm concerned.

It's not a grand ambition, but it'll keep the game alive and healthy.

Since the sentiment expressed by the two of you is so similar, I should probably sum up my answers.

5e is exactly as you describe it. It does D&D and doesn't try to be a kitchen sink or anything else but D&D.
However, as I see it, it's D&D Lite, D&D's attempt at "Best of" discography, D&D streamlined down to what should probably make it D&D. In short, it's a fantasy-themed dungeon crawler with tried and tested character archetypes and little else. Therefore, it rarely supports concepts from outside D&D - even fantasy ones that are rather close. So far it seems that this is still enough for some (most, even) people, but..

I don't want D&D to stay in that state for potential 6e, 7e, whatever. I liked 3e D&D in part because it wasn't as narrow as, say, Vampire the Masquerade or Shadowrun are. You could do a lot of stuff, be survivalists in some grim-n-gritty postapocalyptic realm, and the next campaign could have you playing heroes that would put Exalted or comicbook superheroes to shame, and then another one politicking in an enchanted court, using guile and magic to outplay opponents, etc, all in one system, internally compatible, all supported to working degrees by content and by the rules.

I do hope that what Mearls wrote was a single-time thing and WotC will try something else if they eventually make 6e.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't know about tone deaf, but the effort did clarify one thing for me--If I were to try to make a game that wanted to be a pure anything (except D&D), I wouldn't start with D&D. D&D is D&D and was a mongrel hybrid beast to begin with, and I like lots of people love it and don't think it needs to be pure along any parameter line to be good at being itself. However, a GURPS or Hero System or FATE or the like are much better starting points for universal-style systems. Yeah, original D&D had some Sci Fi elements/influences. These really come out if you go back and read the first 20 or 30 issues of Dragon, and see what else TSR put together. (Gamma World, Metamorphosis Alpha, Star Frontiers ...)

Heck, I am pretty sure the clone spell (Arneson contributed that, apparently) is a straight port from SF to fantasy; and it also seems that psionics and mind flayers were heavily SF based in terms of concept.

[Unoriginal]

Yeah, original D&D had some Sci Fi elements/influences. These really come out if you go back and read the first 20 or 30 issues of Dragon, and see what else TSR put together.

And that influence still shines to this day.

D&D has a lot of pulpy elements, too. Exploring trap-filled dungeons in search of loot and glory is much closer to the two-fisted tales of Indiana Jones's ancestors than of any myths or fantasy stories that existed at the time.

[ciarannihill]

Lack of consistency hurts the game even when the DM is not a jerk. The infamous tree example. It becomes a problem when I play a game and can climb a tree just because I want to even though I have 10 strength and not proficient in Athletics, but when I play a different game with 18 ST and proficient in Athletics I have to roll DC 20 and can fail to climb the tree. The second DM is not wrong or a jerk. In his opinion trees are harder to climb than what the first DM thought. That lack of consistency means I have to relearn how to play the game. I don't have control over what my character can do. It's "mother may I". I want to play my character, not the DM play my character.

I mean the "infamous" tree example has been pointed out as being a bad example numerous times because there are specific rules for climbing.


Climbing, Swimming, and Crawling

While climbing or swimming, each foot of movement costs 1 extra foot (2 extra feet in difficult terrain), unless a creature has a climbing or swimming speed. At the GM's option, climbing a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds requires a successful Strength (Athletics) check. Similarly, gaining any distance in rough water might require a successful Strength (Athletics) check.


A standard tree has enough handholds to make an Athletics check unnecessary. If one is required of you then either the DM is misusing the rules (which can't fairly be blamed on the rules) or they feel that this would be an exceptionally difficult climb for some reason, like size in the case of a sequoia, slickness if it's raining, etc. The degree of difficulty increase gets far too granular to give practical guides to the DC based on it, but if you use the base DC guide provided in the SRD your DM should have an easy time assigning one suitable based on their description of the tree you're intending to climb.

Typical Difficulty Classes
Task Difficulty / DC
Very easy / 5
Easy / 10
Medium / 15
Hard / 20
Very hard / 25
Nearly impossible / 30

It's important to remember that this isn't based on the character, but on the difficulty of the task relative to an average person with no particular skill at it. IMO it's a much cleaner way of doing things than getting super granular -- because that granularity almost certainly comes at the cost of too much complexity relative to the amount of depth you gain from adding it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

5e is exactly as you describe it. It does D&D and doesn't try to be a kitchen sink or anything else but D&D.
However, as I see it, it's D&D Lite, D&D's attempt at "Best of" discography, D&D streamlined down to what should probably make it D&D. In short, it's a fantasy-themed dungeon crawler with tried and tested character archetypes and little else. Therefore, it rarely supports concepts from outside D&D - even fantasy ones that are rather close. So far it seems that this is still enough for some (most, even) people, but..

I don't want D&D to stay in that state for potential 6e, 7e, whatever. I liked 3e D&D in part because it wasn't as narrow as, say, Vampire the Masquerade or Shadowrun are. You could do a lot of stuff, be survivalists in some grim-n-gritty postapocalyptic realm, and the next campaign could have you playing heroes that would put Exalted or comicbook superheroes to shame, and then another one politicking in an enchanted court, using guile and magic to outplay opponents, etc, all in one system, internally compatible, all supported to working degrees by content and by the rules.

I do hope that what Mearls wrote was a single-time thing and WotC will try something else if they eventually make 6e.

If you want broad but crunchy, you need a modular system like GURPS, where in principle you can build anything, but in any one game you'll only see a tiny, GM-selected subset and with completely different . Because detailed rules that work well for one "genre" don't for another. They cause dissonance. And mixing the two genres produces chaos.

And even GURPS isn't so universal. It has core assumptions (like high-lethality combat) that carry across all the modules.

[MaxWilson]

I mean the "infamous" tree example has been pointed out as being a bad example numerous times because there are specific rules for climbing.

And yet, it happens. One of my first 5E games as a player featured exactly this: I said I was going to climb a tree instead of attacking a wolf that was chasing a strange little boy down the road, and the DM called for a DC 15(?) Dexterity check, which I failed two rounds in a row despite having Dex 16 IIRC. At that point I'd read the rules in the PHB on everybody being able to climb things at half speed, but the DM made a decision, so...

I didn't get eaten though.

[Willie the Duck]

True, but that happens with 3e as well. A too-vague skill system and an exhaustively-detailed system both run the risk of the DM (or DM and players) not knowing what it says on an issue and just winging it.

I don't really know how the system can prevent its rules not being used (best way I suppose is to make them clear and simple, which is a clear rarity in TTRPGs).

[MaxWilson]

True, but that happens with 3e as well. A too-vague skill system and an exhaustively-detailed system both run the risk of the DM (or DM and players) not knowing what it says on an issue and just winging it.

I don't really know how the system can prevent its rules not being used (best way I suppose is to make them clear and simple, which is a clear rarity in TTRPGs).

Munchkin does not have this problem because it has a clear dispute-resolution system: everybody talks it out, and in case of an impasse the owner of the game gets the final say.

I believe Pex's point is that giving the final say to the DM makes 5E more vulnerable to the DM misinterpreting the rules, because the (implicit) dispute-resolution system of 5E is "don't argue with the DM." He's not wrong. You might not think it's not a problem, but tree climbing isn't a bad example. It's a good example.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Munchkin does not have this problem because it has a clear dispute-resolution system: everybody talks it out, and in case of an impasse the owner of the game gets the final say.

I believe Pex's point is that giving the final say to the DM makes 5E more vulnerable to the DM misinterpreting the rules, because the (implicit) dispute-resolution system of 5E is "don't argue with the DM." He's not wrong. You might not think it's not a problem, but tree climbing isn't a bad example. It's a good example.

But it's not, because no rule set will cure a DM that doesn't read or doesn't want to follow the rules. Especially with rule 0 in play. In the end, even the most detailed systems are reduced to "don't argue with the designated authority figure." Because the rules themselves can't be self-enforcing. That's true for any game, or anything with rules.

[MaxWilson]

But it's not, because no rule set will cure a DM that doesn't read or doesn't want to follow the rules. Especially with rule 0 in play. In the end, even the most detailed systems are reduced to "don't argue with the designated authority figure." Because the rules themselves can't be self-enforcing. That's true for any game, or anything with rules.

That's exactly the point. Rule 0 creates a different game than Munchkin's "everybody talks it out, and the owner of the game gets the final say." You can't pretend that Rule 0 isn't a 5E rule.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's exactly the point. Rule 0 creates a different game than Munchkin's "everybody talks it out, and the owner of the game gets the final say." You can't pretend that Rule 0 isn't a 5E rule.

Oh, it absolutely is. It has also been a D&D rule since...forever. In fact, it was the original D&D rule. 5e is no different in this, just more honest about it. 3e and 4e just lied, presenting a "clear formula" for the results...that really didn't work because the DM chose the type of challenge to meet the DC he wanted.

[ciarannihill]

And yet, it happens. One of my first 5E games as a player featured exactly this: I said I was going to climb a tree instead of attacking a wolf that was chasing a strange little boy down the road, and the DM called for a DC 15(?) Dexterity check, which I failed two rounds in a row despite having Dex 16 IIRC. At that point I'd read the rules in the PHB on everybody being able to climb things at half speed, but the DM made a decision, so...

I didn't get eaten though.

My point is blaming the rules for a DM's inability or decision to not follow them is fallacious. The rules can't force the DM to obey them, and more comprehensive rules can just as easily be ignored by a DM who's ignoring the basic ones. This is true in every DnD edition and every other tabletop system run by a GM. Saying it's a distinct flaw of 5E is, from where I'm sitting, silly. That's the DM's fault, not 5E's fault.

[MaxWilson]

Oh, it absolutely is. It has also been a D&D rule since...forever. In fact, it was the original D&D rule. 5e is no different in this, just more honest about it. 3e and 4e just lied, presenting a "clear formula" for the results...that really didn't work because the DM chose the type of challenge to meet the DC he wanted.

No argument there, although I don't really know 3E or 4E.

There are a lot of things that are traditional in (A)D&D but not in other games. For example, in D&D, numerous roles including "adventure creator", "rules referee", "monster advocate", and often even "game host" and "snacks provider" all tend to get conflated into one giant role called "Dungeon Master," but it doesn't have to be that way. Notably, in early editions of D&D, I'm told there was often a "party caller" or "party leader," who was responsible for keeping track of what all the PCs were doing and communicating that in orderly fashion to the DM, as well as resolving intra-party disputes. Nowadays that often falls back on the DM, in addition to his other workloads.

The only essential workload of a Dungeon Master is adventure creation and monster advocacy (which don't even strictly need to be done by the same person). Players can't do that for themselves and still remain in a roleplaying mindset. All that other stuff including rules resolution could be outsourced, but typically isn't.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The only essential workload of a Dungeon Master is adventure creation and monster advocacy (which don't even strictly need to be done by the same person). Players can't do that for themselves and still remain in a roleplaying mindset. All that other stuff including rules resolution could be outsourced, but typically isn't.

It actually can't. Not without telling the player (or this other referee) all the information about the monsters and situations. Or going more abstract and having fixed difficulties.

D&D has always required an active DM. That's baked into its DNA at this point. Deviating from this (nuking rule 0) would make it not D&D. It would also mean trusting the designer to understand and account for all possible situations, including that what works for one group would work for another group, or even the same group in a different situation (which just flat out isn't true). My group may like more cinematic combat (with high-flying maneuvers, etc) in some cases, but not in others. Having a fixed rule set that can account for that and still be playable is a pipe dream. Or will be very abstract, which lots of people don't like.

[Pex]

D&D 5e does not have that problem. Hyperbole, in this case, was not your friend. (Yes, we understand your distaste for the 5e ability check system).
The rules for magic are pretty good, with a few lumpy bits.
The rules for combat are coherent, and understandable, though they are a bit spread out and take some top to bottom review and note taking to "grok" when first encountered.
The action economy, once grasped, is useful and not overly complex.

Plenty of rules for the DM to apply, or to adjust, in the printed material.

I have read a few posts here, and some musings by Mearls, that WoTC are having some second thoughts about the bonus action, but quite frankly I like it when I compare the action ecnonmy to editions of older D&D (Not the d20 system D&D, but before that).

Pay attention to context. I've only been talking about 5E skill use when I say the DM has to make it up. That's where this conversation started.

[Willie the Duck]

Notably, in early editions of D&D, I'm told there was often a "party caller" or "party leader," who was responsible for keeping track of what all the PCs were doing and communicating that in orderly fashion to the DM, as well as resolving intra-party disputes. Nowadays that often falls back on the DM, in addition to his other workloads.

Exactly how prevalent a party caller was has been hotly debated, but the rules for such existed in all the basic/classic line, and I believe in 1e AD&D as well. Supposedly, Gary sat behind a filing cabinet and narrated the game, only taking 'what we do' input from the caller, and the players being dependent upon the mapper's accuracy at interpreting what Gary said. OTOH plenty of people have played with Gygax at conventions and not experienced this, so it must have hit the wayside of ideas at some point. I should ask Mike Mornard when I see him online again.


The only essential workload of a Dungeon Master is adventure creation and monster advocacy (which don't even strictly need to be done by the same person). Players can't do that for themselves and still remain in a roleplaying mindset. All that other stuff including rules resolution could be outsourced, but typically isn't

The only real compelling reason that these all go together, as far as I can tell, is to keep the number of people who don't get to play down to a minimum. Of course, that assumes that DMing is the burden and playing is the fun part. Clearly true for some, but not a universal. The mindset probably comes from wargames (particularly Tractics (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3716/tractics)which apparently influenced Chainmail quite a bit). The game, a tank game, emulated early tank warfare (with extremely limited fields of view being a significant tactical issue) by having a third party be the only person with a full battlefield view, and the two actual sides each only getting the information their tank commanders would actually have. In that case, being the 'Game Master' (in the 'Master of Ceremonies' sense) was in fact a burden, while the other two people involved got to have fun trying to kill each other's pieces.

[Pex]

I mean the "infamous" tree example has been pointed out as being a bad example numerous times because there are specific rules for climbing.



A standard tree has enough handholds to make an Athletics check unnecessary. If one is required of you then either the DM is misusing the rules (which can't fairly be blamed on the rules) or they feel that this would be an exceptionally difficult climb for some reason, like size in the case of a sequoia, slickness if it's raining, etc. The degree of difficulty increase gets far too granular to give practical guides to the DC based on it, but if you use the base DC guide provided in the SRD your DM should have an easy time assigning one suitable based on their description of the tree you're intending to climb.

Typical Difficulty Classes
Task Difficulty / DC
Very easy / 5
Easy / 10
Medium / 15
Hard / 20
Very hard / 25
Nearly impossible / 30

It's important to remember that this isn't based on the character, but on the difficulty of the task relative to an average person with no particular skill at it. IMO it's a much cleaner way of doing things than getting super granular -- because that granularity almost certainly comes at the cost of too much complexity relative to the amount of depth you gain from adding it.

Is climbing a sequoia tree easy, medium, or hard? Pick one. Now, what happens when a different DM says otherwise? Why is that DM playing the game wrong because he disagrees with you on the difficulty of climbing a sequoia tree? Answer: He's not wrong. He just has a different opinion on the difficulty. In your game I have to roll against a particular DC. In the other DM's game it's a different DC. That's the problem. My ability to climb the sequoia tree depends on who is DM that day, not my choices in creating my character.

It's not enough to give the DC numbers for levels of difficulty. What's needed are examples to help define what makes something easy or hard.

[MaxWilson]

It actually can't. Not without telling the player (or this other referee) all the information about the monsters and situations. Or going more abstract and having fixed difficulties.

You're just repeating what I said. That's exactly what adventure creation and monster advocacy consist of.

All the other roles can be outsourced: rule referee, intra-party dispute resolver, game host, initiative tracker, snacks provider... these don't have to be part of the DM's job.


The only real compelling reason that these all go together, as far as I can tell, is to keep the number of people who don't get to play down to a minimum. Of course, that assumes that DMing is the burden and playing is the fun part. Clearly true for some, but not a universal. The mindset probably comes from wargames (particularly Tractics (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3716/tractics)which apparently influenced Chainmail quite a bit). The game, a tank game, emulated early tank warfare (with extremely limited fields of view being a significant tactical issue) by having a third party be the only person with a full battlefield view, and the two actual sides each only getting the information their tank commanders would actually have. In that case, being the 'Game Master' (in the 'Master of Ceremonies' sense) was in fact a burden, while the other two people involved got to have fun trying to kill each other's pieces.

Kriegspiel is a chess variant which works the same way: only the referee gets to see all the chess pieces.

However, in a D&D game, there's no reason the rule referee, intra-party dispute resolver, game host, initiative tracker, and snacks provider can't play PCs. That burden doesn't have to rest on the DM (and sometimes doesn't, but typically does).

BTW, I'm hosting a game next month in which the plan is to have no DM at all so that everyone can play. It's a heavily-constrained setting based on Betrayal at House on the Hill, with lots of random tables so the adventure designer (me) has no inherent advantage. "Monster advocate" will be some player who isn't actively involved in the current scene (it's a competitive race-to-the-treasure scenario). I've also got some rules for scaling random encounter difficulty in the haunted house by PC level so that players will be able to make PCs of whatever level they want to without "make 20th level characters, duh" becoming a dominant strategy. In theory the game should also be reusable for a completely different experience each time. Hopefully it turns out well.

P.S. Combining all the roles into one ironically makes the sort of Tactics-based play you mention unfun and infeasible. When the monster advocate is also the adventure designer and the guy who knows where all the pieces are, it is no longer fun for the players if monsters use brilliantly unfair sneaky tactics, because there's too much power and information asymmetry: the monster advocate (DM) could be cheating, intentionally or unintentionally. If the monster advocate were just another player, roleplaying the monsters with no special advantages that the monsters don't actually have, it wouldn't feel unfair.

[Pex]

True, but that happens with 3e as well. A too-vague skill system and an exhaustively-detailed system both run the risk of the DM (or DM and players) not knowing what it says on an issue and just winging it.

I don't really know how the system can prevent its rules not being used (best way I suppose is to make them clear and simple, which is a clear rarity in TTRPGs).


My point is blaming the rules for a DM's inability or decision to not follow them is fallacious. The rules can't force the DM to obey them, and more comprehensive rules can just as easily be ignored by a DM who's ignoring the basic ones. This is true in every DnD edition and every other tabletop system run by a GM. Saying it's a distinct flaw of 5E is, from where I'm sitting, silly. That's the DM's fault, not 5E's fault.

Two 5E DMs disagreeing on the difficulty of a task does not mean one of the DMs is playing the game wrong because there are almost no rules for what constitutes the difficulty of a task. Fortunately 5E is not completely devoid of it. The DMG provides examples for object hardness and NPC reactions. Personal opinion they're difficult to find, but they exist. Xanathar provides examples for tool use. 5E has provided for what I want within their philosophy. I'm disappointed they had not done so for skill use in the PHB. That is what I find to be a mistake.

Of course a DM can purposely ignore printed DCs or any rule, but that doesn't answer for anything except as a sign of being jerk though that's subjective and not enough evidence. To have any meaning we have to go with the assumption the DM wants to be fair and have a fun game, the assumption 5E is going with.

[Aetis]

I kinda wanted as many character options as possible, presented in a modular framework meant to encourage the search for combinations that yielded characters who broke the power curve, so... 5e wasn't really what I was looking for.

OP, I think you would get a much more diverse set of answers if you posted this in the general Roleplaying Games forum, instead of the 5e subforum.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I kinda wanted as many character options as possible, presented in a modular framework meant to encourage the search for combinations that yielded characters who broke the power curve, so... 5e wasn't really what I was looking for.

OP, I think you would get a much more diverse set of answers if you posted this in the general Roleplaying Games forum, instead of the 5e subforum.

I posted it here for a reason. It's gone a bit more "compare and contrast" than I had intended (largely my fault)--

What I really wanted to get at is things like:

1) If this is the design philosophy, what should that (if anything?) mean for how we run games as DM?
2) If this is the design philosophy, what should that (if anything?) mean for how we play games, what we accept, how we react to the DM's adjudication, etc as players?
3) What does this mean for the very RAW-focused forum discussions we have? If RAW isn't really a controlling thing, why do we spend so much effort parsing out the minutia?
4) How does this influence how we design content for games (either homebrew or campaigns)?

Rehashing the same "I don't like 5e's skill system/5e doesn't have enough content" arguments we've had 10,000 times already is boring (and I swear I'll stop participating...someday).

[Willie the Duck]

Kriegspiel is a chess variant which works the same way: only the referee gets to see all the chess pieces.

Kriegspiel is also mentioned as formative in the early game. Add in Braunstein-variant Diplomacy and a lot of the early game-dynamics seem a little less confusing (in the 'why did they decide to do such and such that way?' kind of way).



BTW, I'm hosting a game next month in which the plan is to have no DM at all so that everyone can play. It's a heavily-constrained setting based on Betrayal at House on the Hill, with lots of random tables so the adventure designer (me) has no inherent advantage. "Monster advocate" will be some player who isn't actively involved in the current scene (it's a competitive race-to-the-treasure scenario). I've also got some rules for scaling random encounter difficulty in the haunted house by PC level so that players will be able to make PCs of whatever level they want to without "make 20th level characters, duh" becoming a dominant strategy. In theory the game should also be reusable for a completely different experience each time. Hopefully it turns out well.

You should start a thread afterwards, analyzing what worked well and what did not.


P.S. Combining all the roles into one ironically makes the sort of Tactics-based play you mention unfun and infeasible. When the monster advocate is also the adventure designer and the guy who knows where all the pieces are, it is no longer fun for the players if monsters use brilliantly unfair sneaky tactics, because there's too much power and information asymmetry: the monster advocate (DM) could be cheating, intentionally or unintentionally. If the monster advocate were just another player, roleplaying the monsters with no special advantages that the monsters don't actually have, it wouldn't feel unfair.

Tractics*.
That is true, and perhaps has had a part in creating the mythology of killer/jerk-DM and/or entitled-players -- no one walks away from a TPK being as awed/impressed as if they'd just gotten creamed in a wargame or other information-symmetric, 'fair' fight. My guess why more games do not have (officially, in the rules, I've seen people 'play the monsters for the DM' on several occasions) a separate monster advocate is simply the challenge of finding two, even moreso than one, persons who wants to DM.
*yes, it's a pun. It's not mine and I won't take credit/blame:smalltongue:

[KorvinStarmast]

Notably, in early editions of D&D, I'm told there was often a "party caller" or "party leader," who was responsible for keeping track of what all the PCs were doing and communicating that in orderly fashion to the DM, as well as resolving intra-party disputes. And there was someone maintaining the map on graph paper.

[ciarannihill]

Is climbing a sequoia tree easy, medium, or hard? Pick one. Now, what happens when a different DM says otherwise? Why is that DM playing the game wrong because he disagrees with you on the difficulty of climbing a sequoia tree? Answer: He's not wrong. He just has a different opinion on the difficulty. In your game I have to roll against a particular DC. In the other DM's game it's a different DC. That's the problem. My ability to climb the sequoia tree depends on who is DM that day, not my choices in creating my character.

It's not enough to give the DC numbers for levels of difficulty. What's needed are examples to help define what makes something easy or hard.

If I pick DC20 and another DM picks DC10, this isn't an issue of consistency. It means the tree in question is easier or harder relative to the other. Every tree, even within a specific type will have a unique DC because how many handholds there are, how it's grown, the current weather conditions, the condition of the bark, etc are unique. This is exactly why they don't give comprehensive examples of these things, because it limits a DM's ability to decide things themselves.

A comprehensive listing of such things would add (IMO) needless complexity and enable endless rule-lawyering conversations as a trade-off for not much actual help to the DM, who will still have to decide on a final DC based on numerous factors a baseline doesn't account for. There is a slight benefit, but the tradeoff in terms of complexity and angle-shooting potential is so high I just cannot see it as worth it.

[MaxWilson]

If I pick DC20 and another DM picks DC10, this isn't an issue of consistency. It means the tree in question is easier or harder relative to the other. Every tree, even within a specific type will have a unique DC because how many handholds there are, how it's grown, the current weather conditions, the condition of the bark, etc are unique. This is exactly why they don't give comprehensive examples of these things, because it limits a DM's ability to decide things themselves.

A comprehensive listing of such things would add (IMO) needless complexity and enable endless rule-lawyering conversations as a trade-off for not much actual help to the DM, who will still have to decide on a final DC based on numerous factors a baseline doesn't account for. There is a slight benefit, but the tradeoff in terms of complexity and angle-shooting potential is so high I just cannot see it as worth it.

By preserving total freedom for the DM to decide things on the spot, you are denying the players the opportunity to know their own capabilities.

Q: Can you climb a typical tree?
A: Who knows? Show me the tree and then maybe I'll know.

This is much different answer than,

A: It depends. It depends on tree geometry and weather conditions--usually I can climb oaks and mapes, but not palms trees because of how they don't have branches, and especially not after a recent rain when the bark is wet.

Of course, there's nothing stopping a player from sitting down with the DM to work out a set of rules that seem reasonable to both of them; and it wouldn't necessarily be easier for them if 5E had built-in rules to start from. What I'm critiquing here is not the 5E ruleset, it's the notion that the goal of detailed rules is solely to make the DM's job easier. It's to give players more information about the gameworld their characters live in and what their characters are capable of.

[Unoriginal]

The answer is "you can climb a tree without check, unless that tree is special, then it's up to the DM to determine how special it is."

[ciarannihill]

By preserving total freedom for the DM to decide things on the spot, you are denying the players the opportunity to know their own capabilities.

Q: Can you a tree?
A: Who knows? Show me the tree and then maybe I'll know.
I can absolutely a tree! Sorry I, of all people, shouldn't ham up an obvious typo but I found it a little funny.


This is much different answer than,

A: It depends. It depends on tree geometry and weather conditions--usually I can climb oaks and mapes, but not palms trees because of how they don't have branches, and especially not after a recent rain when the bark is wet.

Of course, there's nothing stopping a player from sitting down with the DM to work out a set of rules that seem reasonable to both of them; and it wouldn't necessarily be easier for them if 5E had built-in rules to start from. What I'm critiquing here is not the 5E ruleset, it's the notion that the goal of detailed rules is solely to make the DM's job easier. It's to give more players about the gameworld their characters live in and what their characters are capable of.

Fair enough point, I don't think most people could give the second answer in real life for what it's worth, but I understand the point you're making (although I feel like there are plenty more appropriate examples you could give that would make more sense), and I grant that that is something lacking with the current approach. I don't think the tradeoffs of including the necessary pieces to achieve that goal would be worthwhile overall, and a conversation with the DM (as you've suggested) about such things if one is concerned about a specific scenario would be the simplest way to handle such a situation.

also:

The answer is "you can climb a tree without check, unless that tree is special, then it's up to the DM to determine how special it is."


100% this.

[MaxWilson]

I can absolutely a tree! Sorry I, of all people, shouldn't ham up an obvious typo but I found it a little funny.

Sorry. Fixed. :-) Turns out I typo'ed "give players more information" as well.


Fair enough point, I don't think most people could give the second answer in real life for what it's worth, but I understand the point you're making (although I feel like there are plenty more appropriate examples you could give that would make more sense), and I grant that that is something lacking with the current approach. I don't think the tradeoffs of including the necessary pieces to achieve that goal would be worthwhile overall, and a conversation with the DM (as you've suggested) about such things if one is concerned about a specific scenario would be the simplest way to handle such a situation.

Note that "I don't know, I haven't climbed a tree in years" is a perfectly valid answer in real life or in the game. But for other people the answer will be, "Yes, I do it all the time," and if you want to have a character who can answer that way you need consistency. And yes, a conversation with the DM (or a commitment from the DM that it's okay for you to remind him about past rulings) is a reasonable way to do that.

[Snails]

Talking about the potential jerk factor seems like a bit of hyperbole on MM's part, but I think we get the drift.

I would say 3e is dear to my heart for the simple reason that it was the first edition that promoted the idea the player gets to play the character they want. I am not talking about grubby details, but basic broad strokes like "I want to play a knight in shining armor" or "I want to play someone like Robin Hood." And I have seen those efforts thwarted, that ended up with useful gems of advice like "well, if you want to play a guy who is effective in melee like that, you have to earn it by rolling an 18/51+ strength and high Con" or "well, if you want to actually be good with a bow you need to earn it by finding a magic bow, and it would probably help if you were a elven fighter/magicuser instead of a human".

And these DMs were trying to not be a jerk, but it was the weight of crufty rules that promoted the assumption that important stuff just happens to PCs, leaving little room for the players to matter.

IMNSHO the key idea of 3e is to empower the players with options put right into their hands. If, say, you want to be like Robin Hood, you can take the weapon specialization feat tree. There are options right there in the PHB. And, heck, you can probably having a super good bow made for you with your own lucre if you do not find one in the treasure.

The problem with 3e was not any one particular rule or idea being bad, but the sheer weight of many many options became Way Too Much Of A Good Thing. That was hard on the casual player and much too hard on the DM.

IMO the 5e designers were effective in making wise decisions about how many options and how much control is good enough to allow players to play PCs they want, and just saying no beyond a certain point.

And I think the 5e skill system is a good example. While I more than sympathize with Pex's arguments, I think what is in the core rules is good enough for the general D&D audience. (A more detailed set of skill rules would make for a good chapter of optional rules in a supplement.)

[Pelle]

BTW, I'm hosting a game next month in which the plan is to have no DM at all so that everyone can play. It's a heavily-constrained setting based on Betrayal at House on the Hill, with lots of random tables so the adventure designer (me) has no inherent advantage. "Monster advocate" will be some player who isn't actively involved in the current scene (it's a competitive race-to-the-treasure scenario). I've also got some rules for scaling random encounter difficulty in the haunted house by PC level so that players will be able to make PCs of whatever level they want to without "make 20th level characters, duh" becoming a dominant strategy. In theory the game should also be reusable for a completely different experience each time. Hopefully it turns out well.


When I want that kind of experience, I play board games. Are you sure that's not what you want?

I play RPGs for completely different reasons. Having a DM as part of the rules system is a feature, not something to try to avoid...

[MaxWilson]

When I want that kind of experience, I play board games. Are you sure that's not what you want?

I play RPGs for completely different reasons. Having a DM as part of the rules system is a feature, not something to try to avoid...

If I want a real RPG in an consistent fictional world with a sensible economy and fully-fleshed-out NPCs, I play something else like DramaSystem or Shadowrun or GURPS, not 5E**. 5E is well-suited to casual hack-and-slash treasure hunting though, and that's what I'm planning for that game.

** It's not that you can't do real RPGs in 5E's framework, it's just that you wind up doing all the work yourself or stealing it from other systems. 5E doesn't even have a way to talk about which NPCs can read, write, or do basic arithmetic, let alone economic goals or personal rivalries. If it doesn't in some way involve losing HP, 5E doesn't spend much energy thinking about it.

[Willie the Duck]

IMO the 5e designers were effective in making wise decisions about how many options and how much control is good enough to allow players to play PCs they want, and just saying no beyond a certain point.

And I think the 5e skill system is a good example. While I more than sympathize with Pex's arguments, I think what is in the core rules is good enough for the general D&D audience. (A more detailed set of skill rules would make for a good chapter of optional rules in a supplement.)

I would absatively posalutely support a separate skills book (with rules on how to utilize compensate additional proficiencies and expertise and other granted class features, so as not to disadvantage the skill monkey classes), along with maybe expansion on wilderness adventuring (including rules grander and more granular than exhaustion y/n, dis/advantage y/n, and rangers/druids getting the occasional free pass), equipment maintenance (with more options than regular or silk rope), and so forth. So long as it is optional, and doesn't interfere with keeping the basic game uncomplicated. OTOH, I also would be fine with such a product being 3rd party, since that's what we have the 3pp/DMsGuild system for.

[Pelle]

If I want a real RPG, I play something else like DramaSystem or GURPS, not 5E. 5E is well-suited to combat-oriented hack-and-slash though, and that's what I'm planning for that game.

So what is it you want out of the combat system, the simulation elements? Because in my opinion, d&d combat makes for a bad board game (though it works for rpgs where the function is different).

[Sigreid]

Just a couple of comments.

I've played since the 70s and this is the first time I have ever heard if a party caller. Or the notion that each player edit: does not gets to say what his character attempts.

The jerk DM discussion always seems weird to me. In my experience there are 2 possibilities. Either you are having what you consider a reasonable amount of fun, or you aren't. If you aren't, you have two options. Either address it with the other players and DM and try to get to fun, or walk away from the table. If trying to address it doesn't work, you walk away. Each person is the sole arbiter of whether they are having enough fun, and if they should walk away.

[MaxWilson]

So what is it you want out of the combat system, the simulation elements? Because in my opinion, d&d combat makes for a bad board game (though it works for rpgs where the function is different).

Fundamentally: when I play GURPS, I miss Fireballing massive formations of orcs for 1d6/level, save for half. GURPS has better martial combat, but AD&D and its descendants have a better magic system and better monsters.

Less flippantly: 5E has invested lots of energy in giving players lots of complicated combat options that let you play PCs who kill things in fairly diverse and customized ways. In 5E's design philosophy, as near as I can make it out, the world exists not to be a fantasy world with its own rules and logic--it exists as an object on which the PCs can express their individuality via invocations of their preselected powers. That makes it a pretty natural fit for a game about racing other players through a haunted house to see who can kill monsters the fastest and beat the other PCs to the treasure.

I think Twigwit said it well earlier: 5E feels like a simple simulation of a more complex fantasy RPG. Might as well use it that way.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The jerk DM discussion always seems weird to me. In my experience there are 2 possibilities. Either you are having what you consider a reasonable amount of fun, or you aren't. If you aren't, you have two options. Either address it with the other players and DM and try to get to fun, or walk away from the table. If trying to address it doesn't work, you walk away. Each person is the sole arbiter of whether they are having enough fun, and if they should walk away.

Suggesting that people advocate for their own fun is encouraging tyrant DMs!

I agree. And I think we'd do better if we worried less about what people not at our own tables think of our games and more about what people who are at our table find fun.

[Pelle]

That makes it a pretty natural fit for a game about racing other players through a haunted house to see who can kill monsters the fastest and beat the other PCs to the treasure.

I dunno, for me playing d&d as a board game would fall flat. The mechanics works because there's an impartial dm who roleplays the world. Without that, ...

[Spriteless]

Irrelevant. I don't care if it's one DC for all trees or different DCs for different trees. Have a Climb DC table of different surfaces that's typically climbed and have as many different trees set with different DCs as needed to show the difference between the difficulties of climbing different types of trees.

Yeah. That would be a way to do it. I do wish the skill descriptions gave example tasks with respective DCs, actually.

But my point, was if the DM seems to be unfair then call them out on it, in person, right there, (politely) . It is empowering. Someone showed the rules earlier in the thread, you are supposed to be able to climb most trees. If you can't, bring up the rules and ask why. If the DM gets upset at being questioned, there are plenty of reasons that could save face: if the tree doesn't have handholds, or if the weather is bad, or something like that.

And I realize that what you were saying, was every rule feels weird and inconsistant and except for roguish expertise you don't know when a skill is sufficient to do a thing. Talk with the DM beforehand about doing said thing, if it is important to your character's identity. Seriously, talk with the GM in all the games ever. Independent theorycrafting has never been exactly like playing, and with 5th ed's priorities the two are further apart than ever.

I mean, part of the DM's job is these judgement calls. If you don't like them, find a chart and share it with the DM, and say: "hey less work for you if you use this, do you think it's reasonable?" Heck, we both think that is the big problem, maybe we can craft a set of charts, and post it in a well respected D&D forum that is attached to a webcomic for feedback, with plans to copy it to DMs Guild once everything is fair. That would look impressive. Many a DM would gladly tape it to the DM screen. PM me if you want to work on it.

I think I vehemently agree with you so much because I like 5th ed and I want defend it beyond all rationality.

[MaxWilson]

I dunno, for me playing d&d as a board game would fall flat. The mechanics works because there's an impartial dm who roleplays the world. Without that, ...

What does 5E have that you would miss if you were playing FATE or Shadowrun? Not a rhetorical question.

[Pelle]

What does 5E have that you would miss if you were playing FATE or Shadowrun? Not a rhetorical question.

Personally, strong and limited fantasy archetypes. The Shadowrun genre is right out for me, and convincing my friends to play FATE is hurdle.

[Socratov]

As someone who started out with 3.5 I can't help but be slightly biased towards 3.5 as it gave me a first foray into TTRPG's in general and DnD in specific. However, reading this thread I seem to shake my earlier feeling that while 5e is by no means bad and in most respects it has performed above average in its design philosophy. It might even be, all things considered, be the best version of DnD so far.

However, I find myself agreeing with Pex and Snails, particularly what Snails posted above, quoted (in part) below.


Talking about the potential jerk factor seems like a bit of hyperbole on MM's part, but I think we get the drift.

I would say 3e is dear to my heart for the simple reason that it was the first edition that promoted the idea the player gets to play the character they want. I am not talking about grubby details, but basic broad strokes like "I want to play a knight in shining armor" or "I want to play someone like Robin Hood." And I have seen those efforts thwarted, that ended up with useful gems of advice like "well, if you want to play a guy who is effective in melee like that, you have to earn it by rolling an 18/51+ strength and high Con" or "well, if you want to actually be good with a bow you need to earn it by finding a magic bow, and it would probably help if you were a elven fighter/magicuser instead of a human".

And these DMs were trying to not be a jerk, but the weight of crufty rules that promoted the assumption that important stuff just happens to PCs, leaving little room for the players to matter.

IMNSHO the key idea of 3e is to empowered the players with options put right into their hands. If, say, you want to be like Robin Hood, you can take the weapon specialization feat tree. There are options right there in the PHB. And, heck, you can probably having a super good bow made for you with your own lucre if you do not find one in the treasure.

The problem with 3e was not one of any particular rule or idea being bad, but the sheer weight of many many options became Way Too Much Of A Good Thing. That was hard on the casual player and much too hard on the DM.


Yes, the 3.5 rules were daunting, and yes does it nearly require a degree to play effectively (read PhD when referring to the Tippyverse). But when you succeeded, oh did it feel great. The sensation of mechanics, story and concept colliding is a high like a mountain. Something 5e has as of yet to bring. If you want to feel special, 5e will suit your needs, but if you truly want to feel like the gods then 3.5 will have you covered. But buyer beware, no power comes for free for expect to pour over forgotten tomes and that, at times can seem daunting. I have felt the frustration of a concept not coming together, grasping at every glimmer of hope to find an as of yet undiscovered trick.

But then it clicks. That's the feeling that separates, to use a Top Gear reference, the Astong DB9's from the Suzuki Liana's. Which will make no sense now, but when you try it, you will know. You will know why 3.5 will be my favourite version of DnD.

As for design intent, 5e came close; it has succeeded in some respects (items, closer balance between classes, ease of play) and in some it failed by adhering to what was already there or by not changing radically enough (casters still reign supreme, druids & metal, more saves, statistical variance, and the 6 prime stats). And then there was the argument Pex brought up: inter-game variance is bigger then ever.

Now the things I mentioned could be both good and bad depending on your preferences. Me, I find 5e more wholesome but less exciting. I have found that when systems go simple and all the way simple that it works as well as a system that goes to the lengths of 3.5 and GURPS when it comes to realising concepts. And that's imo where 5e falls short: it tires too hard to bridge the gap between 3.5 and something new and simpel that it ends up doing neither. When it tries to pay service to 3.5 it falls short. it tries, but it falls short just the same. When ti tries to distance itself form 3.5 and its stat madness, it doesn't go all the way to actually freeing itself from and become that which it has sought to become: simple and general instead of complex and specific.

And even if it hasn't been my favourite system as a player it has definitely inspired me to take up the reigns as a DM and ultimately try my hand at other systems. So in a funny way it has inspired me to break ever more beyond boundaries in TTRPG then 3.5 would have allowed in the same timeframe.

bottom line is: this game is what you make of it, as goes for all games and no game is truly etter then another, if only better suited to a person or situation. Wether a system achieves it's design philosophy is only a point of view...

[Rhedyn]

Sadly Mearls does not seem to be thinking critically about his game.

Having rules for things in of itself is just not a problem. Complexity that makes the game harder to run, rules that do not make for a good game, and immersion breaking rules are bad.

Lacking rules isn't some sort of brave innovation in game design. Having the humility to realize that you do not have good rules for something and therefore not printing them, is just being adequate at your job.

So in 5e they realized some their previous solutions were bad, removed them, and then just didn't replace them with anything. That's not great, it's OK at best.

[KorvinStarmast]

Just a couple of comments.

I've played since the 70s and this is the first time I have ever heard if a party caller. Or the notion that each player edit: does not gets to say what his character attempts. I realize that you know this, but I'll fill in for a variety of folks who didn't play with this convention.

The caller did not preempt what players were going to do in combat.

The caller in most cases was interacting with the DM in between combats on where the party was going, doing. A lot of times, the caller (in some of my groups) would be polling members of the party on what they were doing before a statement of 'Cleric is poking that door with a ten foot pole' (or something like that) was made. Or "the rest of us stop, and try to be very quiet, as Riley the Thief sneaks forward and tries to find a trap on that door." (At this point, Dm and Riley interact, possibly with a roll vis a vis traps, and a lock pick attempt).

Callers often called out the marching order, changes to it, and when going through dungeons which direction the party was going. Depending on the groups we played in, there was often a quick huddle with the players who were paying attention in terms of "do we want to go here" which precluded what I find to be the bane of the modern table.

DM asks "so what do you do now" after a battle is over and loot is recovered.

And four players look at each other, saying nothing ... and the silence continues.

With a caller, this rarely happened.

During combat? DM went from player to player to get their actions/attacks/choices and resolve them.

I am going to cite an example from Wilderness and Underworld Adventures, pages 12 and 13, TSR, 1974, book 3 of original D&D. This method had been developed during play testing, as I recall being told, to keep play moving. The role of caller often rotated between various members.

REF: Steps down to the east.
CAL: We're going down.
REF: 10', 20', 30' — a 10' square landing — steps down to the north and curving down southeast.
CAL: Take those to the southeast.
REF: 10', and the steps curve more to the south; 20'. Steps end, and you are on a 10' wide passage which runs east, southeast, and west. There is a door to your left across the passage on a northwest wall.
CAL: Listen at the door — three of us. (What is omitted here is the quick discussion between players on who would listen) KS
REF: (After rolling three dice) You hear nothing. (At this time a check for wandering monsters is also made.) Note that the DM rolls for the listen check, not the players. KS
CAL: Ignore the door and proceed along the corridor southeastwards. 10', 20', 30', 40', 50'. "Four way": Northwest, northeast, south and southwest — the south passage is 20' wide.
CAL: Go south.
REF: 10'-70': passage continues, doors east and west.
CAL: Listen at the east door.
REF: (After appropriate check) You hear shuffling.
CAL: Two of us (specifying which two) will throw our weight against the door to open it. All will be ready for combat.
(After rolling two dice:) The door opens! You can't be surprised, but the monsters — you see half-a-dozen gnolls — can be (Here a check for surprise is made, melee conducted, and so on.)
After the melee is over ...
CAL: Okay, what does the room look like — we're examining the walls, ceiling, floor, and contents of the room itself. (At this point the mapper is listening attentively to the room description so that it can be sketched onto the graph paper)
REF: (After checking to see if dwarves and/or elves are in the party:) The room is a truncated pyramid. The east wall is the truncated part, directly opposite the door you entered. It is 10' long with another door in it. The walls connecting it to the west wall, the place you entered, are each about 35' long. The west wall, which is where you entered is 30' long
with a door in the middle of the wall. The elf has noted that there seems to be a hollow spot near the east end of the southeast wall. The floor and ceiling seem to have nothing unusual. The room contains the bodies of the gnolls, a pile of refuse in the north corner of the west wall, and two trunks along the wall opposite the one which sounds hollow. And so on.

Anyway, all of us had been exposed to that example, and as groups we sorted out how we'd feed to the caller our detailed actions when needed.

THIS CUT DOWN A HECK OF A LOT OF CHATTER AND KEPT THE PACE OF PLAY MOVING

I cannot emphasize that enough, in terms of the value of this approach, particularly during dungeon crawl.

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

As we play currently, every freaking decision is like a mini-meeting. I am used to it, but it drives me a little nuts since I know a different way to do it ... and it's mostly annoying when 3/5 of us are paying attention, and two are not.

Blah.

[Darth Ultron]

I've played since the 70s and this is the first time I have ever heard if a party caller. Or the notion that each player edit: does not gets to say what his character attempts.


The party caller comes from D&D, that is BECMI D&D.

[Knaight]

I realize that you know this, but I'll fill in for a variety of folks who didn't play with this convention.

The caller did not preempt what players were going to do in combat.

The caller in most cases was interacting with the DM in between combats on where the party was going, doing. A lot of times, the caller (in some of my groups) would be polling members of the party on what they were doing before a statement of 'Cleric is poking that door with a ten foot pole' (or something like that) was made. Or "the rest of us stop, and try to be very quiet, as Riley the Thief sneaks forward and tries to find a trap on that door." (At this point, Dm and Riley interact, possibly with a roll vis a vis traps, and a lock pick attempt).
That sounds obnoxious - just because it's out of combat doesn't mean that I'd want to cede control of my character.


DM asks "so what do you do now" after a battle is over and loot is recovered.

And four players look at each other, saying nothing ... and the silence continues.

With a caller, this rarely happened.

During combat? DM went from player to player to get their actions/attacks/choices and resolve them.
In my experience this still rarely happens, though it's not unlikely for a defacto caller to show up anyways from one of the players based on whoever is most decisive, up until it hits a point where people really care about what they're doing in the moment at which point they seize control again. Where it starts getting really interesting is where you have multiple people who would normally take the pseudo-caller role.

On the other hand, I've deliberately cultivated proactive players, and any group where I'm playing contains me, and thus is guaranteed at least one person who can easily fit the pseudo-caller role.

[KorvinStarmast]

The party caller comes from D&D, that is BECMI D&D.

No sir, it comes from the original game. See the example I cited above. And yes, BX/BECMI, kept that in the book. :smallsmile: (AD&D used it as well in 1e ... I need to dig back and remember if that convention was still in the 2e book. arrgh, old age stinks as memory gets spotty)

That sounds obnoxious - just because it's out of combat doesn't mean that I'd want to cede control of my character. That isn't what happened. You are speaking out of ignorance. The core thing this did was avoid the game bogging down. There were still a crap ton of times where the DM goes around the table and gives each player "what are you doing" depending on the situation. What using the caller did, mostly (in retrospect) was to keep exporation (as a game phase) moving and not bogging down.
Again, we rotated who the caller was in almost every group that I played in. It worked very well, and we played as a team, not as a bunch of self centered divas.

On the other hand, sometimes the thief would say "no, I am wary of sneaking up to that door." Then the group has to decide how to proceed. Seen it done. Then the caller tells the DM. This whole process gets the players to as a habit Work As A Team.

What isn't in the text of the book was the frequent "quick huddles" where the caller and various players would do a "we doing this, or this" before caller told the Dm what was up.


On the other hand, I've deliberately cultivated proactive players, and any group where I'm playing contains me, and thus is guaranteed at least one person who can easily fit the pseudo-caller role. Yeah, some players are better at being leaders and initiators than others. That's always been true. I tip my cap to you for trying to cultivate that at our table.

[MaxWilson]

The answer is "you can climb a tree without check, unless that tree is special, then it's up to the DM to determine how special it is."

And that leads to weirdness too, because now the Mounted Combatant Paladin can have his horse climb trees, and so can the enemy hobgoblin cavalry riding on worgs.

[Knaight]

And that leads to weirdness too, because now the Mounted Combatant Paladin can have his horse climb trees, and so can the enemy hobgoblin cavalry riding on worgs.

Though we're already hitting this with the Centaur race playtests consistently not giving and penalty to climbing.

It's a case where GM judgement is helpful - a table of static DCs works a lot better across a narrow range of body types. Snakes, goats, and people all climb very differently, and what's hard for one to climb might well be straight forward for another. Similarly fish should probably just auto-succeed on swim checks humans actually need to try for. This could be encoded a bit more, but the amount it takes to do so thoroughly increases dramatically.

[Pex]

Rehashing the same "I don't like 5e's skill system/5e doesn't have enough content" arguments we've had 10,000 times already is boring (and I swear I'll stop participating...someday).

I can quit any time I want. (hic)

[Snails]

Lacking rules isn't some sort of brave innovation in game design. Having the humility to realize that you do not have good rules for something and therefore not printing them, is just being adequate at your job.

So in 5e they realized some their previous solutions were bad, removed them, and then just didn't replace them with anything. That's not great, it's OK at best.

I think you are misunderstanding what was done and why. It is not as if the designers just threw up their hands and said "I am out of ideas" at any point. What they did is write good simple rules, and then decided whether it was worth the space and implicit game play cost to add more rules. In some cases they added more rules, and then asked the question again whether it worth adding more. In some cases, they threw out the particular rule. In other cases, they tried writing an even smaller and lighter version.

I am personally less than happy about where they drew the line for 5e skills. But that is a matter of how well the game caters to my personal taste, not a difference of design philosophy.

Choosing where to draw the line(s) is the most fundamental and important decision that a game designer makes. I applaud the 5e designers for making a conscious choice about the "weight" of rules needed to play the games.

[Pex]

I would absatively posalutely support a separate skills book (with rules on how to utilize compensate additional proficiencies and expertise and other granted class features, so as not to disadvantage the skill monkey classes), along with maybe expansion on wilderness adventuring (including rules grander and more granular than exhaustion y/n, dis/advantage y/n, and rangers/druids getting the occasional free pass), equipment maintenance (with more options than regular or silk rope), and so forth. So long as it is optional, and doesn't interfere with keeping the basic game uncomplicated. OTOH, I also would be fine with such a product being 3rd party, since that's what we have the 3pp/DMsGuild system for.

I would like such a book too, but I think it's too late. How DMs handle skills are ingrained now to make it up only to be told they're doing it wrong, so to speak, because a book says differently. Also, DMs are already differing on accepting Xanathar or Sword Coast. It would just be another splat book that a player can't depend on being in the game. You want that to be optional, sure, but I'll likely be disappointed it's not used more often than it is. It's conjecture, so I could be wrong. Maybe this hypothetical book would be considered a great asset for most DMs and used regularly or at least used if a player really wants it just as a DM might ok something from Xanathar even though he originally hadn't considered it for the game. There are flexible DMs like that out there. I've played with them. I don't hate DMs. Honest! :smallwink:

[MaxWilson]

I think you are misunderstanding what was done and why. It is not as if the designers just threw up their hands and said "I am out of ideas" at any point. What they did is write good simple rules, and then decided whether it was worth the space and implicit game play cost to add more rules.

It's not clear to me at all that the rules they wrote ("roll a d20, add your ability bonus, and compare to a fixed DC") are good rules. Arguably they are worse than no rules at all because they deter DMs from making up their own mechanisms, like "roll under your Intelligence" or "beat my d6" or "of course horses can't climb trees, they have no thumbs" even when those other mechanisms would be a better match for the actual probabilities.

For example, picking a moderately-difficult lock is better modelled with multiple DC 10ish checks than a single DC 20 check: you want the world's best thief (Dex 20 Prodigy with +17 to Athletics) to have no trouble with it, but you don't want a room full of monkeys to be as good or better at picking it than the master thief is just due to high d20 rolls.

I think the example posted here is on point: http://www.criticalmiss.com/issue8/bitaboutd201.html

[Knaight]

Choosing where to draw the line(s) is the most fundamental and important decision that a game designer makes. I applaud the 5e designers for making a conscious choice about the "weight" of rules needed to play the games.

Pretty much this. I might disagree with where some of those lines were drawn (e.g. really not caring about defining which spell components are needed for which spell), but they're clearly drawn very deliberately, and in a way consistent with the traditional focuses of D&D.

That said, the three pillars rhetoric is more than a little incongruous given the design of the actual game.

[Snails]

What I really wanted to get at is things like:

1) If this is the design philosophy, what should that (if anything?) mean for how we run games as DM?
2) If this is the design philosophy, what should that (if anything?) mean for how we play games, what we accept, how we react to the DM's adjudication, etc as players?
3) What does this mean for the very RAW-focused forum discussions we have? If RAW isn't really a controlling thing, why do we spend so much effort parsing out the minutia?
4) How does this influence how we design content for games (either homebrew or campaigns)?

Here is the part that caught my eye:


In terms of players, we focus much more on narrative and identity, rather than specific, mechanical advantages. Who you are is more important than what you do, to the point that your who determines your what.

It suggests to me we should worry less about getting a DC exactly right, and look to Saying Yes to the PC because of reasons to do with who the character is, e.g. "As a paladin with a criminal background, you instantly spot this inn as a place where the lawless element likes to meet and discuss 'business'."

[Sigreid]

I realize that you know this, but I'll fill in for a variety of folks who didn't play with this convention.

The caller did not preempt what players were going to do in combat.

The caller in most cases was interacting with the DM in between combats on where the party was going, doing. A lot of times, the caller (in some of my groups) would be polling members of the party on what they were doing before a statement of 'Cleric is poking that door with a ten foot pole' (or something like that) was made. Or "the rest of us stop, and try to be very quiet, as Riley the Thief sneaks forward and tries to find a trap on that door." (At this point, Dm and Riley interact, possibly with a roll vis a vis traps, and a lock pick attempt).

Callers often called out the marching order, changes to it, and when going through dungeons which direction the party was going. Depending on the groups we played in, there was often a quick huddle with the players who were paying attention in terms of "do we want to go here" which precluded what I find to be the bane of the modern table.

DM asks "so what do you do now" after a battle is over and loot is recovered.

And four players look at each other, saying nothing ... and the silence continues.

With a caller, this rarely happened.

During combat? DM went from player to player to get their actions/attacks/choices and resolve them.

I am going to cite an example from Wilderness and Underworld Adventures, pages 12 and 13, TSR, 1974, book 3 of original D&D. This method had been developed during play testing, as I recall being told, to keep play moving. The role of caller often rotated between various members.
And so on.

Anyway, all of us had been exposed to that example, and as groups we sorted out how we'd feed to the caller our detailed actions when needed.

THIS CUT DOWN A HECK OF A LOT OF CHATTER AND KEPT THE PACE OF PLAY MOVING

I cannot emphasize that enough, in terms of the value of this approach, particularly during dungeon crawl.

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

As we play currently, every freaking decision is like a mini-meeting. I am used to it, but it drives me a little nuts since I know a different way to do it ... and it's mostly annoying when 3/5 of us are paying attention, and two are not.

Blah.
Actually, this is the first I'd ever heard of this way of playing. But little kids are unlikely to roll with that. And I was very little.

Edit: I started with the basic set playing with my brother in the 4th grade and rolled almost immediately into AD&D 1st edition. When we first started playing we didn't even had dice. We had chits. Little pieces of paper with numbers written on them in Dixie cups.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Here is the part that caught my eye:



It suggests to me we should worry less about getting a DC exactly right, and look to Saying Yes to the PC because of reasons to do with who the character is, e.g. "As a paladin with a criminal background, you instantly spot this inn as a place where the lawless element likes to meet and discuss 'business'."

I agree with this. DMs should worry more about encouraging good role-play (making decisions based on the character that fit the fiction) and less about, say, gating checks or hiding information. I've gone to the point that any knowledge check that they could know something about is partial success. They always get something if possible, because I want to see what they do with that information. Me hiding information behind a roll doesn't help them make meaningful, fun choices.

[Sigreid]

Due to this thread a small deviant part of me wants to send the party to a plane where everything is normal except all trees are completely unclimbable.

[ad_hoc]

Here is the part that caught my eye:



It suggests to me we should worry less about getting a DC exactly right, and look to Saying Yes to the PC because of reasons to do with who the character is, e.g. "As a paladin with a criminal background, you instantly spot this inn as a place where the lawless element likes to meet and discuss 'business'."

Yep.

Choosing a background, along with the personality traits, ideal, bond, and flaw, is an important part of creating a character. I'd love a book that had more backgrounds. One of the best parts of SCAG is the backgrounds.

Personally, I think backgrounds are more important than race. Ignoring that component of 5e is missing out on a strength of 5e.

A tangent on the 'who they are' rather than 'what they do' -

Mearls once said that his (their) big regret with character classes was not giving the fighter an identity. Other classes/subclasses have identity in who they are. There is no difference between a Champion and a Battlemaster for identity and both concepts are boring. Good at fighting doesn't say much about who the character is as many people are good at fighting. Contrast that to something like Purple Dragon Knight. While the subclass rules were terribly written, the idea was good.

[Tanarii]

No sir, it comes from the original game. See the example I cited above. And yes, BX/BECMI, kept that in the book. :smallsmile: (AD&D used it as well in 1e ... I need to dig back and remember if that convention was still in the 2e book. arrgh, old age stinks as memory gets spotty)
It's also worth noting that a party Caller (or Leader) is an outgrowth of the original campaigns having ten to twenty (or more) players going on big weekend adventure, possibly with multiple henchmen / retainers. Also useful in convention play with a DM (possibly plus Co-DMs) handling multiple tables at once.

[Sigreid]

Yep.

Choosing a background, along with the personality traits, ideal, bond, and flaw, is an important part of creating a character. I'd love a book that had more backgrounds. One of the best parts of SCAG is the backgrounds.

Personally, I think backgrounds are more important than race. Ignoring that component of 5e is missing out on a strength of 5e.

A tangent on the 'who they are' rather than 'what they do' -

Mearls once said that his (their) big regret with character classes was not giving the fighter an identity. Other classes/subclasses have identity in who they are. There is no difference between a Champion and a Battlemaster for identity and both concepts are boring. Good at fighting doesn't say much about who the character is as many people are good at fighting. Contrast that to something like Purple Dragon Knight. While the subclass rules were terribly written, the idea was good.

In contrast I consider that a strength of the fighter class in that more than any other class you get to decide unhindered "what does being a fighter mean to this character?"

[Snails]

It's not clear to me at all that the rules they wrote ("roll a d20, add your ability bonus, and compare to a fixed DC") are good rules. Arguably they are worse than no rules at all because they deter DMs from making up their own mechanisms, like "roll under your Intelligence" or "beat my d6" or "of course horses can't climb trees, they have no thumbs" even when those other mechanisms would be a better match for the actual probabilities.

...

I think the example posted here is on point: http://www.criticalmiss.com/issue8/bitaboutd201.html

Getting the probabilities right is a very difficult problem, one that I could easily argue every RPG ever written has gotten very very wrong.

It is not clear to me that 3.5, frex, is notably worse than any other published system.

In this context, shrugging and hoping not writing any rules at all will inspire improv greatness on the part of the DM seems like an inauspicious design choice. DMs who are that great at improv already know they can ignore the written rules and have little trouble persuading the players to trust their manifest awesomeness.

BTW, the problems of d20 swinginess are not new, but a new face from a well known hiccup of the BRP % systems and similar. To d20's credit, there are at least more means to mitigate (Take10, working to get circumstance bonuses, Aid Other, boosting the skill mod to the stratosphere, etc.)

The wisdom of GM ancients is the mistake is picking up the dice. Look for good reasons to leave the dice alone, first. A possible skill check situation should not be looked at as an opportunity to inject excitement into the game by seeing highly competent PCs fail due to bad luck. It is an opportunity for PCs who are bad a something to get lucky. PCs who are supposed to be good at something can simply succeed, and the DM should play up how awesome that PC is.

As for Charlie from the link, yes I would allow him to automatically succeed against that DC 21 canoeing check with his "measly" +10 mod. But he would be going carefully and there is a chance that someone less skilled goes for it and outraces him, if he cares about speed. "Charles is a canoeing expert. This river is difficult for non-experts, but not a strain for him if he is careful. Assuming no surprises, of course."

[Snails]

I agree with this. DMs should worry more about encouraging good role-play (making decisions based on the character that fit the fiction) and less about, say, gating checks or hiding information. I've gone to the point that any knowledge check that they could know something about is partial success. They always get something if possible, because I want to see what they do with that information. Me hiding information behind a roll doesn't help them make meaningful, fun choices.

"gating checks or hiding information" jogs a memory.

IMO every DM/GM should familiarize themselves with the GUMSHOE system as a study in an extreme take on skills.

In a nutshell description of GUMSHOE non-combat skills (including many physical skills like climbing)...

It is a very coarse skill system where skills are measure qualitatively. 0 is skillless, of course. 1 is skilled. 2 is a very high skill, etc.

What is unusual here is if you have a 1+ skill you always succeed at that skill at some basic level.

In addition to that benefit, your skill level equals points, where 1 point can be spent to achieve a critical success. So skill points serve as a kind "seize the limelight with your PC's awesomeness" resource, as well as often giving you additional hints about what you are facing or will face in the future.

Part of the inspiration of this system is to not create mystery/adventures that can fall apart because, say, the two Call of Cthulu investigators with the amazing 60% and 70% Search skills failed to find the necessary letter hidden in the study to get everyone going in the correct direction. PCs generally succeed at some minimal level. Skills primarily exist to distinguish the strengths of particular PCs in an organic way.

[ad_hoc]

In contrast I consider that a strength of the fighter class in that more than any other class you get to decide unhindered "what does being a fighter mean to this character?"

The point is that this is how 5e is designed.

Whether you like it or not, it is important to understand it.

The thing you like is the thing that the designers regret. The next time a rule doesn't make sense to you, realize that it might be because the designers have a different vision than you do.

[Sigreid]

The point is that this is how 5e is designed.

Whether you like it or not, it is important to understand it.

The thing you like is the thing that the designers regret. The next time a rule doesn't make sense to you, realize that it might be because the designers have a different vision than you do.

They can regret what they like but based on the phb write up I believe that was the intent at publish. In any event, I've not found myself confused by rules in 5e.

[Tanarii]

Mearls once said that his (their) big regret with character classes was not giving the fighter an identity.
There are a lot of things in which it's good Mearls didn't really get his way. He has a lot of really very weird ideas that would result in 5e not being as solid a game, if he followed his fancies. As you can see by the all-Mearls Unearthed Arcana's, and his many home game things he occasionally shared.

Very much like Gygax, who often spoke of regretting things that would have resulted in a worse game if taken out or changed.

[Ignimortis]

I think the example posted here is on point: http://www.criticalmiss.com/issue8/bitaboutd201.html

This is a very weird example, especially considering that an Olympic-level athlete would obviously have an ability to take 10 on his primary skills, at least. And the competition would be a series of skillchecks, not a single one.

[KorvinStarmast]

I started with the basic set playing with my brother in the 4th grade and rolled almost immediately into AD&D 1st edition. When we first started playing we didn't even had dice. We had chits. Little pieces of paper with numbers written on them in Dixie cups.
We had six sided dice, and four bowls with plastic poker chips that had 4, 8, 12, or 20 chips. You'd reach in (it was held over our heads) and pull out a number. It was a month or so before we got our group's first 20 sided die. Wow, that was fancy! I started in high school with people who I'd played board games and soccer with.

[Pelle]

It's not clear to me at all that the rules they wrote ("roll a d20, add your ability bonus, and compare to a fixed DC") are good rules. Arguably they are worse than no rules at all because they deter DMs from making up their own mechanisms, like "roll under your Intelligence" or "beat my d6" or "of course horses can't climb trees, they have no thumbs" even when those other mechanisms would be a better match for the actual probabilities.


They don't deter DMs to make up those kind of mechanisms, that's the whole rulings over rules thing. And do you really want a rule to say that horses can't climb trees? That's self evident for everyone, you only need to add a rule that horses can climb trees if that's the case. Adding rules for how normal day stuff works is unecessary bloat.



For example, picking a moderately-difficult lock is better modelled with multiple DC 10ish checks than a single DC 20 check: you want the world's best thief (Dex 20 Prodigy with +17 to Athletics) to have no trouble with it, but you don't want a room full of monkeys to be as good or better at picking it than the master thief is just due to high d20 rolls.

I think the example posted here is on point: http://www.criticalmiss.com/issue8/bitaboutd201.html

Monkeys aren't PCs, so you don't need to roll for them. This is using the 3.5 approach of using skills as a world physics simulator.

[Zalabim]

It's not clear to me at all that the rules they wrote ("roll a d20, add your ability bonus, and compare to a fixed DC") are good rules. Arguably they are worse than no rules at all because they deter DMs from making up their own mechanisms, like "roll under your Intelligence" or "beat my d6" or "of course horses can't climb trees, they have no thumbs" even when those other mechanisms would be a better match for the actual probabilities.

For example, picking a moderately-difficult lock is better modelled with multiple DC 10ish checks than a single DC 20 check: you want the world's best thief (Dex 20 Prodigy with +17 to Athletics) to have no trouble with it, but you don't want a room full of monkeys to be as good or better at picking it than the master thief is just due to high d20 rolls.

I think the example posted here is on point: http://www.criticalmiss.com/issue8/bitaboutd201.html
If one cared to put forth the effort, I'm pretty sure you can simulate any probability you want with a DC and a d20 within a few percent margin of error. Without even (dis)advantage, the largest difference between desired and actual probability is only going to be 2.5%. https://anydice.com/program/f1bd for the whole spectrum. The bigger matter is putting in the work to fill out what those probabilities mean and deciding where to put the borders. Disagreements arise because of how those probabilities change for lesser and greater bonuses (see below), but that's part of the system's core assumptions. That a lot of tasks are doable by characters who aren't perfect experts.

Even a hundred monkeys couldn't pick a lock if you don't let them, just like a horse can only climb a tree if you allow it. There may be situations where multiple low DC checks simulates it better than one higher DC check (like everyone sneaking by guards), but this isn't one of them. 100 monkeys picking a lock also takes the same amount of time as one monkey trying to pick a lock 100 times, and has the same chance of success. Typically none at all because picking locks is one situation that requires proficiency in order to attempt it, but in either case, locks don't typically allow space for multiple people to work on them at once. So the best lock picker will get the job done fastest, even though that isn't necessarily faster than a lesser lock picker every time.

Just to cover the possibility, because some people do this for everything without thinking about whether it makes sense, but if you're saying failure means you just cannot pick the lock, that is an example of doing it wrong. Lock picking is a perfect example of a task you can try again most of the time. I only bring this up because I know some people never allow retries for anything, but they're wrong. A lesser lock picker won't open a lock that a better lock picker couldn't, only one that they didn't have the opportunity to.

More to the actual mechanics, you can use multiple lower DC checks for a task, but it isn't challenging in the same way as a higher DC task is. It functions only within a narrow scale, and exaggerates differences within that allowed scale. It runs counter to 5E's normal "everyone can try it" message. Sometimes that's exactly what you want to do though, essentially saying "don't try this if you aren't this good at it." It's very binary, so it shares some similarity with using a passive score against a fixed DC. There's really a wealth of tools for task resolution already in the system.

[CharonsHelper]

I am personally less than happy about where they drew the line for 5e skills. But that is a matter of how well the game caters to my personal taste, not a difference of design philosophy.

Choosing where to draw the line(s) is the most fundamental and important decision that a game designer makes. I applaud the 5e designers for making a conscious choice about the "weight" of rules needed to play the games.

Yeah - I'm with you.

5e has too much "DM May I" for my taste (example DCs would have been sufficient rather than large 3e style tables with modifiers etc.). But that doesn't make it a bad decision.

And I agree with you that making a conscious decision of where exactly to draw the line is tricky and something to be applauded. I'm working on my own system, and I've tried to do similar things, but several times I've had to nip in the bud really cool ideas - because they'd make that section more complex than the other similar chunks of rules etc.

Consistency is king - and a major improvement for 5e over some earlier editions. (Not as much 3e/4e - but especially earlier ones which had various inconsistent sub-systems.)

[ciarannihill]

In contrast I consider that a strength of the fighter class in that more than any other class you get to decide unhindered "what does being a fighter mean to this character?"

I believe it was actually more specifically about the archetypes in the PHB, rather than the class itself. The main point being other than Eldritch Knight the reason you become a specific archetype of another is almost guaranteed to be purely mechanical, because Battlemaster and Champion don't have distinct themes/fantasies/identities from the Fighter class generally, so they both simply extend the Fighter class rather than expand upon it, so to speak.

Contrasting that with, for example, Paladin Oaths, Barbarian Paths or Rogue Archetypes and there's a fairly clear logical narrative motivation a character might have for a specific subclass beyond exclusively mechanics (and it's not a problem that mechanics play a role, for the record, it just shouldn't have to be the only real motivator in an ideal world). When a Paladin takes the Oath of Conquest it means something very different to when they take the Oath of Redemption about the character. There's plenty of flexibility within that for unique stories, but it allows a clear narrative evolution on the character compared to a Fighter becoming a Battlemaster or Champion -- how do these two characters fundamentally differ? iirc that was the point of them "regretting" how they handled the PHB Fighter.

[Rhedyn]

GURPS 4e has a pretty detailed list of general difficulty mods and explains what they are supposed to mean and they use Driving as an example.

You can assume a default DC of 15 in 5e, invert the GURPS difficulty mods and apply those on the fly to the DC. Just by stealing a page or two from GURPS, you get a more solid 5e skill system.

That doesn't address d20 swingyness, but it gives you something to work with beyond a very vague "difficulty" given no context. if you want to tackle the swingyness, just replace all ability checks with 3d6. But at this point, you are really close to just playing GURPS.

[Zalabim]

That doesn't address d20 swingyness
/foams at mouth.
It has a uniform distribution. It has an easily mapped and understood probability. It isn't swingy because of being a d20. It's swingy because it's dice. A 65% chance to get a result on a d20 is just as swingy as a 65% chance to get a result from 3d6.

[Knaight]

/foams at mouth.
It has a uniform distribution. It has an easily mapped and understood probability. It isn't swingy because of being a d20. It's swingy because it's dice. A 65% chance to get a result on a d20 is just as swingy as a 65% chance to get a result from 3d6.

Exactly. It has a uniform distribution, which means that any system of basic modifiers that acts one way near the middle of the spectrum will act the same way near the end, which creates all sorts of bizarre effects when modeling any sort of statistical tendency that ends up with a vastly more common bell curve distribution. Yes, you can distort the modifiers as needed to imitate other dice (though that 5% probability increment really starts standing out compared to the end of 3d6), but doing that is far more trouble than just modifying the dice, and so people don't.

Enter the swinginess, where desired edge-distribution behavior throws off the middle.

[Rhedyn]

/foams at mouth.
It has a uniform distribution. It has an easily mapped and understood probability. It isn't swingy because of being a d20. It's swingy because it's dice. A 65% chance to get a result on a d20 is just as swingy as a 65% chance to get a result from 3d6.
The d20 distribution is flat though while 3d6 is a bell curve.

The latter makes skills far more reliable.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The d20 distribution is flat though while 3d6 is a bell curve.

The latter makes skills far more reliable.

But less possible at the high end, if the mean is below the target. Reliability in skill checks makes no sense to me as a global goal--after all, we're only making checks because the uncertainty factor is large. If we wanted it to always (or usually always) give the same answer, why are we rolling at all?

And that's a question of philosophy, of the desired goals, not a question of good vs bad design.

[ciarannihill]

But less possible at the high end, if the mean is below the target. Reliability in skill checks makes no sense to me as a global goal--after all, we're only making checks because the uncertainty factor is large. If we wanted it to always (or usually always) give the same answer, why are we rolling at all?

And that's a question of philosophy, of the desired goals, not a question of good vs bad design.

I think there's a point to be made that proficiency seems to influence the outcome too slightly, and I agree with this sentiment, to a degree. Even with max proficiency bonus, max ability score and expertise (so +17), a "novice" with just a d20 roll and no bonus to the stat can outperform you, which seems a little silly. It's ridiculously rare, but it can happen. Skills tend to be more reliable than that.

Having said this, there's not a good way to change that without ripping up fundamental elements of 5E, and I think it makes things work overall well enough that I can overlook the slight "glitchiness" of some of the possible outcomes.

[Cybren]

GURPS 4e has a pretty detailed list of general difficulty mods and explains what they are supposed to mean and they use Driving as an example.

You can assume a default DC of 15 in 5e, invert the GURPS difficulty mods and apply those on the fly to the DC. Just by stealing a page or two from GURPS, you get a more solid 5e skill system.

That doesn't address d20 swingyness, but it gives you something to work with beyond a very vague "difficulty" given no context. if you want to tackle the swingyness, just replace all ability checks with 3d6. But at this point, you are really close to just playing GURPS.

I love GURPS. It's one of my favorite games. It's also not D&D, and a lot of its design goals don't at all line up with D&Ds. If you want to play GURPS, play GURPS.

[Sigreid]

I think there's a point to be made that proficiency seems to influence the outcome too slightly, and I agree with this sentiment, to a degree. Even with max proficiency bonus, max ability score and expertise (so +17), a "novice" with just a d20 roll and no bonus to the stat can outperform you, which seems a little silly. It's ridiculously rare, but it can happen. Skills tend to be more reliable than that.

Having said this, there's not a good way to change that without ripping up fundamental elements of 5E, and I think it makes things work overall well enough that I can overlook the slight "glitchiness" of some of the possible outcomes.

I think if the newcomer didn't occasionally outperform the expert in the real world we would not have the expression "beginner's luck".

[ciarannihill]

I think if the newcomer didn't occasionally outperform the expert in the real world we would not have the expression "beginner's luck".

Sure, that saying exists, but it's usually applied when luck is a major factor (as with games featuring a mixture of chance and strategy, like Poker), but I don't think a complete novice could ever outperform a trained surgeon in terms of an appendectomy, no matter how lucky they are and how off a day the surgeon is having. The former is fair enough, but the latter is what I'm more concerned with.

And like I say, the rare corner case glitchiness is the cost of the abstraction and it's rare enough an issue that I think it's a worthwhile trade-off. It does irk me a little, though.

[mephnick]

Also, the system assumes competence at adventuring. Adventurers with an Arcana score of 0 are still assumed to have encountered magic in their adventures and thus can sometimes recognize things even studied mages haven't seen. D&D is a mechanics first, fiction second system. It's up to the group to translate the dice rolls into the narrative. The Barbarian knows that spell because he saw it kill members of his family in a dispute over tribal lands (think Slumdog Millionaire). The Rogue failed the stealth check and the Fighter passed because some rubble behind the rogue crumbled at exactly the wrong time. Everyone is competent at everything, some are a little better . Sometimes professionals fail because of mistakes or outside influences. Sometimes less skilled people are successful because of luck or connected experience. This is why barring checks behind proficiency is such a bad band-aid, when the real problem is the inability of the group to understand why the game works the way it does.

[Sigreid]

Sure, that saying exists, but it's usually applied when luck is a major factor (as with games featuring a mixture of chance and strategy, like Poker), but I don't think a complete novice could ever outperform a trained surgeon in terms of an appendectomy, no matter how lucky they are and how off a day the surgeon is having. The former is fair enough, but the latter is what I'm more concerned with.

And like I say, the rare corner case glitchiness is the cost of the abstraction and it's rare enough an issue that I think it's a worthwhile trade-off. It does irk me a little, though.

Well, I'd put the appendectomy as a DC 25 personally. And I've heard that expression used many times when a noob pulls off a better job at a skilled task than the expert. Very rare, but it's pretty rare in game that the npc would roll a 20 the same time the PC with expertise rolls a 1.

[Snails]

Bell curves do not automatically solve anything. In addition to the points already make, they are problematic in a game like D&D that is expected to support a broad range of power levels.

Part of the problem is something like a 3d6 curve is effectively very coarse. A net +6 skill is very high. A net +10 is basically Epic -- you can often hit a DC 20, something that represents tasks most mortals consider physically impossible.

The other side of the swinginess coin is that certain talented low levelers may attempt extremely difficult tasks with a chance of getting lucky. Whether such is good or bad is a philosophical question, but most prefer such things in a heroic game. "My PC has an 18 in the relevant stat and the right kind of background. Doesn't he have even a small chance of success, even though he is just 2nd level?" Probability curves that promote reliability would nix such attempts.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sure, that saying exists, but it's usually applied when luck is a major factor (as with games featuring a mixture of chance and strategy, like Poker), but I don't think a complete novice could ever outperform a trained surgeon in terms of an appendectomy, no matter how lucky they are and how off a day the surgeon is having. The former is fair enough, but the latter is what I'm more concerned with.

And like I say, the rare corner case glitchiness is the cost of the abstraction and it's rare enough an issue that I think it's a worthwhile trade-off. It does irk me a little, though.

By construction (by design), 5e's ability checks are only for those cases where luck (or chance more generally) are a major factor. You wouldn't roll for a surgeon doing surgery, unless it was a knife's-edge case (pun intended). The trained surgeon would just succeed and the amateur would fail.

This is what I mean about philosophy being important--if you think that ability checks are a simulation tool for the world (and thus must cover every case), then things like this are a symptom of bad design. If you realize that they're only for fairly adjudicating the effects of chance and uncertainty, and only for a very restricted range of things (interactions that directly affect the PCs while they're on camera), the issue becomes a feature instead of a flaw. Because, unlike a curved system or a fixed-DC with off-RNG capabilities (like 3e), you can have beginner's luck. Or other unexpected events. Which add drama and excitement.

[Unoriginal]

The d20 means each result has 5% chances to come out.

It's a feature, not a bug. They built the system around it.

Trying to play 5e with 3d6 throws the entire maths out of wack, so it's best avoided.

[ciarannihill]

By construction (by design), 5e's ability checks are only for those cases where luck (or chance more generally) are a major factor. You wouldn't roll for a surgeon doing surgery, unless it was a knife's-edge case (pun intended). The trained surgeon would just succeed and the amateur would fail.

This is what I mean about philosophy being important--if you think that ability checks are a simulation tool for the world (and thus must cover every case), then things like this are a symptom of bad design. If you realize that they're only for fairly adjudicating the effects of chance and uncertainty, and only for a very restricted range of things (interactions that directly affect the PCs while they're on camera), the issue becomes a feature instead of a flaw. Because, unlike a curved system or a fixed-DC with off-RNG capabilities (like 3e), you can have beginner's luck. Or other unexpected events. Which add drama and excitement.

I don't disagree largely, except there's a reason I mentioned an appendectomy as the case in which it seems odd -- surgeries, even routine ones, can and do go wrong. There is a distinct and plausible failure state no matter how well trained the surgeon is, rolling for this with a DC of 20-25 makes perfect sense to me. The weird thing to me is the remote possibility of success from the "novice".

Like I've said, though, it's just a slight abstraction that irks me slightly. It does far, far more good than harm (and I don't think this qualifies as harm), but this does stick out to me as a distinctly strange quirk of the system.

Rolling 3d6 doesn't solve this "problem", for the record, it just makes all outcomes resulting from the average range of die results more likely to occur. The only way to "fix" this would be to weight proficiency more heavily for skill checks, which is also not practical because a lot of other features (including accuracy) are bound to proficiency as it exists. It makes no sense to tear all that stuff up for such a minor thing.

[Rhedyn]

But less possible at the high end, if the mean is below the target. Reliability in skill checks makes no sense to me as a global goal--after all, we're only making checks because the uncertainty factor is large. If we wanted it to always (or usually always) give the same answer, why are we rolling at all?

And that's a question of philosophy, of the desired goals, not a question of good vs bad design.

GURPS has the same rules about when to roll, but they just explain when that is.

Via free GURPS Lite: "the GM should only require a success roll if . . .

• A PC’s health, wealth, friends, reputation, or equipment are at risk. This includes chases, combat (even if the target is stationary and at point-blank range!), espionage, thievery, and similar “adventuring” activities.
• A PC stands to gain allies, information, new abilities, social standing, or wealth.

The GM should not require rolls for . . .
• Utterly trivial tasks, such as crossing the street, driving into town, feeding the dog, finding the corner store, or turning on the computer.
• Daily work at a mundane, non-adventuring job."

The lighter ways to run GURPS provide many of the rules that are the common complaints about the 5e skill system without adding much complexity at all and you could totally just use those for 5e.

I personally find "When to roll" a good guideline for 5e or Savage Worlds or really any system that assumes the GM knows "when to roll".

[CharonsHelper]

Bell curves do not automatically solve anything. In addition to the points already make, they are problematic in a game like D&D that is expected to support a broad range of power levels.

Part of the problem is something like a 3d6 curve is effectively very coarse. A net +6 skill is very high. A net +10 is basically Epic -- you can often hit a DC 20, something that represents tasks most mortals consider physically impossible.

The other side of the swinginess coin is that certain talented low levelers may attempt extremely difficult tasks with a chance of getting lucky. Whether such is good or bad is a philosophical question, but most prefer such things in a heroic game. "My PC has an 18 in the relevant stat and the right kind of background. Doesn't he have even a small chance of success, even though he is just 2nd level?" Probability curves that promote reliability would nix such attempts.

For "zero to hero" systems like D&D, I definitely prefer flat distribution, but bell curves can work fine in systems where power levels don't grow as much.

They work well for more tactical play, as you can make decisions to try to get (in the case of 3d6) it so that you succeed on an 8+, but after that you start getting diminishing returns etc.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't disagree largely, except there's a reason I mentioned an appendectomy as the case in which it seems odd -- surgeries, even routine ones, can and do go wrong. There is a distinct and plausible failure state no matter how well trained the surgeon is, rolling for this with a DC of 20-25 makes perfect sense to me. The weird thing to me is the remote possibility of success from the "novice".

Like I've said, though, it's just a slight abstraction that irks me slightly. It does far, far more good than harm (and I don't think this qualifies as harm), but this does stick out to me as a distinctly strange quirk of the system.

Rolling 3d6 doesn't solve this "problem", for the record, it just makes all outcomes resulting from the average range of die results more likely to occur. The only way to "fix" this would be to weight proficiency more heavily for skill checks, which is also not practical because a lot of other features (including accuracy) are bound to proficiency as it exists. It makes no sense to tear all that stuff up for such a minor thing.

Based on a quick google, appendectomies are >99% successful with no significant complications. So they're not luck-dominated. Thus, they're narratively resolved, not mechanically resolved.

I repeat myself--ability checks don't simulate anything. They are nothing more than a slightly weighted coin-flip, a way to include skill at the margins in places where luck is important. That's why the default DC (10) is about a 50/50 shot.

And things like that (where you have strong specialization) are already outside the realms of adventurers anyway. 5e does not claim to model "true" experts in a particular field--it models adventurers, who may be much more expert at a given adventuring task than another adventurer or a common person. True experts have class features that grant them reliable success (like rogues).

An expert surgeon (if you insist on modeling it mechanically) would have a feature like "Reliable Surgery. The surgeon succeeds on all checks made to perform surgery unless the DC is greater than 20, and then treats all rolls of a 10 or lower on the d20 as a 10." But he'd be an NPC, not a PC (without some kind of DM-granted boon).

[Unoriginal]

I don't disagree largely, except there's a reason I mentioned an appendectomy as the case in which it seems odd -- surgeries, even routine ones, can and do go wrong. There is a distinct and plausible failure state no matter how well trained the surgeon is, rolling for this with a DC of 20-25 makes perfect sense to me. The weird thing to me is the remote possibility of success from the "novice".

If you define the novice as "someone who has a +2 proficiency level", then it's entirely possible for a novice who has studied the question to succeed that kind of operation.

If you define the novice as "someone who has not the proficiency", it's mean that they would have 20 in the relevant stat to even have a chance with DC 25. It would be a "superhero succeeds at doing what the experts do despite no training" moment.

Or the DM can just rules out that no, you don't get to try without the proper training unless you just want to butcher the person's guts.

Also, like you said, surgeries can go wrong even with experts, while novice surgeons often *do* succeed operations at the beginning of their career (otherwise their careers will probably be short).

But once again, it's not a simulation. I personally wouldn't make a trained character, PC or not, roll for a routine operation if they had the time and the proper facilities. Because failure needs to be interesting.

I see no interest in a character in a D&D campaign dying from poop poisoning because of a failed appendectomy.

[Snails]

I don't disagree largely, except there's a reason I mentioned an appendectomy as the case in which it seems odd -- surgeries, even routine ones, can and do go wrong. There is a distinct and plausible failure state no matter how well trained the surgeon is, rolling for this with a DC of 20-25 makes perfect sense to me. The weird thing to me is the remote possibility of success from the "novice".

I would say this is not a good example. Routine surgeries do not fail because the surgeon was feeling particularly stupid or unlucky on that day. They fail because they were not routine. In other words, what standard pre-op assessment procedures indicated was going to be a DC 25 task turned out to be DC 30 or DC 35, and that was noticed until late enough in the game to be a real problem to the patient.

So it is not that the experienced surgeon failed where a novice might have succeeded with luck. The experienced surgeon failed and the novice would have failed far far worse.

It is a very convenient thing to re-use many of the same basic mechanics to resolve static tasks and opposed tasks. But surgeons do not participate in head-to-head surgery competitions -- they worry about helping their patients while not killing them: success or failure.

There are subtle but very important differences between a static check and an opposed check. Arguable improvements to one kind of check could easily create problems for the other, if we assume that the mechanics absolutely must work in lock step.

[Ignimortis]

Also, the system assumes competence at adventuring. Adventurers with an Arcana score of 0 are still assumed to have encountered magic in their adventures and thus can sometimes recognize things even studied mages haven't seen. D&D is a mechanics first, fiction second system. It's up to the group to translate the dice rolls into the narrative. The Barbarian knows that spell because he saw it kill members of his family in a dispute over tribal lands (think Slumdog Millionaire). The Rogue failed the stealth check and the Fighter passed because some rubble behind the rogue crumbled at exactly the wrong time. Everyone is competent at everything, some are a little better . Sometimes professionals fail because of mistakes or outside influences. Sometimes less skilled people are successful because of luck or connected experience. This is why barring checks behind proficiency is such a bad band-aid, when the real problem is the inability of the group to understand why the game works the way it does.

And so you're denied the ability to be really good or really bad. Your character is always "adequate", with slight variations. This is only wrong for Rogues with Reliable Talent (which is a terrible design choice, by the way). I don't see how that's a good thing, unless you consider having strict power curves that cap out at "somewhat more likely to succeed than the next guy" to be a good thing.

[ciarannihill]

If you define the novice as "someone who has a +2 proficiency level", then it's entirely possible for a novice who has studied the question to succeed that kind of operation.

If you define the novice as "someone who has not the proficiency", it's mean that they would have 20 in the relevant stat to even have a chance with DC 25. It would be a "superhero succeeds at doing what the experts do despite no training" moment.

Or the DM can just rules out that no, you don't get to try without the proper training unless you just want to butcher the person's guts.

Also, like you said, surgeries can go wrong even with experts, while novice surgeons often *do* succeed operations at the beginning of their career (otherwise their careers will probably be short).

But once again, it's not a simulation. I personally wouldn't make a trained character, PC or not, roll for a routine operation if they had the time and the proper facilities. Because failure needs to be interesting.

I see no interest in a character in a D&D campaign dying from poop poisoning because of a failed appendectomy.

When I said novice I meant someone "totally unfamiliar with the procedure(s) necessary to perform the task, and none of the associated training". For which novice is admittedly not the correct word.

I was just trying to give an example of a task with a potential failure state even for an expert due to unforeseen circumstances, but at which someone woefully unprepared couldn't just luck their way through. Surgery felt like a good example of this, but I didn't mean it as something I would have a PC do in my game.

I understand that skill checks aren't simulations, as I've mentioned in all of the posts I've made about this I understand that they are meant as an abstraction and therefore odd quirks result where it differs to reality in ways that, to a certain degree, bother me personally. I'm not trying to say they should bother anyone else, that I have a solution or that one is required.

@PhoenixPhyre:

I had somewhat forgotten about the "Reliable Talent" perk of being a Rogue...I kind of wish that was something other classes could acquire realistically, just because at high levels of play it feels like your adventurers are just that good at the things they excel at, but I digress.

This topic has become derailed by my silly little example too much as it is, especially since I agree with like 99% of what both of you are saying, and the other 1% is mostly this little irked feeling towards this aspect of the game I don't feel like anyone else needs to acknowledge or come on board to. So yeah.

[MaxWilson]

This is a very weird example, especially considering that an Olympic-level athlete would obviously have an ability to take 10 on his primary skills, at least. And the competition would be a series of skillchecks, not a single one.

You're not wrong, and in fact that's pretty much the solution to the d20 problem: use multiple skillchecks whenever you want a bell curve. (This is why combat don't have the same problem--combat outcomes are the product of many, many die rolls.)

In fact I mentioned this in the very post you quoted:


It's not clear to me at all that the rules they wrote ("roll a d20, add your ability bonus, and compare to a fixed DC") are good rules. Arguably they are worse than no rules at all because they deter DMs from making up their own mechanisms, like "roll under your Intelligence" or "beat my d6" or "of course horses can't climb trees, they have no thumbs" even when those other mechanisms would be a better match for the actual probabilities.

For example, picking a moderately-difficult lock is better modelled with multiple DC 10ish checks than a single DC 20 check: you want the world's best thief (Dex 20 Prodigy with +17 to Athletics) to have no trouble with it, but you don't want a room full of monkeys to be as good or better at picking it than the master thief is just due to high d20 rolls.

I think the example posted here is on point: http://www.criticalmiss.com/issue8/bitaboutd201.html

I think this would happen more often if 5E didn't lead DMs to believe that the Holy Trinity of "attack roll, ability check, or saving throw" is the right way to resolve any uncertainty, ever. I'll probably get some posters pushing back in this very thread on the idea that you should ever ask for multiple ability checks to model a single task like picking a specific lock. Nevertheless both you and I know that sometimes it's the right way to model a challenge.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And so you're denied the ability to be really good or really bad. Your character is always "adequate", with slight variations. This is only wrong for Rogues with Reliable Talent (which is a terrible design choice, by the way). I don't see how that's a good thing, unless you consider having strict power curves that cap out at "somewhat more likely to succeed than the next guy" to be a good thing.

You're ignoring the whole "checks are only for things where uncertainty is a major factor" philosophy. So on things where uncertainty is important, you can't be reliable. That's rather part of the definition of "uncertainty is a major factor." Someone with a high modifier can attempt things that a novice can't even hope to attempt, and will have a much larger leeway to auto-succeed where a lesser talent may have to roll.

Seriously, if you refuse to accept that the philosophy of 5e is different than that of 3e, you'll see things as flaws that are really features. Because you're viewing it through the wrong lens. That is, your evidence doesn't mean what you think it means.

[MaxWilson]

The other side of the swinginess coin is that certain talented low levelers may attempt extremely difficult tasks with a chance of getting lucky. Whether such is good or bad is a philosophical question, but most prefer such things in a heroic game. "My PC has an 18 in the relevant stat and the right kind of background. Doesn't he have even a small chance of success, even though he is just 2nd level?" Probability curves that promote reliability would nix such attempts.

No, they would just quantify how small his chance of success is.

A first-level PC can win a cage match single combat with a CR 2 ogre (I've seen a Barbarian PC almost pull it off) but it's pretty unlikely, because of bell curves. There's nothing wrong with designing a skill system that's capable of expressing similar nuance. GURPS has a pretty decent one although I think it's too generous about crit fails and crit success.


GURPS has the same rules about when to roll, but they just explain when that is.

Via free GURPS Lite: "the GM should only require a success roll if . . .

• A PC’s health, wealth, friends, reputation, or equipment are at risk. This includes chases, combat (even if the target is stationary and at point-blank range!), espionage, thievery, and similar “adventuring” activities.
• A PC stands to gain allies, information, new abilities, social standing, or wealth.

The GM should not require rolls for . . .
• Utterly trivial tasks, such as crossing the street, driving into town, feeding the dog, finding the corner store, or turning on the computer.
• Daily work at a mundane, non-adventuring job."

The lighter ways to run GURPS provide many of the rules that are the common complaints about the 5e skill system without adding much complexity at all and you could totally just use those for 5e.

I personally find "When to roll" a good guideline for 5e or Savage Worlds or really any system that assumes the GM knows "when to roll".

Another good way to express it is "don't waste table time rolling for outcomes that nobody at the table cares about."

[Rhedyn]

Another good way to express it is "don't waste table time rolling for outcomes that nobody at the table cares about."
That is not an obvious distinction to me and can vary greatly from person to person.

[UrielAwakened]

I much prefer what he would have done differently in 4e, which is not dissimilar to my own conclusions:

https://i.imgur.com/YASOyHv.png

[ad_hoc]

I don't disagree largely, except there's a reason I mentioned an appendectomy as the case in which it seems odd -- surgeries, even routine ones, can and do go wrong. There is a distinct and plausible failure state no matter how well trained the surgeon is, rolling for this with a DC of 20-25 makes perfect sense to me. The weird thing to me is the remote possibility of success from the "novice".

Like I've said, though, it's just a slight abstraction that irks me slightly. It does far, far more good than harm (and I don't think this qualifies as harm), but this does stick out to me as a distinctly strange quirk of the system.

Rolling 3d6 doesn't solve this "problem", for the record, it just makes all outcomes resulting from the average range of die results more likely to occur. The only way to "fix" this would be to weight proficiency more heavily for skill checks, which is also not practical because a lot of other features (including accuracy) are bound to proficiency as it exists. It makes no sense to tear all that stuff up for such a minor thing.

If this was surgery the RPG it would need to have nuanced rules for resolving surgeries.

The 5e ability check system is in service of the D&D game. PCs doing their thing.

That's it. It isn't a world simulation tool.

If this was townsfolk the RPG we would need a nuanced system for adjudicating merchant sales, craftsmanship, etc. But it's not. So it doesn't matter.

I think many people who don't like the ability check system often don't adjudicate automatic success as much as they should.

[ciarannihill]

If this was surgery the RPG it would need to have nuanced rules for resolving surgeries.

The 5e ability check system is in service of the D&D game. PCs doing their thing.

That's it. It isn't a world simulation tool.

If this was townsfolk the RPG we would need a nuanced system for adjudicating merchant sales, craftsmanship, etc. But it's not. So it doesn't matter.

I think many people who don't like the ability check system often don't adjudicate automatic success as much as they should.

In the bit you quoted I mentioned and acknowledge the skill check system as an abstraction rather than a simulation, and note that while this is noticeable to me and slightly irks my sensibilities, I actually quite like the 5E skill system. I find it elegant and easy to understand and implement when compared to the robust to the point of bloat systems from other RPGs I've played.

A rare corner case where the abstraction arguably breaks down in a very minor way that bothers me slightly doesn't mean I hate or don't understand the system as a whole, or acknowledge how frivolous my having an issue with it is...

[MaxWilson]

If this was surgery the RPG it would need to have nuanced rules for resolving surgeries.

The 5e ability check system is in service of the D&D game. PCs doing their thing.

That's it. It isn't a world simulation tool.

If this was townsfolk the RPG we would need a nuanced system for adjudicating merchant sales, craftsmanship, etc. But it's not. So it doesn't matter.

I think many people who don't like the ability check system often don't adjudicate automatic success as much as they should.

And that is exactly why people say 5E's out-of-combat rules are not an improvement over no rules at all: it spends a lot of time giving fiddly little rules about what players get to do when dice are rolled (add proficiency, half profiency, double proficiency; roll with advantage; reroll failures; treat rolls of 8 or less as 8), and almost no time at all prior to the release of Xanathar's rules on tools talking about when those rolls will be called for or what the consequences will be. The answer is always, "The DM will make it up on the spot."

You might as well be freeform roleplaying using something like FATE aspects. "Describe your character with three adjectives." The DM uses those adjectives to decide what you can do and when random dice are called for. "At 8th level, a Rogue gets to choose two additional adjectives." Simpler, better, and more succinct than 5E's approach.

If numbers aren't the point, don't make manipulating numbers the center of your system.

[Rhedyn]

If this was surgery the RPG it would need to have nuanced rules for resolving surgeries.

The 5e ability check system is in service of the D&D game. PCs doing their thing.

That's it. It isn't a world simulation tool.

If this was townsfolk the RPG we would need a nuanced system for adjudicating merchant sales, craftsmanship, etc. But it's not. So it doesn't matter...
My issue is that I have seen other RPGs accomplish more with less complexity than 5e, so I really cannot appreciate it's "focus" in this regard.


I think many people who don't like the ability check system often don't adjudicate automatic success as much as they should.That's a really subjective cop-out and it is intentionally poorly defined in 5e.

The skill system, like all of 5e, was constructed to work best when the DM is running it like how they remember their favorite edition of D&D working. The 3e DMs are of course going to have more problems with it because you did roll for everything or at least took 10 and did things via mechanics rather than the DM just making up the skill rules.

[Snails]

I think this would happen more often if 5E didn't lead DMs to believe that the Holy Trinity of "attack roll, ability check, or saving throw" is the right way to resolve any uncertainty, ever. I'll probably get some posters pushing back in this very thread on the idea that you should ever ask for multiple ability checks to model a single task like picking a specific lock. Nevertheless both you and I know that sometimes it's the right way to model a challenge.

Yes. But.

Here be dragons.

Multiple checks is a great way to go if you actually design and test the challenge beforehand. The potential pitfall is it is very easy to get it horribly wrong if the DM forgets the testing part. Testing means: put together some example PCs and play through it, to get some statistics on the pass/fail rate (or do the math).

Multiple checks can quickly grind down the net chance of success to near nothing, no matter how skilled the PC attempting the complex task happens to be. Multiple checks tend to quantitatively approach "exponent decay" towards zero because of math reasons.

4e tried to put together a framework for Skill Challenges, but the end result was a system where non-Easy challenges could be near impossible.

I would also note that in the ancient days of 1e, multiple checks was a known trap for well-intentioned DMs to severely punish players for being non-boring.

For example:
DM: "Baron Pineapple has a headstart. He is down the stairs and halfway across the atrium. Trying to escape, obviously."
Player 1: "Oh. The atrium has the chandelier?"
Player 2: "Don't do it...I am warning you..."
DM: "Yes."
Player 1: "I will jump to the chandelier, swing over and try to land on him! He must be just on the other side of the chandelier, and I think I am lined to well for it."
DM: "Um. Okay. You need a...Dex check to getting on the rail and balance. A Str check to jump to the chandelier. A Str check to hold on. Then you can swing and I will give you a +2 to hit for the surprising tactic. The you must hit to land on him. If you hit, you can make a Dex or Str check to take less damage."
Player 1: "The stuff of heroes. I do it!"
DM: <roll roll roll roll> "You miss the Baron, fall down, and take 9 HP damage."
Player 2: "You were over 90% likely to fail and end up on your ass. Always be boring. Remember that!"
Player 1: "But this is a heroic game and wasn't that a cool maneuver?"
DM: "Yes. You were unlucky, I guess."
Player 2: "Nope. Always be boring. He means well <points to DM>, but it does not work."

tl;dr -- Most DMs are better off guessing the DC for one skill check, rather than figuring out how to do a multiple check challenge on the fly.

[Man_Over_Game]

tl;dr -- Most DMs are better off guessing the DC for one skill check, rather than figuring out how to do a multiple check challenge on the fly.

One thing I like to do is allow players to gather up the stats for all of the relevant skills/abilities that apply to this challenge, minus the one main source. In this case, the main source being Acrobatics (IMO). For every multiple of +5 on that sum, they get an extra d20 to roll.

So, for example, they have Acrobatics, Athletics, and the Mobile feat (which I'd say gives them +1 for the 10 feet advantage against the 30 speed commoner). If their athletics was +4 or higher, the "support" sum would be over +5 and they get to roll their Acrobatics check with advantage. If they had another skill that was applicable for some reason, and got to +10, then they'd get to roll 3d20 and pick one.

I generally have my players pick the things that are applicable so I don't have to do the work. If they have a Jump spell, Longstrider, Dash as a bonus action, why shouldn't those be applicable to a skill check? Of course, I don't want to be the one who does the work, so they have more incentive to track what special abilities they have while feeling like they're being used appropriately.

[Willie the Duck]

Yes. But.

Here be dragons.

Multiple checks is a great way to go if you actually design and test the challenge beforehand. The potential pitfall is it is very easy to get it horribly wrong if the DM forgets the testing part. Testing means: put together some example PCs and play through it, to get some statistics on the pass/fail rate (or do the math).

Multiple checks can quickly grind down the net chance of success to near nothing, no matter how skilled the PC attempting the complex task happens to be. Multiple checks tend to quantitatively approach "exponent decay" towards zero because of math reasons.
<example>


I'm drafting a particularly long post about how GURPS has traditionally let me and my group down, but I wanted to jump in here and point out that your example is a situation where failing any of the specified rolls leads to a result directly worse than being boring or not trying at all. That's not a direct comparison to combat, where any one roll (usually) doesn't doom the endeavor, and certain failing any of the rolls won't doom it.

That of course doesn't change that you are right that this multi-check system needs a lot more thought gone into it and testing than a DM usually can give it (especially if they have to set it up on the spot based on the emergent situation).

[ciarannihill]

I'm drafting a particularly long post about how GURPS has traditionally let me and my group down, but I wanted to jump in here and point out that your example is a situation where failing any of the specified rolls leads to a result directly worse than being boring or not trying at all. That's not a direct comparison to combat, where any one roll (usually) doesn't doom the endeavor, and certain failing any of the rolls won't doom it.

That of course doesn't change that you are right that this multi-check system needs a lot more thought gone into it and testing than a DM usually can give it (especially if they have to set it up on the spot based on the emergent situation).

I had a Bard player make a "skill challenge" for performing an intricate piece (his idea) where 3 failures on checks resulted in a failure for the endeavor, but each failure presented a new challenge to overcome -- if he did he would be able to strike a failure off his record once.

He only failed once, on the final check -- I had this break a string on his lute, but had him roll a dexterity check to deftly change over to playing on octaves on the other 3 strings, which he succeeded. Super memorable event in that game, but was only worthwhile because he was committed to the moment. I'd tweak that method slightly, but overall I liked it, it allowed essentially a "redemption" roll for a failure, and allowed for multiple failures before total failure.

[MaxWilson]

Yes. But.

Here be dragons.

Multiple checks is a great way to go if you actually design and test the challenge beforehand. The potential pitfall is it is very easy to get it horribly wrong if the DM forgets the testing part. Testing means: put together some example PCs and play through it, to get some statistics on the pass/fail rate (or do the math).

...*snip*

tl;dr -- Most DMs are better off guessing the DC for one skill check, rather than figuring out how to do a multiple check challenge on the fly.

I agree with your example and the point you're trying to make here: Here There Be Dragons.

That said, some DMs are pretty good at probability math (I'm one of them) and don't have generating nice probability curves on the fly. And the DMs who don't... well, they're the ones who would benefit most from rule support in the form of tables and examples.

And that rule support doesn't have to come from WotC. It could come from a forum thread, come to think of it. Various people have benefitted to varying degrees from people posting their spreadsheets breaking down the math on -5/+10 Sharpshooter/GWM options; I guess it might not be a bad idea to do something similar for skill challenges. "Here are some ways to structure a skill challenge, and a table of how likely a +N bonus is to succeed on each challenge." Maybe I should do that.

[Ignimortis]

You're ignoring the whole "checks are only for things where uncertainty is a major factor" philosophy. So on things where uncertainty is important, you can't be reliable. That's rather part of the definition of "uncertainty is a major factor." Someone with a high modifier can attempt things that a novice can't even hope to attempt, and will have a much larger leeway to auto-succeed where a lesser talent may have to roll.

Seriously, if you refuse to accept that the philosophy of 5e is different than that of 3e, you'll see things as flaws that are really features. Because you're viewing it through the wrong lens. That is, your evidence doesn't mean what you think it means.

What you're basically suggesting is forgoing rolls based on how skilled you perceive the character to be, is that right? I'm not sure I can get behind this, and not because DMs are jerks, but because DMs have wildly different expectations between them, and perhaps even between the DM and the player.

If I get this right, then the logical solution would be to find a DM who thinks like you do, because otherwise there are gonna be major discrepancies in expectations and evaluations of character ability. And, in turn, if I did that, I wouldn't have played a single game of 5e as of now, because, well, DMs who think like me usually prefer a more objective measuring stick than "I think your character is this good/good enough to not to have to roll here".

While Mearls is right about hard-coded rules not protecting players from jerk DMs, they do a much better job at creating shared expectations between campaigns and DMs.

[Rhedyn]

While Mearls is right about hard-coded rules not protecting players from jerk DMs, they do a much better job at creating shared expectations between campaigns and DMs.

5e advocates tend to call DMs bad whenever they make up a bad rule that they didn't need to make up in other editions or games.

It's really annoying to assume a DM is a bad DM when they are not good rules developer.

"A bad DM is bad in any game" - true, but completely ignores how much rules development 5e asks of DMs that has nothing to do with traditional DMing skill, especially since 5e establishes frameworks that are harder to deal with than just having no rules (like the skill system).

[PhoenixPhyre]

What you're basically suggesting is forgoing rolls based on how skilled you perceive the character to be, is that right? I'm not sure I can get behind this, and not because DMs are jerks, but because DMs have wildly different expectations between them, and perhaps even between the DM and the player.

If I get this right, then the logical solution would be to find a DM who thinks like you do, because otherwise there are gonna be major discrepancies in expectations and evaluations of character ability. And, in turn, if I did that, I wouldn't have played a single game of 5e as of now, because, well, DMs who think like me usually prefer a more objective measuring stick than "I think your character is this good/good enough to not to have to roll here".

While Mearls is right about hard-coded rules not protecting players from jerk DMs, they do a much better job at creating shared expectations between campaigns and DMs.

Objectivity is an illusion here. Because campaigns vary. Worlds vary. DMs vary. Why should my arcane sigils be exactly the same as your arcane sigils (to within the 10% of a +-2 circumstance modifier)? And there's large variation within a single campaign and universe. People hiding behind "the book says" numbers cause extreme dissonance between the fiction and the mechanics. To say otherwise is to impose an artificial regularity on the set of possible universes, something I find highly distasteful (just like you don't like having a limit on player options).

The job of a good DM has always been to gate-keep the checks. Otherwise you have to roll to get out of bed, put on your shoes, etc. Which is absurd. Checks are only for things where there is meaningful uncertainty--where luck/chance is a significant factor and failure is meaningful and interesting. Anything else should be an automatic success (most of the time) or an automatic failure (for things that are basically impossible, like a real amateur attempting a complex surgery or a normal person trying to jump to the moon).

[Rhedyn]

Objectivity is an illusion here. Because campaigns vary. Worlds vary. DMs vary. Why should my arcane sigils be exactly the same as your arcane sigils (to within the 10% of a +-2 circumstance modifier)? And there's large variation within a single campaign and universe. People hiding behind "the book says" numbers cause extreme dissonance between the fiction and the mechanics. To say otherwise is to impose an artificial regularity on the set of possible universes, something I find highly distasteful (just like you don't like having a limit on player options).

The job of a good DM has always been to gate-keep the checks. Otherwise you have to roll to get out of bed, put on your shoes, etc. Which is absurd. Checks are only for things where there is meaningful uncertainty--where luck/chance is a significant factor and failure is meaningful and interesting. Anything else should be an automatic success (most of the time) or an automatic failure (for things that are basically impossible, like a real amateur attempting a complex surgery or a normal person trying to jump to the moon).
You are really bending over backwards to justify 5e's skill system.

It's an assumption that "whether or not you roll" has anything to do with individual abilities and is not decided from an absolute difficulty perspective.

You are creating a skill system in your head, that is very complicated, and applying it to 5e. Which is great for your game and how I believe 5e is meant to be played. But you are erroneously assuming your skill system is 5e's default skill system. Mainly because 5e does not have a default skill system, the details the DM has to figure out drastically change how it works from table to table.

[Man_Over_Game]

5e advocates tend to call DMs bad whenever they make up a bad rule that they didn't need to make up in other editions or games.

It's really annoying to assume a DM is a bad DM when they are not good rules developer.

"A bad DM is bad in any game" - true, but completely ignores how much rules development 5e asks of DMs that has nothing to do with traditional DMing skill, especially since 5e establishes frameworks that are harder to deal with than just having no rules (like the skill system).

I've always been under the impression that DMs are encouraged to modify the system. This is shown in the variable background rules, the information in the DMG to make up your own classes (using Oathbreaker and Death Clerics as examples).

I like to think about it as a sandbox, with a hard set of starter rules to begin play with. I like to think that's why classes are so rigid in this edition, without many forms of customization beyond level 1. Once you get used to how classes are supposed to play (by playing around with very specific, rigid examples), you know what it's supposed to feel like and what it's missing.

But you're right now. The open-endness of a lot of the rules (does Burning Hands actually require touching thumbs?) does require a new skillset, where prior editions were a lot more black/white.

[Ignimortis]

Objectivity is an illusion here. Because campaigns vary. Worlds vary. DMs vary. Why should my arcane sigils be exactly the same as your arcane sigils (to within the 10% of a +-2 circumstance modifier)? And there's large variation within a single campaign and universe. People hiding behind "the book says" numbers cause extreme dissonance between the fiction and the mechanics. To say otherwise is to impose an artificial regularity on the set of possible universes, something I find highly distasteful (just like you don't like having a limit on player options).

The job of a good DM has always been to gate-keep the checks. Otherwise you have to roll to get out of bed, put on your shoes, etc. Which is absurd. Checks are only for things where there is meaningful uncertainty--where luck/chance is a significant factor and failure is meaningful and interesting. Anything else should be an automatic success (most of the time) or an automatic failure (for things that are basically impossible, like a real amateur attempting a complex surgery or a normal person trying to jump to the moon).

But all of these universes and worlds operate on the basis of d20 as the major resolution mechanic, and, with skills, on the given DC guidelines of 10 to 30. It feels less intuitive to make less checks if the PC is considered good at X than it is to make checks of X that are highly likely to succeed but still can fail. Furthermore, most characters without Expertise are locked into a very narrow band of proficiency of -1 to +11, which means that any world based on 5e objectively has about 12 (maybe 16 if you really get into negative stats) grades of common proficiency available to players in something plus 6 more for specially gifted/trained people with Expertise. That's less grades than Shadowrun, for instance, a very bounded world with a limited scope of possible stories.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But all of these universes and worlds operate on the basis of d20 as the major resolution mechanic, and, with skills, on the given DC guidelines of 10 to 30. It feels less intuitive to make less checks if the PC is considered good at X than it is to make checks of X that are highly likely to succeed but still can fail. Furthermore, most characters without Expertise are locked into a very narrow band of proficiency of -1 to +11, which means that any world based on 5e objectively has about 12 (maybe 16 if you really get into negative stats) grades of common proficiency available to players in something plus 6 more for specially gifted/trained people with Expertise. That's less grades than Shadowrun, for instance, a very bounded world with a limited scope of possible stories.

No, they don't. The universes don't use that mechanic at all. Repeat after me--5e's mechanical system is not a simulation of the in-universe reality at all. Not even 0%. It's designed as a game mechanic to fairly, quickly, and interestingly adjudicate player actions in cases where uncertainty is a major factor. NPCs don't use those checks at all unless the PCs are on camera. The world itself does not use those. So my world and your world might be completely different but still use the same mechanics, because it's the same game. Not because the universes are the same. You might be rolling for completely different tasks with the same DC, or the same task with wildly different DCs. Or no DC at all. Depending on the universe. Or depending on the situation within one universe

For example, deciphering a set of runes might be a DC NO check in one area (because they've never seen that style of magic before) and might be trivial in another area (because those runes are so common everyone uses them). And that's just in one setting.

You only roll for a very small selection of actions that are attempted. You're stuck in the "every task has a defined DC and rolls are only skipped if they can't be failed" mentality that's totally alien to 5e. 5e's is "tasks only have DCs at all if they have a meaningful chance of failure and failure would be interesting." And then the DC depends on the totality of the circumstances, not on the task in isolation. Doing open-heart surgery in a properly set-up operating theater with proper equipment and training might be a low DC, doing it without those on a rocking boat in a thunderstorm may be DC No. You can't take each part of the task and assign it an immutable, objective DC. You can only look at the whole scene and assign a difficulty for getting what you want out of it.

[Unoriginal]

No, they don't. The universes don't use that mechanic at all. Repeat after me--5e's mechanical system is not a simulation of the in-universe reality at all. Not even 0%. It's designed as a game mechanic to fairly, quickly, and interestingly adjudicate player actions in cases where uncertainty is a major factor. NPCs don't use those checks at all unless the PCs are on camera. The world itself does not use those. So my world and your world might be completely different but still use the same mechanics, because it's the same game. Not because the universes are the same. You might be rolling for completely different tasks with the same DC, or the same task with wildly different DCs. Or no DC at all. Depending on the universe. Or depending on the situation within one universe

For example, deciphering a set of runes might be a DC NO check in one area (because they've never seen that style of magic before) and might be trivial in another area (because those runes are so common everyone uses them). And that's just in one setting.

You only roll for a very small selection of actions that are attempted. You're stuck in the "every task has a defined DC and rolls are only skipped if they can't be failed" mentality that's totally alien to 5e. 5e's is "tasks only have DCs at all if they have a meaningful chance of failure and failure would be interesting." And then the DC depends on the totality of the circumstances, not on the task in isolation. Doing open-heart surgery in a properly set-up operating theater with proper equipment and training might be a low DC, doing it without those on a rocking boat in a thunderstorm may be DC No. You can't take each part of the task and assign it an immutable, objective DC. You can only look at the whole scene and assign a difficulty for getting what you want out of it.

Amen.

Don't get why people don't get it.

[Rhedyn]

If 5e's mechanics are not simulationist or an abstraction of how the world works at all, then why are skill rules not fun?

They aren't an interesting mechanic. It's like playing shoots and ladders, I should just avoid ever using skills and instead focus on more fun mechanics like spells (which are also super poorly written).

[mephnick]

If 5e's mechanics are not simulationist or an abstraction of how the world works at all, then why are skill rules not fun?

Can you name a system that has "fun" skill rules? ("Fun" being a meaningless word because it's so subjective and impossible to predict)

Skill systems are only there to decide uncertain outcomes. It's a tool of game design to keep the game flowing. The "fun" part is deciding what to do and then dealing with the escalation of the situation. No resolution system in any game is inherently fun without everything else attached to it.

[Rhedyn]

Can you name a system that has "fun" skill rules? ("Fun" being a meaningless word because it's so subjective and impossible to predict)

Skill systems are only there to decide uncertain outcomes. It's a tool of game design to keep the game flowing. The "fun" part is deciding what to do and then dealing with the escalation of the situation. No resolution system in any game is inherently fun without everything else attached to it.
Well yeah.

GNS theory helps look at a mechanic from different angles. Is the mechanic good for the game aspect? How does it support narratives? How much are you simulating to create immersion?

GURPS 4e has a really solid skill system. It plays well, offers many narrative options, and creates the illusion of simulation which leads to immersion. It's weaknesses come from too many skills and how hard it is to remember as a GM or player what the appropriate skill is and character creation is a long process. So I like this system but it's weakest on the game angle. It's just hard to use and 3d6 isn't terribly "exciting" as a gamey mechanic.

3.5 skills do a lot of work to simulate and actually does it pretty well if you really dig into all the rules and exceptions. Which is remarkable given how much the d20 messes with things. But it's not a good skill system given the context. Skills have trouble scaling well because of how high a level 1 human (real world) could roll.

I really like the Savage Worlds skills system. It's not as in-depth as GURPS, but it has skills, they are written well (investigation is not just smart perception), and it has more detailed rules for things that need more detail (like climbing a tree or stealth). Players or wildcards roll two dice and take the higher one vs a target number of 4 (dice ranging from 1d4 to 1d12). If you the max value you can roll again and add that number. If you really need to pass a skill check, you can spend your per session re-roll "points" on it and take the best roll. Modifiers are applied to your roll and the GM always tells you what the modifiers are.
The dice give me good odds at a vast array of skills for little investment opening up diverse characters and support a Dramatic Task system (N). The more detailed rules for things like climb, stealth, and tracking help preserve immersion (S). The simple mechanics, exploding dice, and re-roll mechanics makes using the skills fun and easy (G).

Now to look at 5e's skill system. Odds are poor for any skill outside a main stat leading to limited characters that are not very narratively impactful with skills (N). The actual rolls and modifiers do not mean anything in game terms and the skills themselves are so poorly defined as to bleed into each or just be really vague (S). If I get inspiration, I may have a re-roll available, but otherwise rolling the skill is just a randomizer and I tend to have very little control of even what skill I am using (G). I do not like this skill system. I'd rather not have a skill system and instead just use common sense.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I find it interesting that lots of people are focusing on mechanics, when the quote specifically says that the design philosophy is to subordinate mechanics to the fiction. :smallfrown:

Consider the following statement.


In any case where the established fiction (prior events and current circumstances) demand a certain outcome but the mechanics either require a different outcome or indicate uncertainty, who takes priority?

5e, from the MM quote and all my experience, comes down firmly on the side of the fiction. If something doesn't make sense to do, don't do it. If only one outcome makes sense to the table, it happens, regardless of mechanics.

And that, for me, is a major feature. Because no set of rules can possibly provide both a granular, specific resolution to all interesting tasks and a smooth flow of a fun game.

5e's mechanics are purely game constructs. They're not part of the fiction layer at all, and they're second-class citizens to that fiction layer. They're tools to use to resolve uncertainty in a fun, fast, fair way, when asked. That's all. They don't command, they don't rule, they don't restrict. If they're not useful, they don't get used.

Yes, this requires the DM to actually put some effort in instead of just being a bad version of a computerized physics engine. It requires that they buy into the fiction as well as the players and actively make choices about which mechanics to use when. As a tradeoff, the mechanics themselves are much less complex and hard to master than other D&D products, so there's more free mental overhead for focusing on the fiction and on the players and their desires.

[MaxWilson]

Skill systems are only there to decide uncertain outcomes. It's a tool of game design to keep the game flowing. The "fun" part is deciding what to do and then dealing with the escalation of the situation. No resolution system in any game is inherently fun without everything else attached to it.

If 5E skill rules are only there to decide corner cases where the outcome is uncertain, why are so many class abilities and spells written exclusively in terms of resolving corner cases? For example, why do 5E wolves have "Keen Hearing and Smell: The wolf has advantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on hearing or smell" but no traits that make them better at hearing or smelling in the first place?

What value are the 5E skill rules adding?

[PhoenixPhyre]

If 5E skill rules are only there to decide corner cases where the outcome is uncertain, why are so many class abilities and spells written exclusively in terms of resolving corner cases? For example, why do 5E wolves have "Keen Hearing and Smell: The wolf has advantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on hearing or smell" but no traits that make them better at hearing or smelling in the first place?

What value are the 5E skill rules adding?

Those corner cases are the only ones we need mechanics for in the first place. Because the outcome of the others is fixed by the fiction already, no rules needed. So those rules are focused on the one place they can do good, namely the uncertain parts. Which is where all the fun happens.

Remember--
* Uncertainty is fun.
* Failure should be just as interesting as success, just in a different way

We're playing a game about adventurers. The people for whom "pushing the boundaries and living in the unknown grey area, walking the edge of the blade" is the core of their job description. So the rules focus on that part, not on the safe, boring, predictable part.

[KorvinStarmast]

I find it interesting that lots of people are focusing on mechanics, when the quote specifically says that the design philosophy is to subordinate mechanics to the fiction. :smallfrown: Some people can't see past the end of their nose. In part, the blame goes to the evolution of the RPG as a game form, and a cultural change to the worship of literalism and cause and effect as an imperative. That, and players carrying their CRPG control freak attitudes over to RPG tables, where it does not belong.

Back when our primary motives and influences were literary (when RPG's began) we had yet to be afflicted with the computer age's "if the code isn't perfect the program won't work" attitude getting applied well outside of its proper box. This includes problems in game design, but it also includes that damnable curse on sports, the replay overturning the official's call. It's NOT a good feature. Six Sigma is management code for a zero defects expectation. (OK, I'll stop)

Computer and video games further contaminate this environment, in terms of how it leaks into RPGs, from a conceptual standpoint. A huge amount of the joy in RPGs played on table top is in subjective and non-linear outcomes, NOT objective and mechanical outcomes.

Good mechanics help a game -- heck yes! -- but they are not the end all and be all to an RPG. For some game forms, they are just that. (see competitive games like DoTA and LoL for classic examples).

[Unoriginal]

I find it interesting that lots of people are focusing on mechanics, when the quote specifically says that the design philosophy is to subordinate mechanics to the fiction. :smallfrown:

A lot of the discussion of those last pages has basically been:

"5e does not do X."

"Man, 5e is bad at doing X."

"But it's not supposed to do X"

"Other systems/methods/houserules do X much better, why isn't 5e doing X better?"

Ad infinutum

[PhoenixPhyre]

A lot of the discussion of those last pages has basically been:

"5e does not do X."

"Man, 5e is bad at doing X."

"But it's not supposed to do X"

"Other systems/methods/houserules do X much better, why isn't 5e doing X better?"

Ad infinutum

Yeah. It's judging a fish on how well it climbs trees. Or saying a pitchfork doesn't make a good shovel.

All things must be judged on how well they do what they're trying to do. That's why understanding the design philosophy, even if you don't like it, is so important.

[MaxWilson]

Those corner cases are the only ones we need mechanics for in the first place. Because the outcome of the others is fixed by the fiction already, no rules needed.

Yet somehow they don't bother to supply any fiction? That isn't persuasive.

One suspects that most DMs have no real idea how sensitive a nose is supposed to belong to a tiger, a bear, or slaad. They wind up taking their cues from the stat block ("Keen Smell" = advantage on smell checks = I'm supposed to substitute smell for sight, at advantage, I guess?), which means that despite your claim that skills are for corner cases only and that the fiction is dominant, instead the fiction winds up being derived from the skills.

In real life, bears have incredibly sensitive noses, better than bloodhounds. I have no idea about tigers. And there aren't any Slaads in real life. And the only source of information on how 5E distinguishes the relative keenness of their respective senses comes via the skill system a la Keen Smell (or the lack thereof).

Your argument that the 5E designers somehow intended "fiction" to be primary and skill modifiers to be secondary doesn't hold water. QED. It's a crummy system for conveying information but it's the one they made.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Something that struck me in MM's quote was this passage from the last tweet:


As D&D is descriptive rather than prescriptive, individual groups had different experiences.

That made me think heretical thoughts.

What if there are no rules (as commonly understood by other games)? What if the "rules" are just a set of suggestions for default values if you don't want to come up with your own, one possible framework/shared language among many? What if D&D is really defined by how people play, not by what the designers do?

Cue John Lennon singing "Imagine if there were no rules..."

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yet somehow they don't bother to supply any fiction? That isn't persuasive.

One suspects that most DMs have no real idea how sensitive a nose is supposed to belong to a tiger, a bear, or slaad. They wind up taking their cues from the stat block ("Keen Smell" = advantage on smell checks = I'm supposed to substitute smell for sight, at advantage, I guess?), which means that despite your claim that skills are for corner cases only and that the fiction is dominant, instead the fiction winds up being derived from the skills.

In real life, bears have incredibly sensitive noses, better than bloodhounds. I have no idea about tigers. And there aren't any Slaads in real life. And the only source of information on how 5E distinguishes the relative keenness of their respective senses comes via the skill system a la Keen Smell (or the lack thereof).

Your argument that the 5E designers somehow intended "fiction" to be primary and skill modifiers to be secondary doesn't hold water. QED. It's a crummy system for conveying information but it's the one they made.

The people are more than capable of supplying the fiction. That's what we do, after all. The designers are responsible for the game part. Or at least giving decent defaults.

5e IS NOT A SIMULATION-BASED SYSTEM. It wasn't designed to be. So talking about real life stuff is just plain pointless. From an archetypal view, dogs are good smellers. So they got that trait. Cats aren't known for their smell (unlike dogs), but they're known for pouncing. So they got that trait. Bears are mostly thought of as having tough hides and being powerful, so they got those traits. It's based on the common view, not the scientific one. Because this is fantasy.

Edit: Another reason is that dogs are frequently used in fiction as guards. So giving them guarding traits (making them better at detecting sneaky types) supports the fictional layer, while bears aren't frequently used for that. So there's no need to give them that trait.

And if you want to change that, you can feel free to. It has no CR effect, so it's a free substitution. The stat-blocks in the book are explicitly only examples anyway.

[MaxWilson]

What if there are no rules (as commonly understood by other games)? What if the "rules" are just a set of suggestions for default values if you don't want to come up with your own, one possible framework/shared language among many? What if D&D is really defined by how people play, not by what the designers do?

Well, there are certainly people on this forum who will agree with you that 5E has "no skill system" rules, and other people like myself who will claim that 5E has virtually no rules for and no interest in anything that doesn't involve violence. If you want to claim that 5E has no rules at all that seems untrue to me but at least you're moving in the right direction.

[XenoGeno]

I find it interesting that lots of people are focusing on mechanics, when the quote specifically says that the design philosophy is to subordinate mechanics to the fiction. :smallfrown:

...

5e, from the MM quote and all my experience, comes down firmly on the side of the fiction. If something doesn't make sense to do, don't do it. If only one outcome makes sense to the table, it happens, regardless of mechanics.

And that, for me, is a major feature. Because no set of rules can possibly provide both a granular, specific resolution to all interesting tasks and a smooth flow of a fun game.

5e's mechanics are purely game constructs. They're not part of the fiction layer at all, and they're second-class citizens to that fiction layer. They're tools to use to resolve uncertainty in a fun, fast, fair way, when asked. That's all. They don't command, they don't rule, they don't restrict. If they're not useful, they don't get used.

Here's the problem with 5E's design philosophy. You CAN'T make the rules subservient to the fiction. You can't say "Who you are matters more than what you can do" because in a game, the Venn diagram of "who you are" and "what you can do" is almost a perfect circle. I created a character I've been playing for about 8 months now, the idea being a silver-tongued bard who talks his way out of trouble instead of fighting. However, because of 5E's "bounded accuracy," even doing everything I can to max out my persuasion score, I have never succeeded on a Persuasion check because I can't seem to roll at least a 7 when they come up. Yeah, any game is going to have some variance and risk of failure, but this is ridiculous.

If you believe in the old maxim of "show don't tell" then 5E is not the game for you; you can tell all you want, but the mechanics don't allow you to show a lot about your character. 3.X is more of a mixed bag, but you can generally make the character you want and have it feel more or less exactly like that.


Yes, this requires the DM to actually put some effort in instead of just being a bad version of a computerized physics engine. It requires that they buy into the fiction as well as the players and actively make choices about which mechanics to use when. As a tradeoff, the mechanics themselves are much less complex and hard to master than other D&D products, so there's more free mental overhead for focusing on the fiction and on the players and their desires.

This is the other problem with 5E's philosophy; it's incredibly unfriendly to inexperienced DMs. The encounter building rules are already messed up, but so many of the enemies provided in the books vary wildly in power level at the same CR. The vague rules require a lot of judgement calls from DMs, and if they don't have personal experience to draw from, it just doesn't work.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Here's the problem with 5E's design philosophy. You CAN'T make the rules subservient to the fiction. You can't say "Who you are matters more than what you can do" because in a game, the Venn diagram of "who you are" and "what you can do" is almost a perfect circle. I created a character I've been playing for about 8 months now, the idea being a silver-tongued bard who talks his way out of trouble instead of fighting. However, because of 5E's "bounded accuracy," even doing everything I can to max out my persuasion score, I have never succeeded on a Persuasion check because I can't seem to roll at least a 7 when they come up. Yeah, any game is going to have some variance and risk of failure, but this is ridiculous.

If you believe in the old maxim of "show don't tell" then 5E is not the game for you; you can tell all you want, but the mechanics don't allow you to show a lot about your character. 3.X is more of a mixed bag, but you can generally make the character you want and have it feel more or less exactly like that.


The problem with that is that you're assuming the conclusion. "Being a silver-tongued bard who talks his way out of trouble instead of fighting" assumes success. Which, by definition, isn't guaranteed.

Instead, you have a character who tries to talk his way out of trouble in preference to fighting. And that's independent of being successful or not. If you try to talk your way past an ooze, you're going to fail, no matter what your persuasion bonus is or how high you roll.

Couple that with what is probably a misuse of the system in the first place (DM not properly giving you auto-success and instead forcing you to roll too much or against too high of DCs) and you get dissonance. But that's because you're fighting the basic philosophy, not because the philosophy is flawed.

Edit: Some math about your story:

Level 1 Bard, +3 CHA + Proficiency = +5 modifier. You make a DC 15 check on a 10, a DC 10 on a 5.
Level 5 Bard, +4 CHA + Expertise = +10 modifier. You make a DC 15 check on a 5, a DC 10 always.
Level 9 Bard, +5 CHA + Expertise = +13 modifier. You make a DC 15 check on a 2, and a DC 20 check on a 7.
Level 12 Bard, +5 CHA + Expertise = +15 modifier. You make a DC 20 check on a 5 and a DC 15 check always.
Level 17 Bard, +5 CHA + Expertise = +17 modifier. You make a DC 20 check on a 3 and a DC 15 check always.

DC 20 is as high as the social table goes, and that starts giving you some success on a 10. So if you've "never passed" a Charisma (Persuasion) check and have rolled 5-7, the DCs were way too high.



This is the other problem with 5E's philosophy; it's incredibly unfriendly to inexperienced DMs. The encounter building rules are already messed up, but so many of the enemies provided in the books vary wildly in power level at the same CR. The vague rules require a lot of judgement calls from DMs, and if they don't have personal experience to draw from, it just doesn't work.

That's not my experience. I was a completely inexperienced DM when I started, and got no help from anyone. In fact, my first D&D experience at the tabletop was as the DM (for a 4e game). 5e is

* forgiving of mistakes (people complain that it's too non-lethal by default)
* explicitly designed so that there are many right answers
* robust to variation.
* wide open to on-the-fly adjustments (even if they're more obvious than those made by an experienced DM, it encourages focusing on the fun of the players)
* packaged (in the beginner box) with a very good module to learn from.

I've trained multiple DMs and they've never had issues with it unless they didn't read the DMG or they came in with old-edition mentalities (few, single-enemy fights per day is a big one). But that's on them, not on the system.

[KorvinStarmast]

Here's the problem with 5E's design philosophy. You CAN'T make the rules subservient to the fiction. It appears that maybe you can't, but Mearls can, and Arneson could. Hmm, who has the problem here?

[Rhedyn]

It appears that maybe you can't, but Mearls can, and Arneson could. Hmm, who has the problem here?
No skill rules (Arneson) is better than 5e's skill rules.

[Sigreid]

No skill rules (Arneson) is better than 5e's skill rules.

I am every bit as unpersuaded there is a problem as you are unpersuaded there isn't one. I dont think either side will ever change the view of the other.

[MaxWilson]

The people are more than capable of supplying the fiction. That's what we do, after all. The designers are responsible for the game part. Or at least giving decent defaults.

5e IS NOT A SIMULATION-BASED SYSTEM. It wasn't designed to be. So talking about real life stuff is just plain pointless. From an archetypal view, dogs are good smellers. So they got that trait. Cats aren't known for their smell (unlike dogs), but they're known for pouncing. So they got that trait.

You're making my point for me. What do you do with a Tiger's Keen Smell trait? According to you it's pretty much useless, since cats aren't known for their sense of smell. Why does the MM waste space on it in the Tiger stat block then?


No skill rules (Arneson) is better than 5e's skill rules.

Except in combat. 5E's skill rules add a decent amount of richness to the combat systems, as alternatives to "I hit it again with my axe." E.g. Stealth, grappling. Even DMG Disarm probably works better as an attack roll vs. athletics/acrobatics contest than it would as an AD&D-style Disarm: attack roll vs. attack roll contest.

[Naerytar]

I am every bit as unpersuaded there is a problem as you are unpersuaded there isn't one. I dont think either side will ever change the view of the other.

I'm an on-again off-again lurker since 5e came out. Sometimes I don't visit this forum for months on end.

Every time I come back here, there is a discussion about missing skill DCs going on. Every! Time! Since 2014.
There's only so much "Just get over it already" my brain can take, so I'll be gone again soon after.

So yeah. It's safe to say, this discussion will go on until 6e.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm an on-again off-again lurker since 5e came out. Sometimes I don't visit this forum for months on end.

Every time I come back here, there is a discussion about missing skill DCs going on. Every! Time! Since 2014.
There's only so much "Just get over it already" my brain can take, so I'll be gone again soon after.

So yeah. It's safe to say, this discussion will go on until 6e.

Yeah. I agree. Sadly, all the interesting conversations about the design of 5e get swamped by the same 3 people repeating the exact same complaints over and over again.

[Pex]

The point is that this is how 5e is designed.

Whether you like it or not, it is important to understand it.

The thing you like is the thing that the designers regret. The next time a rule doesn't make sense to you, realize that it might be because the designers have a different vision than you do.

But that doesn't mean we must keep quiet about it. 5E does not get immunity to criticism because it was designed the way the designers intended it. We can say the intent itself was wrong or not followed through correctly or has a flaw or whatever.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But that doesn't mean we must keep quiet about it. 5E does not get immunity to criticism because it was designed the way the designers intended it. We can say the intent itself was wrong or not followed through correctly or has a flaw or whatever.

But it does mean that your claims fall on deaf ears. Especially when they're exactly the same darn complaints for multiple years in every single design thread.

You're claiming that that pitchfork makes a crappy shovel. Yeah, so what. That's your problem, not the pitchfork's.

[Pex]

By construction (by design), 5e's ability checks are only for those cases where luck (or chance more generally) are a major factor. You wouldn't roll for a surgeon doing surgery, unless it was a knife's-edge case (pun intended). The trained surgeon would just succeed and the amateur would fail.

This is what I mean about philosophy being important--if you think that ability checks are a simulation tool for the world (and thus must cover every case), then things like this are a symptom of bad design. If you realize that they're only for fairly adjudicating the effects of chance and uncertainty, and only for a very restricted range of things (interactions that directly affect the PCs while they're on camera), the issue becomes a feature instead of a flaw. Because, unlike a curved system or a fixed-DC with off-RNG capabilities (like 3e), you can have beginner's luck. Or other unexpected events. Which add drama and excitement.

It's a DM problem. You have to teach new DMs PCs can just do things. That's not easy. If there's no risk there's no challenge is ingrained in people. There has to exist the risk of failure. 5E's method is to write a few sentences. 3E's method is defined DCs and Take 10/20.

Leaving it up to the DM whim is "Mother May I". That's where you get one DM says I can climb a tree just because I want to when another DM says I have to roll against DC 20.



But it does mean that your claims fall on deaf ears. Especially when they're exactly the same darn complaints for multiple years in every single design thread.

You're claiming that that pitchfork makes a crappy shovel. Yeah, so what. That's your problem, not the pitchfork's.

Tell that to everyone who has been bashing 3E all these years and still do. No, I will continue to criticize 5E where I disagree with its philosophy.

[Kane0]

So just put it in your sig and save yourself the effort of repeating it every time the topic comes back up.

[Naerytar]

No, I will continue to criticize 5E where I disagree with its philosophy.

To what end?

[Zilong]

It's a DM problem. You have to teach new DMs PCs can just do things. That's not easy. If there's no risk there's no challenge is ingrained in people. There has to exist the risk of failure. 5E's method is to write a few sentences. 3E's method is defined DCs and Take 10/20.

Leaving it up to the DM whim is "Mother May I". That's where you get one DM says I can climb a tree just because I want to when another DM says I have to roll against DC 20.

While I've not taught anyone to DM in some time, I really don't see a big an issue as you are suggesting. I also don't see a problem with DMs setting different DCs for similar tasks. It's their game, they can do what is appropriate. Adventure league is, of course, a bit different, but I don't really pay much heed to it or its "balance" concerns.

If you as a player or DM feel the need for more codified DCs that is fine. But, it doesn't really have a bearing on the worth of the printed material since the principles behind the mechanics advocate this looser framework to start with.

Basically, I see no problems with the ability for people to learn to DM, the rules as they are, or the variation between tables.

[Pex]

No, they don't. The universes don't use that mechanic at all. Repeat after me--5e's mechanical system is not a simulation of the in-universe reality at all. Not even 0%. It's designed as a game mechanic to fairly, quickly, and interestingly adjudicate player actions in cases where uncertainty is a major factor. NPCs don't use those checks at all unless the PCs are on camera. The world itself does not use those. So my world and your world might be completely different but still use the same mechanics, because it's the same game. Not because the universes are the same. You might be rolling for completely different tasks with the same DC, or the same task with wildly different DCs. Or no DC at all. Depending on the universe. Or depending on the situation within one universe

For example, deciphering a set of runes might be a DC NO check in one area (because they've never seen that style of magic before) and might be trivial in another area (because those runes are so common everyone uses them). And that's just in one setting.

You only roll for a very small selection of actions that are attempted. You're stuck in the "every task has a defined DC and rolls are only skipped if they can't be failed" mentality that's totally alien to 5e. 5e's is "tasks only have DCs at all if they have a meaningful chance of failure and failure would be interesting." And then the DC depends on the totality of the circumstances, not on the task in isolation. Doing open-heart surgery in a properly set-up operating theater with proper equipment and training might be a low DC, doing it without those on a rocking boat in a thunderstorm may be DC No. You can't take each part of the task and assign it an immutable, objective DC. You can only look at the whole scene and assign a difficulty for getting what you want out of it.


Amen.

Don't get why people don't get it.

The problem is different people have different opinions on when a check is called for or not. When a roll is called for, they have a different opinion on the difficulty of that task so the DCs are different. Therefore the rules of game, as it applies to non-combat things, change depending on who is the DM. That's why people keep saying my DM who calls for DC 20 checks to climb a tree is playing the game wrong. He's not playing the game wrong. He just has a different opinion on the difficulty of climbing trees. Meanwhile other people chime in the difficulty to climb a tree should depend on the type of tree. So they're obviously playing the game wrong too because even though they care about the type of tree for a DC they're still saying a check is called for, which is obviously wrong to the people who say you don't roll a check to climb a tree.

[ProsecutorGodot]

It's a DM problem. You have to teach new DMs PCs can just do things. That's not easy. If there's no risk there's no challenge is ingrained in people. There has to exist the risk of failure. 5E's method is to write a few sentences. 3E's method is defined DCs and Take 10/20.

Leaving it up to the DM whim is "Mother May I". That's where you get one DM says I can climb a tree just because I want to when another DM says I have to roll against DC 20.

Tell that to everyone who has been bashing 3E all these years and still do. No, I will continue to criticize 5E where I disagree with its philosophy.

If it's a DM problem, that's not a problem with the rules (or lack thereof). I personally don't think that's a problem anyway. Let people run the game they want to run, if they want people to roll skill checks for climbing trees that's great. If they want to run a game where fluff is cut down and a pc is expected to be able to climb a tree, the system allows for both.

And on the complaints, I'm pretty sure those people have likely been told the exact same thing you were, and responded the exact same way. Sure is inconvenient that you can't force people to change their opinions on which system or specific design choices they might prefer.

It definitely would have made this thread a lot smaller, everybody has more or less shared their opinion on the matter, some meaningful discussion was had about whether the game system actually met those goals and now it's devolved into a mess of arguments about people having wrong opinions.

So cut it out and stop liking what other people don't like.

[Unoriginal]

What is the point of keeping re-having the same argument every goddam time? I think everyone knows the others' position by now.

[Pex]

So just put it in your sig and save yourself the effort of repeating it every time the topic comes back up.


To what end?

When you repeat this on the other forums, tell people to put their criticisms of 3E in their sigs and shut up, and no one can ever criticize any gaming system ever again, then I'll stop.

While you're at it, tell people here to stop complaining about Sorcerer, Ranger, Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, Lucky, and Two-Weapon Fighting.

[ProsecutorGodot]

When you repeat this on the other forums, tell people to put their criticisms of 3E in their sigs and shut up, and no one can ever criticizes any gaming system ever again, then I'll stop.

Well there's a difference between sharing your criticisms and sharing them loudly, proclaiming that it's your right to be heard more because other people criticized that thing you like.

If you feel so strongly about it, I would recommend you make a webpage you can link to in your signatures (on all forums) where people can read your essay on why criticizing 5E's design philosophy is a right and criticizing 3E's design is a privilege.

[Pex]

Well there's a difference between sharing your criticisms and sharing them loudly, proclaiming that it's your right to be heard more because other people criticized that thing you like.

If you feel so strongly about it, I would recommend you make a webpage you can link to in your signatures (on all forums) where people can read your essay on why criticizing 5E's design philosophy is a right and criticizing 3E's design is a privilege.

There's a difference between disagreeing with and telling me I shouldn't be posting my disagreements.

[ProsecutorGodot]

There's a difference between disagreeing with and telling me I shouldn't be posting my disagreements.

You weren't told not to post them, just that they might end up ignored because they're constant and repetitive. They've also been done to death already in this thread specifically.

In fact, it was done to death by you on the first page where instead of coming off as petty 8 pages in, you brought in a clear argument and shared your opinions respectfully. I don't know why you decided to pop back in with the same exact argument in a thread that has spiraled so far down the rabbit hole.

I hope you're at least aware that this is exactly the behavior you seem to have a problem with from those criticizing 3E.

[Kane0]

There's a difference between disagreeing with and telling me I shouldn't be posting my disagreements.

I did not say you shouldn't be posting your disagreements. If they are in your sig they are in every post you make by default, just like my own grievances are addressed in my Houserules/Homebrew link.
I personally appreciate the difference in perspective, even if I happen to disagree with it. Echo chambers are boring.

[PhoenixPhyre]

There's a difference between disagreeing with and telling me I shouldn't be posting my disagreements.

My big problem is that you hijack other threads to repeat your same complaints over and over, almost word for word. This turns what could be interesting threads into recycled garbage where everyone knows exactly what the other will say.

I read 3e posts all the time, but I know that since I disagree with the people over there, so I don't post because it would just derail things. Let the people who are interested talk, or make your own threads. Please stop hijacking other people's threads that aren't directly about the ability check system. If you have to disagree, make it short and simple, something like

"I disagree, but we all know that" and then say something on the original topic and let it be.

[XenoGeno]

The problem with that is that you're assuming the conclusion. "Being a silver-tongued bard who talks his way out of trouble instead of fighting" assumes success. Which, by definition, isn't guaranteed.

Instead, you have a character who tries to talk his way out of trouble in preference to fighting. And that's independent of being successful or not. If you try to talk your way past an ooze, you're going to fail, no matter what your persuasion bonus is or how high you roll.

Sure, I'm obviously not going to be able to talk my way out out of a fight with an ooze, that's not what I'm talking about? I have an archetype in mind. Based off Mearls' stated philosophy, this should inform the mechanics, but that... doesn't happen! There's very little in character creation where this philosophy manifests itself in a way that it didn't manifest in 3.x. They just lowered the ceiling on everything so that sub-optimal options aren't sooooo sub-optimal. It's Bergeronian, and certainly effective in that regard, but... also frequently kind of lame.


Couple that with what is probably a misuse of the system in the first place (DM not properly giving you auto-success and instead forcing you to roll too much or against too high of DCs) and you get dissonance. But that's because you're fighting the basic philosophy, not because the philosophy is flawed.

Edit: Some math about your story:

Level 1 Bard, +3 CHA + Proficiency = +5 modifier. You make a DC 15 check on a 10, a DC 10 on a 5.
Level 5 Bard, +4 CHA + Expertise = +10 modifier. You make a DC 15 check on a 5, a DC 10 always.
Level 9 Bard, +5 CHA + Expertise = +13 modifier. You make a DC 15 check on a 2, and a DC 20 check on a 7.
Level 12 Bard, +5 CHA + Expertise = +15 modifier. You make a DC 20 check on a 5 and a DC 15 check always.
Level 17 Bard, +5 CHA + Expertise = +17 modifier. You make a DC 20 check on a 3 and a DC 15 check always.

DC 20 is as high as the social table goes, and that starts giving you some success on a 10. So if you've "never passed" a Charisma (Persuasion) check and have rolled 5-7, the DCs were way too high.

My character's been level 3-4, bonus +8. Could be a DM problem making everything DC15! But that's part of my point. DM could be trying really hard to make the game fun, but isn't sure; they see "Medium" and think "hey that seems fair."


That's not my experience. I was a completely inexperienced DM when I started, and got no help from anyone. In fact, my first D&D experience at the tabletop was as the DM (for a 4e game). 5e is

* forgiving of mistakes (people complain that it's too non-lethal by default)
* explicitly designed so that there are many right answers
* robust to variation.
* wide open to on-the-fly adjustments (even if they're more obvious than those made by an experienced DM, it encourages focusing on the fun of the players)
* packaged (in the beginner box) with a very good module to learn from.

I've trained multiple DMs and they've never had issues with it unless they didn't read the DMG or they came in with old-edition mentalities (few, single-enemy fights per day is a big one). But that's on them, not on the system.

I've found that it's surprisingly lethal, but most of my experience is lower level; highest I've played is... 9, I think? But at least at those levels it's not hard to find an "appropriate" encounter that wrecks parties (a lot of the games I've been in have been WotC campaigns and there are a bunch of encounters in those that can easily TPK). But, again, inherent flaw in the philosophy. Nothing kills a narrative like a TPK, yet they're still something that can occur.



It appears that maybe you can't, but Mearls can, and Arneson could. Hmm, who has the problem here?

There's a difference between jettisoning the rules, and making them subservient to the narrative. You can 100% do the former, but for as long as you have rules, the narrative is subservient to them.

By the way, I want to make something clear: I don't want to come across like I'm bashing people for liking 5E. There's a lot I like about it myself, and it's the only system I've played since it came out! But OP was asking about the design philosophy, and just like Mearls felt that 3.x/4's basic design philosophy suffered from a fatal flaw, I feel 5E suffers from one as well, and I think that's the source of the biggest problems people have with 5E.


As for OP's specific follow-up questions:

1) As a DM, rails should be the enemy, even more so than in other editions. You need player trust for this edition to work, and rails get in the way of that. For what it's worth, best 5E experience was the DM who ran the game completely openworld with no plot on his end, just a bunch of hooks we could follow up on.

2) As a player, you have to trust the DM. That said, DM's are human. If you feel like you're being railroaded, let the DM know. According to the design philosophy, 5E is meant to be more collaborative than other editions, so if the DM is not up to the task, even if they're acting in good faith, it's not going to work.

3) TBH I think in some ways this philosophy encourages this more; bounded accuracy is clearly meant to play up "downplaying mechanical benefits" but what it really means is a lower ceiling. When that happens, each individual bonus you can get matters that much more.

4) Well, for official content, if it truly followed this philosophy, it would be nothing but lore books, but that's harder to market. Pre-made adventures are ultimately antithetical to the philosophy, because it puts you on rails, which, see 1). I think the best way to go about it is "what epic fantasy concept is missing" and then figure out how to make it work in a low-fantasy setting while still LOOKING like epic fantasy. Again, to keep every character idea viable, everything has to be at a lower power level overall, but D&D is so intrinsically tied into the epic fantasy aesthetic.

[Pex]

The same topic keeps repeating itself. I will not be silent.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But there's no attempt to make "every archetype possible". That's a 3e design that MM specifically repudiated.

Like it or not, linear stories are still stories, and lots of people like them. I've seen data indicating that the least liked parts of the hardcovers were the open world parts.

You can participate in fiction at multiple levels. For many, the important part is the most narrow part--controlling a character in a world. The greater plot, or being able to define your own goals doesn't seem so important from what I can tell. Lots of people flounder when given wide open fields.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The same topic keeps repeating itself. I will not be silent.

Then at the very least don't be a parrot, that's all that's being asked of you. You shared your stance on page 1, you didn't have to come back and repeat yourself on page 8. It doesn't further any discussion to have someone constantly repeating themselves because they're convinced no one heard them the first time.



4) Well, for official content, if it truly followed this philosophy, it would be nothing but lore books, but that's harder to market. Pre-made adventures are ultimately antithetical to the philosophy, because it puts you on rails, which, see 1). I think the best way to go about it is "what epic fantasy concept is missing" and then figure out how to make it work in a low-fantasy setting while still LOOKING like epic fantasy. Again, to keep every character idea viable, everything has to be at a lower power level overall, but D&D is so intrinsically tied into the epic fantasy aesthetic.

I've always thought that people use the term railroading too broadly, especially when they use it in relation to this topic. Just because a story has defined points of interest that you will eventually reach doesn't mean the path to get there is going to be straight and narrow. Railroading, from my point of view, is only when a specific course of action is forced on you without any opportunity to divert your course. From all the pre written modules so far that I've played or DM'd the only ones that seem railroady are the Yawning Portal Adventures, and those are almost entirely single map dungeons where you want your players to stay on a course and not just leave the adventure.

While I'm not sure entirely what you mean on the second part, if I'm reading into it correctly, I agree that some character ideas are laid low by the games system. However I think that a good enough balance has been struck where a vast majority of concepts can be made to work in the right cases.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The same topic keeps repeating itself. I will not be silent.

If the topic is directly about the skill system, go ahead. On other topics, you're hijacking and that's bad forum behavior, especially when you've been asked to stop.

You know who might be more useful to complain to? Your own DMs. Or MM on Twitter. Because that might have a chance of changing something. Doing it here is just annoying when other people are trying to discuss other things.

[Knaight]

While Mearls is right about hard-coded rules not protecting players from jerk DMs, they do a much better job at creating shared expectations between campaigns and DMs.
They do do a far better job at creating shared expectations between campaigns and DMs. What you're missing here is that as a goal that is an outright negative for a lot of people.


This is the other problem with 5E's philosophy; it's incredibly unfriendly to inexperienced DMs. The encounter building rules are already messed up, but so many of the enemies provided in the books vary wildly in power level at the same CR. The vague rules require a lot of judgement calls from DMs, and if they don't have personal experience to draw from, it just doesn't work.
I remember being an inexperienced GM - and even then, I'd rather be given material I could easily memorize that relied on judgement calls than have a big long book that was either hard to commit to memory or required looking things up regularly, making notes ahead of time on expected mechanics, or other such things.

5e's philosophy doesn't work well for indecisive GMs unwilling to make judgments. That's not the same thing as new GMs, and I'd even go so far as to say that the category is disproportionately full of people other games have trained to be that way.

[Pex]

If the topic is directly about the skill system, go ahead. On other topics, you're hijacking and that's bad forum behavior, especially when you've been asked to stop.

You know who might be more useful to complain to? Your own DMs. Or MM on Twitter. Because that might have a chance of changing something. Doing it here is just annoying when other people are trying to discuss other things.

We're talking about the design philosophy. It's on topic to talking about how the game works. Shall we get to the topic and stop criticizing that I criticize?

[MaxWilson]

If the topic is directly about the skill system, go ahead. On other topics, you're hijacking and that's bad forum behavior, especially when you've been asked to stop.

Would you please take this off-topic conversation to PM? It's getting old. Please stop.

[Astofel]

The thing I don't get is that even in 3.5 the DC for tree climbing, or anything else, also depends on who the DM is that day. Let's say that there's a DM who is running a campaign, and he has a tree. He wants climbing the tree to be hard, so if he's playing 5e he sets the DC at 20. If he's playing 3.5 he goes and looks up a table of things that make climbing a tree harder, and applies them to his tree, giving a Climb DC of whatever a hard check in 3.5 is, I don't know. When game time comes around and the players ask to climb the tree, he tells them to roll and beat a number. From the players' point of view, nothing is different.

If instead the DM didn't plan for the PCs to climb the tree but they do anyway, in 5e he can decide that climbing the tree is hard and set the DC at 20. In 3.5 he has to crack open the book, and figure out what applies to this particular tree, slowing the game almost to a halt.

Maybe I'm wrong about 3.5, admittedly I don't have a lot of personal experience with the system and most of what I 'know' comes mostly from reading threads online. But at the end of the day the DM is always the one setting a DC, whether he uses his own judgement or a table.

[XenoGeno]

But there's no attempt to make "every archetype possible". That's a 3e design that MM specifically repudiated.
No, what he repudiated was how it gave a bunch of OPTIONS (read: Prestige Classes, Feats, Spells, Templates), and heavily encouraged searching for the extremely broken combos. 3.X was NEVER about having every archetype possible, or at least not viable, and in fact it was explicitly against it. But 5E is pretty clearly meant to allow every race/class/background combo to be viable, even if not optimal.


Like it or not, linear stories are still stories, and lots of people like them. I've seen data indicating that the least liked parts of the hardcovers were the open world parts.

You can participate in fiction at multiple levels. For many, the important part is the most narrow part--controlling a character in a world. The greater plot, or being able to define your own goals doesn't seem so important from what I can tell. Lots of people flounder when given wide open fields.

Well, I should probably refine and say it isn't "no rails" so much as "invisible rails". I've never met a player who thought getting railroaded was fun, and if part of the philosophy is that the DM is there to keep the group "interested, excited, and happy" then rails need to be used with extreme care. Especially since in 5E it's easier to railroad than in 3.X.


While I'm not sure entirely what you mean on the second part, if I'm reading into it correctly, I agree that some character ideas are laid low by the games system. However I think that a good enough balance has been struck where a vast majority of concepts can be made to work in the right cases.

I'll try to clarify what I meant. When new content is being developed, you're wanting something that fits the aesthetic. D&D's aesthetic has been epic fantasy for a while, but the current edition's power level is more along the lines of low fantasy. Take the Storm Herald, for example; a character whose connection to the primal wilds is so strong, his anger causes nature itself to join in his rage. Total epic fantasy concept. In play though, it manifests as a small aura that deals a bit extra damage. Total low fantasy power level. In general the content in 5e tries to give a sense of "holy hell, this is super dope" on paper but much more muted in practice, so people will want to try out a new concept, but said concept doesn't become the choice everyone uses all the time.


5e's philosophy doesn't work well for indecisive GMs unwilling to make judgments. That's not the same thing as new GMs, and I'd even go so far as to say that the category is disproportionately full of people other games have trained to be that way.

I would rather have an indecisive DM than one who is decisive in the wrong direction, but that might just be personal experiences talking here.

[Ignimortis]

The thing I don't get is that even in 3.5 the DC for tree climbing, or anything else, also depends on who the DM is that day. Let's say that there's a DM who is running a campaign, and he has a tree. He wants climbing the tree to be hard, so if he's playing 5e he sets the DC at 20. If he's playing 3.5 he goes and looks up a table of things that make climbing a tree harder, and applies them to his tree, giving a Climb DC of whatever a hard check in 3.5 is, I don't know. When game time comes around and the players ask to climb the tree, he tells them to roll and beat a number. From the players' point of view, nothing is different.

If instead the DM didn't plan for the PCs to climb the tree but they do anyway, in 5e he can decide that climbing the tree is hard and set the DC at 20. In 3.5 he has to crack open the book, and figure out what applies to this particular tree, slowing the game almost to a halt.

Maybe I'm wrong about 3.5, admittedly I don't have a lot of personal experience with the system and most of what I 'know' comes mostly from reading threads online. But at the end of the day the DM is always the one setting a DC, whether he uses his own judgement or a table.

As a 3.5 DM, I might say that I feel about the game this way:
You, as a DM, are the storyteller and arbiter. You write the world, and you run through rules that govern it, but you don't determine the rules in the process of gameplay, unless it's absolutely needed. You, as the DM, are the god of the game only during the creation process - while you're preparing the session, sure, you can make a super-hard tree, but it'd better be justified and probably should follow the rules. During the game, you are the player who has to know what things do and how things work, not invent it on the run, and so you shouldn't say "ok I don't want for you to climb this tree, so it's DC 45 because it's super hard to climb yep". If the players invested into Climb, they can use that. D&D is as much about the players surprising the DM as vice versa, and maybe even more.


They do do a far better job at creating shared expectations between campaigns and DMs. What you're missing here is that as a goal that is an outright negative for a lot of people.


That's...strange. That was my point earlier - while you can play almost anything in 3.5 and have it work, it will run on the same mechanics and thus the basic groundwork will be the same. You know how much your skill point is worth, how much a level is worth, etc. How is that a negative within a single TTRPG system, I don't know.


No, what he repudiated was how it gave a bunch of OPTIONS (read: Prestige Classes, Feats, Spells, Templates), and heavily encouraged searching for the extremely broken combos. 3.X was NEVER about having every archetype possible, or at least not viable, and in fact it was explicitly against it. But 5E is pretty clearly meant to allow every race/class/background combo to be viable, even if not optimal.

I'll try to clarify what I meant. When new content is being developed, you're wanting something that fits the aesthetic. D&D's aesthetic has been epic fantasy for a while, but the current edition's power level is more along the lines of low fantasy. Take the Storm Herald, for example; a character whose connection to the primal wilds is so strong, his anger causes nature itself to join in his rage. Total epic fantasy concept. In play though, it manifests as a small aura that deals a bit extra damage. Total low fantasy power level. In general the content in 5e tries to give a sense of "holy hell, this is super dope" on paper but much more muted in practice, so people will want to try out a new concept, but said concept doesn't become the choice everyone uses all the time.


I'd say that 3.5 intended for almost everything to be viable, but they approached things from a different perspective. If you're low-OP, then indeed, everything is viable in 3.5, because everything is bad or mediocre, including your opponents.

Fully agree on 5e's power levels bit, though. I've hit level 13 in one 5e campaign. Still didn't feel like an epic hero, or even a high-power hero, because behind all the special effects, I do about 1/3 of an equal CR enemy's HP in damage per turn with my best spells, and can still be taken down by 25 archers who don't stand in tight formation. Pathfinder or 3.5 get the hero feeling at level 7 and keep going upwards, my current Harbinger at level 10 is an absolute blast, crushing most single opponents in a turn or two and being almost untouchable to common mortals. Is this balanced? Probably not. But it's far more fun than trying to output adequate damage as a 5e sorcerer.

[Pex]

The thing I don't get is that even in 3.5 the DC for tree climbing, or anything else, also depends on who the DM is that day. Let's say that there's a DM who is running a campaign, and he has a tree. He wants climbing the tree to be hard, so if he's playing 5e he sets the DC at 20. If he's playing 3.5 he goes and looks up a table of things that make climbing a tree harder, and applies them to his tree, giving a Climb DC of whatever a hard check in 3.5 is, I don't know. When game time comes around and the players ask to climb the tree, he tells them to roll and beat a number. From the players' point of view, nothing is different.

If instead the DM didn't plan for the PCs to climb the tree but they do anyway, in 5e he can decide that climbing the tree is hard and set the DC at 20. In 3.5 he has to crack open the book, and figure out what applies to this particular tree, slowing the game almost to a halt.

Maybe I'm wrong about 3.5, admittedly I don't have a lot of personal experience with the system and most of what I 'know' comes mostly from reading threads online. But at the end of the day the DM is always the one setting a DC, whether he uses his own judgement or a table.

Climbing a tree in 3E is DC 15. If for some reason the DM needs the DC to be higher for every tree in the gameworld that's a house rule he informs the players about at Session 0. If trees are just trees then the DC is 15. It is perfectly fine for one particular tree to have a higher DC in an encounter. It's higher because it's special in some way. The fact that it is harder to climb is a clue to the player it is special. Maybe it's really a treant. Maybe it's a dryad's home. Maybe it's a magical node used by elves, something a past DM I played with had in the campaign. If the DM makes it higher because he hates it that a PC is climbing trees so wants to spite him, that's a DM playing against his players issue not a game rules issue.

It's not expected for DMs and players to memorize all the DCs. If a person can, great. It's more likely you'll remember DCs for things that come up often. It will be looked up once or twice in Sessions 1, 2, and/or 3 then remembered for the rest of the campaign and as many campaigns there are after. For situations that don't come up often a player can look it up when it's someone else's turn if it's in combat or when the DM is roleplaying with another player out of combat. Take 10/20 can makes things easier because the result is high enough. You may not know the exact DC, but it's likely lower than the result of 26 or whatever. It's a means to tell DMs a roll isn't necessary. The PC can just do it. 5E does tell that to DMs too, but it's at DM whim. The "mother may I" thing. Take 10/20 makes it a game mechanic.

[Zalabim]

It's a DM problem. You have to teach new DMs PCs can just do things. That's not easy. If there's no risk there's no challenge is ingrained in people. There has to exist the risk of failure. 5E's method is to write a few sentences. 3E's method is defined DCs and Take 10/20.
5E writes quite a bit more than a few sentences about how to use its ability checks, while the 3E default method is that PCs can't do anything until they have invested into abilities that allow them to.

Leaving it up to the DM whim is "Mother May I". That's where you get one DM says I can climb a tree just because I want to when another DM says I have to roll against DC 20.
True. I just prefer that to "Simon The book says you can't."


Tell that to everyone who has been bashing 3E all these years and still do.
Guilty as charged. Though I do keep it to just sharing my own experiences with 3E.

Then at the very least don't be a parrot, that's all that's being asked of you. You shared your stance on page 1, you didn't have to come back and repeat yourself on page 8. It doesn't further any discussion to have someone constantly repeating themselves because they're convinced no one heard them the first time.
I do get that feeling sometimes. Like for that whole tangent on surgery in 5E, no one remembered that you're allowed to say no? Someone who's not a good surgeon, but is still a surgeon, can try and maybe they'll succeed, but someone who is not a surgeon? No medical training at all? Just no. Same as if someone wanted to pick a lock with no proficiency, it's fine to say, "Not this. Not this time."


The thing I don't get is that even in 3.5 the DC for tree climbing, or anything else, also depends on who the DM is that day. Let's say that there's a DM who is running a campaign, and he has a tree. He wants climbing the tree to be hard, so if he's playing 5e he sets the DC at 20. If he's playing 3.5 he goes and looks up a table of things that make climbing a tree harder, and applies them to his tree, giving a Climb DC of whatever a hard check in 3.5 is, I don't know.
That's one of the major design differences in 3.5, compared to later, more intentionally designed systems. It doesn't know either. From HP to skill bonuses, most of the numbers in the system don't have that kind of thought applied to them. It's frustrating when you've gotten used to something easier to use.

Speaking of trees specifically, the default DC is apparently 15, which in practice means that most entities cannot climb trees. You have to be extremely strong or specifically choose climbing ability in order to climb trees, because 3E is very much a system where you can't do something until you put a feature on your sheet to allow it. People who use that mentality in other systems are worse off for it. The flipside is that 3E is a system where if you're willing to put enough effort into your sheet, you can do that thing every time.

About remembering or looking up the DC charts in 3E, it doesn't help. Looking them up always takes too long, remembering them is unrealistic, and either way, when I do get to the information I need, I still need a calculator to figure out if my monk can jump out of a 30' pit, or if I'm better off trying to climb it, whereas if I could just ask my DM for a ruling, the answer could really be given in seconds. In the time it takes, took, to get the perfectly calibrated answer of how hard it is to leave that pit, I could have the table move on to next round when I'd be out of the pit either way. (If you want to do the algebra yourself, it's an average human monk, level 14 or 15 in pathfinder. Between figuring out the character's relevant stats, and the calculations themselves, it should only take a few hours to verify. I think I needed an 8 or higher, going from memory, so I went with the jump, and of course failed.)

[Astofel]

Climbing a tree in 3E is DC 15. If for some reason the DM needs the DC to be higher for every tree in the gameworld that's a house rule he informs the players about at Session 0.

And if a 5e DM for some reason requires an ability check to climb most trees at all then that is also a house rule he should inform the players of at Session 0. My point is that the 3.5 DM could apply a bunch of modifiers to every tree in his campaign to make the DC higher than normal. When the players ask why the tree is DC X, the DM says "oh it's because trees in this world have smooth bark and few branches," which is just a longer way of saying "because I said so." At least 5e gets straight to the point.

For the record, I don't disagree that 5e could use some examples on what constitutes an Easy/Medium/Hard check. In fact I've done some work on a table myself that I might post here one day. My point is that 'DM May I' still exists in other systems, it's just a bit more obscured.

[Ignimortis]

Speaking of trees specifically, the default DC is apparently 15, which in practice means that most entities cannot climb trees. You have to be extremely strong or specifically choose climbing ability in order to climb trees, because 3E is very much a system where you can't do something until you put a feature on your sheet to allow it. People who use that mentality in other systems are worse off for it. The flipside is that 3E is a system where if you're willing to put enough effort into your sheet, you can do that thing every time.

About remembering or looking up the DC charts in 3E, it doesn't help. Looking them up always takes too long, remembering them is unrealistic, and either way, when I do get to the information I need, I still need a calculator to figure out if my monk can jump out of a 30' pit, or if I'm better off trying to climb it, whereas if I could just ask my DM for a ruling, the answer could really be given in seconds. In the time it takes, took, to get the perfectly calibrated answer of how hard it is to leave that pit, I could have the table move on to next round when I'd be out of the pit either way. (If you want to do the algebra yourself, it's an average human monk, level 14 or 15 in pathfinder. Between figuring out the character's relevant stats, and the calculations themselves, it should only take a few hours to verify. I think I needed an 8 or higher, going from memory, so I went with the jump, and of course failed.)

Well, to be fair, I think I'm a 1st or 2nd level human expert (most people these days are probably 3.5 Experts at least) with no ranks in Climb and with a STR of maybe 8. I cannot climb a tree, and I know that. I guess a tree could be a DC10 and I still wouldn't be able to take 10. So that works as far as climbing is concerned.

Also, that calculation? It's literally getting a result of 88 (30 feet pit - 8 feet of vertical reach = 22 feet) on a vertical jump (you always have the running start as a Monk), so you'd either need some wicked magic or some mad modificators for that. Monks get +20 to Jump checks from their movespeed, though...So if you fail on an 8 or less, you had +78 in total, it seems. That's gonna be STR mod + skill ranks + various bonuses. So let's consider that it was a maxed skill, that's +17 or +18, I'll go with level 15 just for better number alignment. 60 to go, but High Jump of PF monk gives you +15 and +20 if you activate it, that's 25 to go, and your movespeed gives you another +20, 5 to go. So your Strength must have been 20 or 21.

That took me about 8 minutes without a character sheet or any prior knowledge of your character. There are some variables that could shift, for instance, you might have wanted to clear the pit in one leap, and not just grab the edge. But that's still not really hard.

[Drascin]

Well, I should probably refine and say it isn't "no rails" so much as "invisible rails". I've never met a player who thought getting railroaded was fun, and if part of the philosophy is that the DM is there to keep the group "interested, excited, and happy" then rails need to be used with extreme care. Especially since in 5E it's easier to railroad than in 3.X.


In the way that "railroading" is usually meant in this forum to mean "there is a basic plot that the players are expected to buy into and follow, rather than just do whatever they feel like"? Hi, I'm one of those people you've never met, how you doing :smalltongue:.

"Do whatever you like!" sandboxes are just a kind of game, and in no way my favorite kind. They generally end up faffing about, unsatisfying, and unconclusive, and tend to end not with a bang but with a whimper, because they're so episodic that the main way they end is because everyone got bored of it already, or due to hiatus that never recovers. I'd much rather play in a game with a strong statement where there is a beginning, an intended objective, and a thing the game is about. Player agency is there to fill the details and specifics of how objectives are achieved, but all the best campaigns I've been in had a strong central thread created by the GM at campaign start (or slightly later) that was there from the beginning and was followed, more or less circuitously, by the group.

[XenoGeno]

I'd say that 3.5 intended for almost everything to be viable, but they approached things from a different perspective. If you're low-OP, then indeed, everything is viable in 3.5, because everything is bad or mediocre, including your opponents.

Eh, the tier-lists and so on were done by players to try and find ways to fix 3.x's problems. Monte Cook has been pretty clear he included trap options to reward system mastery, including the entire Weapon Focus/Specialization feat tree. You can make 3.x campaigns low-op, but the game design doesn't assume that from the start.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That took me about 8 minutes without a character sheet or any prior knowledge of your character. There are some variables that could shift, for instance, you might have wanted to clear the pit in one leap, and not just grab the edge. But that's still not really hard.

So you're saying it took you multiple minutes, with significant system mastery (all the relevant information memorized) to decide if you can make it? How long does it take if you're

a) new to the system
b) not good with math
c) unsure where to look or what influences it?

For me, I hate table lookups. I hate things that slow down the game. I'd rather be fast and wrong than slow and right, because when the game bogs down into "looking things up"/"doing calculations", people start tuning out and it gets very hard to get them back.

That's one thing I love about 5e--with the much reduced mechanical focus and the acceptance of on-the-spot DM decision-making, you just make a decision and carry on. Is it exactly the right decision? Doesn't matter one bit, as long as the DM is trying to help people have fun. This becomes exponentially more important as table size increases. Goes for players, too. Make a decision that's in keeping with your character and move on. Save the detailed planning for either out-of-game or for specific "let's make plans everybody" times, not while everyone's waiting for you to run through that 1000-step flowchart. 90% of the time, doing the "optimal" thing doesn't matter. That's another benefit of having the d20 matter--you can do the in-character thing and you're likely to be just as successful as someone who does all the math. Which encourages doing the in-character thing.

[XenoGeno]

In the way that "railroading" is usually meant in this forum to mean "there is a basic plot that the players are expected to buy into and follow, rather than just do whatever they feel like"? Hi, I'm one of those people you've never met, how you doing :smalltongue:.

No, I mean "railroading" as in "there is a SPECIFIC plot that the players HAVE to buy into and follow, and in a specific way." D&D is an improv game. Frequently, players will improv in a way that is good for character narrative but bad for plot narrative, since the DM can't think of and plan for everything the players will do. 5E's reliance on subjective DM judgement calls makes railroading more common. I'm not saying sandbox games are preferable, it requires a certain DM and I've only ever had a good experience with that type once. But it's definitely more in line with 5E's philosophy.