Opinion: will you be reluctant or eager to switch from 5E to 6E?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Why can't we both have what we want? Why do you want me to be burdened by your list?

And what if two people want lists...but find the other person's list to be completely wrong? If it's encoded into rule[1], then one person is unhappy. If it's crowdsourced, both can be happy as long as they're not playing together.

There's also the fact that spending the time and effort needed to
a) compile a set of examples that are thorough enough for everyone
b) decide on DCs for them in the abstract, without any of the details
c) play-test those decisions thoroughly (as we expect from professionals, after all)

and the extra space those will take (which will be at minimum several pages) will mean they won't be doing things some of us may find useful.

Here's a question for those that want such tables--would you be satisfied if the devs published a web document with "here are some suggestions for DCs"? That is, it's not part of the actual printed rulebooks, but it's "official"?

[1] And yes, putting a list in a rule book is encoding it into rule. It sets expectations that these numbers will be used with little or no deviation.

[EggKookoo]

So have a guidance be buried in the DMG without it being proscriptive. By default the list is not used.

History has taught me to be skeptical in this regard.

5e has lasted longer and arguably been more successful without a list than 3x was with its list. I'm not seeing a strong argument here.

[Psyren]

Not talking about players in a playgroup trying to overrule the GM with irrelevant text from the PHB/DMG. (this is what I initially thought you meant)

It is not so easy to dismiss officially printed rules text as "irrelevant." WotC must therefore take great care with what they choose to codify as rules vs. what they don't. Putting aside weaponize-happy players, Even DMs will feel pressured to be versed with as much of it as they can, no matter how many disclaimers WotC crams in reminding them that they can ignore as much of it as they want; the default assumption for most is that the rule exists for a reason, and so disregarding it or refusing to internalize it should also need a good reason. Overcodification will do far more harm to their game than undercodification.

[Segev]

As mentioned before, climbing already has a rule. Your assumption of 'abusive DM' is not accepted.

Gasp! You're right! There IS a rule!

Amazing! That means I know that my DC 20 is unreasonably hard for that activity!

Now, how about all those abilities and skills that have zero guidelines? That's a lot of stuff I may make equally egregious mistakes on, since I don't have a rule or guideline for where to set my expectations. Again, I'm asking for ballparks, here. I'd like to know that I'm in the ballpark, rather than starting over at the ice hockey rink three towns over when I meant to be at the baseball game.

[OldTrees1]

Here's a question for those that want such tables--would you be satisfied if the devs published a web document with "here are some suggestions for DCs"? That is, it's not part of the actual printed rulebooks, but it's "official"?

If the product includes the guidance, then yes. It does not really matter to me if the location of the guidance is free extra content in some online SRD or web document. (I could even print it out since I like physical copies over digital copies).

Although I worry that a page in a web document with "here are some suggestions for DCs" would have a greater burden on users like EggKookoo than if it were placed in the DMG. Placing it as a variant in the DM's material helps reinforce the message to the players that the DM does not need to use that material. I would be concerned that a web document might be seen as player facing. (However whichever of those creates less of a burden on groups that don't use it, the better)

PS: Although the better the guidance, the more I would be satisfied.

History has taught me to be skeptical in this regard.

5e has lasted longer and arguably been more successful without a list than 3x was with its list. I'm not seeing a strong argument here.

Did you know I can run a 5E game without feats? It is not that hard since feats are a variant (albeit a popular one). What if 6E moved the feat variant to the DMG instead of the PHB? Maybe it would be even easier to run a 6E game without feats.

Recent history (5E variants in PHB and DMG) shows we can make innovations towards having popular options framed as variants to reduce the burden on those that don't want to use that variant.

[KorvinStarmast]

Now, how about all those abilities and skills that have zero guidelines?

Read chapter 7, Read the DMG. Consider in your own mind what Easy, Medium, Hard, etc means as related to the situation in front of the party. (This isn't a computer game)
If you are completely flabbergasted, make the DC an 11. (That's a 50-50 chance, basically a coin flip)
Go forth and do great things.
Precision to even on place to the right of the decimal is not required

[Segev]

Read chapter 7, Read the DMG. Consider in your own mind what Easy, Medium, Hard, etc means as related to the situation in front of the party. (This isn't a computer game)
If you are completely flabbergasted, make the DC an 11. (That's a 50-50 chance, basically a coin flip)
Go forth and do great things.
Precision to even on place to the right of the decimal is not required

If I follow that advice for climbing a rope, then the DC is 20.

This is how I know that your advice does not yield the results the game designers intend, since where they bothered to put actual rules, that advice doesn't yield the same results as where they did.

[Keltest]

Gasp! You're right! There IS a rule!

Amazing! That means I know that my DC 20 is unreasonably hard for that activity!

This argument would come off a lot stronger if you hadnt deliberately chosen a value that you knew would be unreasonably hard already. You have, ironically, only emphasized that you are fully capable of figuring it out yourself, and just choose not to.

[KorvinStarmast]

If I follow that advice for climbing a rope, then the DC is 20.

No, for climbing there's already a rule. We covered this before. (Keltest has accurately sorted out the game being played here).

[EggKookoo]

Although I worry that a page in a web document with "here are some suggestions for DCs" would have a greater burden on users like EggKookoo than if it were placed in the DMG. Placing it as a variant in the DM's material helps reinforce the message to the players that the DM does not need to use that material. I would be concerned that a web document might be seen as player facing. (However whichever of those creates less of a burden on groups that don't use it, the better)

I imagine if it's labeled as "for DMs" it wouldn't make much difference if it's in the DMG or on a website somewhere. The likelihood of it being interpreted as carved in stone would be about the same. Maybe a little less for a website simply because it's less likely people will see it?

The essential problem is that setting DCs is solely the province of the DM, yet it seems to cause friction among players who expect the numbers to be different, and since many skills that invoke DCs veer toward real-world tasks like crafting things, persuading people, climbing over tough terrain, and so forth, players often feel like subject matter experts.

Contrast this with combat and magic, which many of us are far less familiar with. In addition, if the DM decides a monster is tougher than the player expects, at least the player has the benefit of added XP. And defeating the monster is a team effort that doesn't boil down to a single roll the way most ability checks do.

Likewise, feats and multiclassing, while options, are the kinds of things players mull over between sessions or during session 0. Conflicts that come up there can be settled without disrupting play. Ability checks are different. Even the simple decision of a check is warranted is up to the DM at the time the PC is taking the action. The DM has to juggle info about the game world that the player might not know about. IMO the DM needs to be free to decide a DC without the player second guessing it.

On top of all of this, D&D's rules are an exercise in the illusion of precision. If you watched two games in which you never learn the DCs determined by the DM for any ability check (the DM just told the player if they succeeded or failed their rolls), you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a DM that used a fine-tuned list that he never deviated from and a DM that just used 10/13/18 for a kind of "easy, medium, hard" thing. The d20 is just too swingy. The games would mostly look the same from the outside.

[PhoenixPhyre]

On top of all of this, D&D's rules are an exercise in the illusion of precision. If you watched two games in which you never learn the DCs determined by the DM for any ability check (the DM just told the player if they succeeded or failed their rolls), you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a DM that used a fine-tuned list that he never deviated from and a DM that just used 10/13/18 for a kind of "easy, medium, hard" thing. The d20 is just too swingy. The games would mostly look the same from the outside.

Yeah. Confession time:

I rarely actually set precise DCs. Sure, I know roughly how hard something is, and try to communicate that. But DC 13 vs 15? It rarely matters. 99% of the time, I only use DC 10, 15, and 20. Except those times where they're only rolling for degrees of success and I've already decided they'll succeed but the check is determining (eg) how much information they get. Or which information they get. In which case "more is better".

The only times there are precise target numbers for ability checks are for contested checks or ones such as Dexterity (Stealth), where the DC is set by Passive Perception, or similar externally-set DCs.

How many times has this mattered over the last 8 years of running usually 2 groups a week? Never.

[EggKookoo]

If I follow that advice for climbing a rope, then the DC is 20.

Again, I need to point out that a climb DC of 20 is not inherently wrong or bad. It's a perfectly valid DC, assuming your players don't find it immersion-breaking. If they do, it's not going to be the only time that happens (it happens to me periodically, but less as time goes on). You adjust for the next session. Basically, you'll build your own list over time that works for your table.

This is a feature.

[Segev]

This argument would come off a lot stronger if you hadnt deliberately chosen a value that you knew would be unreasonably hard already. You have, ironically, only emphasized that you are fully capable of figuring it out yourself, and just choose not to.

No, I woudn't know that's unreasonable, actually, without htat rule. Using the standards you laid out, I know that climbing a rope is very hard. I have never once been able to do it. Taking into account my own lack of upper body strength, I would downgrade it from the DC 30 of "nigh impossible" that that indicates to me to the DC 20 of "hard" that I would assume is more like what others experience.

BUT! Game convention is established by a rule that tells me that, too, is inaccurate.

No, for climbing there's already a rule. We covered this before. (Keltest has accurately sorted out the game being played here).

I did choose something for which there is a rule. That rule tells me my analysis is inaccurate, which helps highlight the problem of a LACK of guidelines. Without that guideline that climbing a rope is basically supposed to be automatic, I would legitimately believe it should be DC 20 by the standards laid out. AFTER taking into account my own bias, but apparently not doing so hard enough.

[KorvinStarmast]

On top of all of this, D&D's rules are an exercise in the illusion of precision. If you watched two games in which you never learn the DCs determined by the DM for any ability check (the DM just told the player if they succeeded or failed their rolls), you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a DM that used a fine-tuned list that he never deviated from and a DM that just used 10/13/18 for a kind of "easy, medium, hard" thing. The d20 is just too swingy. The games would mostly look the same from the outside.

Correct. If we go back to basic 'how to play' that makes a lot of sense.
according to the standard play loop:
1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions. Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.

All the DM needs to do is ask for a die roll now and again, and as you say, it's transparent. And it speeds up play.

I have never once been able to do it.

But you are not climbing the rope, the make believe person is, the PC. You have exposed an attempt to apply the 'guy at the gym' appeal to support your point. It fails, as ever.

None of this is as hard as you are pretending that it is. By all means, make it hard on yourself if you like.

[Segev]

But you are not climbing the rope, the make believe person is, the PC. You have exposed an attempt to apply the 'guy at the gym' appeal to support your point. It fails, as ever.

None of this is as hard as you are pretending that it is. By all means, make it hard on yourself if you like.

Actually, I have stated that the problem with the current lack of guidelines is that it requires applying the guy at the gym to establish the baselines.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Actually, I have stated that the problem with the current lack of guidelines is that it requires applying the guy at the gym to establish the baselines.

????

No, they don't. You don't have to assume anything about real life at all. All you have to decide is how hard you want it to be for the heroes, doing heroic things in a heroic adventure game. 5e makes no attempt to simulate the whole world. Or the real world. It's all about archetypes and relevant fiction.

[Segev]

????

No, they don't. You don't have to assume anything about real life at all. All you have to decide is how hard you want it to be for the heroes, doing heroic things in a heroic adventure game. 5e makes no attempt to simulate the whole world. Or the real world. It's all about archetypes and relevant fiction.

Oh. So I have even less guidance than I thought? I just...make up numbers?

Seriously, you all seem to have it in your heads that whatever YOU happen to be able to imagine as appropriate numbers, everyone else must intuitively grasp as well. And that I am either a moron or a deliberately obtuse fool for not being able to determine whether it is easy, moderately difficult, or hard to spot a fly on a wallpaper, or to recognize a particular song being whistled by one passer-by in a crowded bazaar, or to instinctively know that climbing a rope is supposed to require no check at all even if the rules didn't spell that out for me.

I honestly don't know how you know all of that. To me, your encouragements to "make it up" or to "assign a number and go" are as useful as telling me that the way to pilot a 747 is to sit down at the controls and "use the right controls at the right time; stop dithering and just fly it already!" Why would I need instructions? They told me that the plane is supposed to be up until it's time for it to be down, and that landing has to be done carefully; isn't that good enough?

[Keltest]

Oh. So I have even less guidance than I thought? I just...make up numbers?

Seriously, you all seem to have it in your heads that whatever YOU happen to be able to imagine as appropriate numbers, everyone else must intuitively grasp as well. And that I am either a moron or a deliberately obtuse fool for not being able to determine whether it is easy, moderately difficult, or hard to spot a fly on a wallpaper, or to recognize a particular song being whistled by one passer-by in a crowded bazaar, or to instinctively know that climbing a rope is supposed to require no check at all even if the rules didn't spell that out for me.

I honestly don't know how you know all of that. To me, your encouragements to "make it up" or to "assign a number and go" are as useful as telling me that the way to pilot a 747 is to sit down at the controls and "use the right controls at the right time; stop dithering and just fly it already!" Why would I need instructions? They told me that the plane is supposed to be up until it's time for it to be down, and that landing has to be done carefully; isn't that good enough?

Yes, you just make stuff up. Thats literally 80% of DMing. I should hope you arent genuinely finding this scandalous at this point.

[Sorinth]

The ironic part of the whole what if the DM sets a DC of 20 for stuff that should be easier the game still actually runs perfectly fine. Some tactics will be more/less effective, the tone/style of the game will be different and that's it. So sure if the DM sets super high DCs on persuasion/deception/stealth when trying to avoid fights it means those tactics won't be effective and the style of game will be more of a hack and slash. If your exploration DCs are all super high then it's likely going to be a more attrition based game. Or everything can have a super high dc and the DM uses a slapstick comedy fail forward approach. None of those are the right/wrong way to play D&D but as soon as you hardcode the DCs then suddenly there is a right/wrong way.

All the DMG should do is offer as guidance and help explain how your choice of DCs impact the style/tone of game. It does this to a degree but no doubt could be improved upon.

[Segev]

Yes, you just make stuff up. Thats literally 80% of DMing. I should hope you arent genuinely finding this scandalous at this point.

And yet, you all agree DC 20 for climbing a rope is egregious, and seem to think I should know that without having the rules telling me so.

[Keltest]

And yet, you all agree DC 20 for climbing a rope is egregious, and seem to think I should know that without having the rules telling me so.

Thats because you DO know its egregious and specifically picked it for the purposes of being egregious. As Korvin said, we're already on to that game and arent interested in playing.

[EggKookoo]

And yet, you all agree DC 20 for climbing a rope is egregious, and seem to think I should know that without having the rules telling me so.

I don't agree with that, and I've said so a few times.

DC 20 might result in your players failing too often for their taste for fun. That's highly subjective, although I guess we can see likelihood there.

Yes, you grab hold of the 747 controls and you fly the plane. And you crash. Luckily it's all make believe, so you can get right back up in the air again until you get a handle on it. The problem is that your 747 flies differently than mine does, and you're insisting on an instruction manual.

[Sorinth]

And that I am either a moron or a deliberately obtuse fool

Can you honestly say your posts aren't like that? I mean your argument was that you were never able climb a rope in your life and therefore it must be hard, so how is that not you acting like one of those two things? Are you not aware that people can and do climb ropes (And much more difficult things) easily or do you think you are the perfect representative specimen for determining difficulty?

[Sorinth]

I don't agree with that, and I've said so a few times.

DC 20 might result in your players failing too often for their taste for fun. That's highly subjective, although I guess we can see likelihood there.

Yes, you grab hold of the 747 controls and you fly the plane. And you crash. Luckily it's all make believe, so you can get right back up in the air again until you get a handle on it. The problem is that your 747 flies differently than mine does, and you're insisting on an instruction manual.

The ironic thing is it's actually quite easy to land a plane without any training whatsoever so long as you can communicate with the control tower. It even happened quite recently with a Cessna I believe where the passenger had to take control because the pilot had a stroke. In a game though if we stuck to realism we'd probably lose out on fun because it would be no check or a DC 5 check. And at the end of the day whether we set a higher DC because we think it will be more fun with a bigger chance of failure, because we have no idea how easy/difficult landing a plane is or we wanted to stick to realism and so through in a bunch of engine/equipment/weather problems to get the DC we want is basically irrelevant.

[Psyren]

DC 20 in action

Thats because you DO know its egregious and specifically picked it for the purposes of being egregious. As Korvin said, we're already on to that game and arent interested in playing.

Precisely.

[OldTrees1]

I imagine if it's labeled as "for DMs" it wouldn't make much difference if it's in the DMG or on a website somewhere. The likelihood of it being interpreted as carved in stone would be about the same. Maybe a little less for a website simply because it's less likely people will see it?

It being in the DMG is an unmissable label saying it is "for DMs". You are confident a similarly effective label could exist for a web document. I trust your estimation.

The essential problem is that setting DCs is solely the province of the DM, yet it seems to cause friction among players who expect the numbers to be different, and since many skills that invoke DCs veer toward real-world tasks like crafting things, persuading people, climbing over tough terrain, and so forth, players often feel like subject matter experts.

This problem can be improved but never removed from the entire playerbase. 5E still has this problem but less so since the ability check section is even clearer than before about it being solely the province of the GM.

On the other hand, I don't see this problem in my groups regardless of the ability check GMing style. We felt it was clear that the GM sets the DC. Sometimes expectations differed (regardless of ability check GMing style) but in those cases the players mentioned the expectation mismatch to work on the miscommunication rather than causing friction or demanding authority over the DC.

It is hard for me to judge the clarity of a message beyond the point when it became clear enough to me. However I think the 5E section on skill checks is very clear that the DC is up to the GM. Adding some examples clearly labeled as suggestions/examples "in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.' " would not significantly worsen the problem of argumentative players being disruptive if they are not already arguing about your DC 13.

On the other hand if one were to flub the messaging by putting the examples at the start of PHB chapter 7 and forget to label them as suggestions, ... well then there would be friction. Those that want the suggestions are listening and trying to help improve/harden the message that the GM controls the DCs so it will minimize the number of disruptive players and improve both GMing styles

[Mastikator]

Oh. So I have even less guidance than I thought? I just...make up numbers?

Use The Princess Bride as a baseline guidance. The Dread Pirate Roberts was climbing the cliff wall with ease and was super fast when he used a rope. Westley was a typical T1 (maybe low T2) fighter who was proficient in athletics and only kinda strong.

I know I did could, and did, climb a rope hanging from a 8 meter ceiling. I could climb all the way up *when I was 14. It wasn't a DC 20 for me, it wasn't even a check. I did it easily. If I could do it, a heroic warrior can do it easily.

*I would probably struggle today, being a sedentary slightly overweight software developer.

[noob]

Climbing a rope depends massively on how much muscle power you have relatively to your own weight, being a big man covered in 30 kilograms of full plate but with weak arms might make rope climbing near impossible while being young and having frequent exercise might make you able to climb a rope with ease.
If we wanted a logical dc we would logically base it on your mass and equipment weight but that would be extremely annoying to start checking how heavy each player character is while 99% of the time the weight of the player characters is a non factor and that the equipment rules have been dropped.
This is why we use skills and have the gm assign a dc of 30 to rope climbing because the gm usually walks in body armour around while having a backpack with 5 days of food and a rifle with 300 bullets and so he does a fair assessment of the difficulty your thin halfling dex fighter would face while climbing a rope.

This is because some gms does not carries enough equipment that they do not realise climbing a rope can be really hard.

[EggKookoo]

I can tell you how I'd enjoy a 6e to solve this. It's probably unworkable and many people wouldn't like it, but I would love a system that lets us calculate DCs using a process. Rather than a static set of DCs.

Take AC. The core AC mechanic is 10 + Dex mod. Then other things modify it. Armor can change the base 10 to something else, or override the value entirely. Some features allow other mods to be added on or perhaps replaced (not sure if any official feature replaces Dex, but in principle it could be done). This system allows a DM to generate a range of ACs from some a fairly simple starting point, which can be useful across all PC level ranges.

So a "task DC" system, where you start with X + [something], where X might vary based on some class of task complexity or difficulty. Basic tasks like climbing might have X = 8, while more sophisticated tasks that require specialized training might be X = 12 or maybe even X = 15 if that makes sense. The [something] would represent a kind of sliding modifier. Not sure what, but I would expect it to scale something like Proficiency Bonus. A tree might be a basic task to climb (8), but if it has lots of handholds then [something] would be lower. A smooth, straight trunk would imply a larger value for [something]. Circumstantial modifiers, such as it's raining so the trunk is slippery, would still be applied as disadvantage.

Anyway, I'd like something like that over just "tree is tree."

[OldTrees1]

I can tell you how I'd enjoy a 6e to solve this. It's probably unworkable and many people wouldn't like it, but I would love a system that lets us calculate DCs using a process. Rather than a static set of DCs.

Take AC. The core AC mechanic is 10 + Dex mod. Then other things modify it. Armor can change the base 10 to something else, or override the value entirely. Some features allow other mods to be added on or perhaps replaced (not sure if any official feature replaces Dex, but in principle it could be done). This system allows a DM to generate a range of ACs from some a fairly simple starting point, which can be useful across all PC level ranges.

So a "task DC" system, where you start with X + [something], where X might vary based on some class of task complexity or difficulty. Basic tasks like climbing might have X = 8, while more sophisticated tasks that require specialized training might be X = 12 or maybe even X = 15 if that makes sense. The [something] would represent a kind of sliding modifier. Not sure what, but I would expect it to scale something like Proficiency Bonus. A tree might be a basic task to climb (8), but if it has lots of handholds then [something] would be lower. A smooth, straight trunk would imply a larger value for [something]. Circumstantial modifiers, such as it's raining so the trunk is slippery, would still be applied as disadvantage.

Anyway, I'd like something like that over just "tree is tree."

There is merit to this approach. It might be better as guidance for determining DCs rather than the core system itself. The way you describe it, it sounds concrete enough that you would want to ensure you start by hammering in the message that the GM is in control of the DCs.

I mention this because this process method with ad hoc [something] modifiers is very similar to how 3E worked in my experience. This gave me a lot of power to preemptively communicate to the players about how easy/hard something was (rather than "tree is tree"), while also clearly having the GM be in control of the DCs.

However 3E's messaging and framing caused friction for some players in some groups. Given that, despite liking your model itself, I suggest it might need some reinforced messaging before it in said chapter, if that makes sense.

That said, I like it and would use it.