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

[OldTrees1]

It seems to me that the issue stems mostly around the concept of 'can do/can't do' being resolved via RNG in an unsatisfying way. Because there is a 1-20 range (i.e. 19) in success/failure, it seems that for something to be easy for one character it has to be a coin flip for another (at worst) and likewise, something which is impossible for one character is a coin-flip for the pro. I'm assuming a -1 vs +8ish bonus.

The distribution here leads to several unsatisfying results.

You grok the situation. It also applies to a single character across different levels. I am assuming a +4 vs +11ish bonus.

Eldariel mentioned an idea above.

The other option is using some "degrees of success"-system, which I tend towards since it maintains the d20 core resolution mechanic (though 3d6 core resolution works pretty well for the whole system as well): use "ability modifier/2 rounded up" as base success and then have the roll modify that (so a +0 character has level 0 success, +1 has level 1 success, +3 has level 2 success, etc. and then roll = DC gives you your base level success while +5 gives you +1 tier result, +10 gives you +2 tier result, etc.).

[Psyren]

But I'm still convinced that you know this, which is why youre sticking with the rope example and the DC 20 amount, because if you changed it to, say, picking a lock instead, your argument would immediately become weaker, and you wouldnt have the "but the rules say I'm wrong" bit to fall back on whenever somebody calls you on having a poor basis for your DC of 20.

Because in order for your argument to make any sense, you have to have deliberately picked something egregious (since otherwise you just demonstrate it works correctly) and the only way you can do that is to call for a check in a situation that doesnt demand one in the first place, at which point youre just failing to use the system correctly.

Exactly, it's obvious.

And his text does not communicate that to me, especially nothing about 3d6s or bell curves. Ergo, problem.

Other folks parsed it, so... *shrug*

The distribution here leads to several unsatisfying results. Realistically, a Monk should be climbing a rope with literally no effort while a wizard should be struggling to even try. The game doesn't reflect this as written.

But it does. {Scrubbed}

[Arkhios]

What do you mean by "Switching" from 5E to 6E? I still play 3.5E after two editions having been released since.

In all seriousness, though. I feel that word "switch" is a bit strong in this context. As if there was no other option but TO switch or die a horrible death by exploding from not doing so.
The 5th edition is not going anywhere, even if a 6th (or "5.5") edition were to be released. The books and rules won't just up and vanish from existence.

I'm of the opinion "the more, the better". More options to choose from for each of our preferences. Some of us still prefer the original version, AD&D, 3rd edition, 3.5e, 4th edition (although, in dwindling numbers as I've gathered), or 5th edition as it is. Some of us even prefer some other rule sets not strictly speaking D&D (Pathfinder, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, etc). That does not however unequivocally mean that other editions would suck so bad that they don't deserve to exist.

No, I won't be reluctant or eager to check it out first, before making up my mind on which edition I would prefer to use. Give it a chance, that's all I'm saying.

[diplomancer]

Segev, I'd say you should know DC20 is egregiously wrong because you know people do climb ropes easily and reliably, even if you yourself, personally, can't. The way the math works, a Str 20 level 20 fighter with Athletics proficiency would fail at climbing a rope 40% of the time! Does that sound about right to you?

Of course, this goes back to why rolling should only be done when the outcome is uncertain (which is not true when you're trying to climb the rope, as that's a guaranteed failure, nor is it true of someone who can climb ropes, as that's a guaranteed success).

For instance, if there were no guidance, I could see a DM, maybe relying too much on his own personal experience (i.e, not that of an adventurer), saying "you need Str 11 to climb a rope" (i.e, above average strength), or, if he wanted to make it more complicated, some sort of ratio between Str and body weight (in which case he should not be surprised if he started having really light PCs); both of those solutions would not be wrong; but saying "the DC to climb a rope is DC20" would be wrong.

[Goobahfish]

But it does. {Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Can you justify this remark? Haven't you previously posted that climbing a rope doesn't require a check? Shouldn't it for a STR=8 wizard? Again, are you suggesting that the DM's guide suggests arbitrary circumstance bonuses by stealth?

There seems to be some logic that 'some children can climb ropes' ergo 'all adventurers can climb ropes' ergo no check required. OR The DM just decides whether one player needs to make a check and for other players they don't? I mean it makes sense for 'do I know X' but for can I physically do this slightly out of the ordinary thing which has a meaningful consequence for failure?

[diplomancer]

Can you justify this remark? Haven't you previously posted that climbing a rope doesn't require a check? Shouldn't it for a STR=8 wizard? Again, are you suggesting that the DM's guide suggests arbitrary circumstance bonuses by stealth?

There seems to be some logic that 'some children can climb ropes' ergo 'all adventurers can climb ropes' ergo no check required. OR The DM just decides whether one player needs to make a check and for other players they don't? I mean it makes sense for 'do I know X' but for can I physically do this slightly out of the ordinary thing which has a meaningful consequence for failure?

Yes, the DM should not decide to roll for the 8 Str Wizard; hecould however, absent any guidance in the rules, decide an 8 str Wizard couldn't do it. Unless we are talking about specifically delineated actions (in D&D, usually combat-related), it's always the DM who calls for a check; if there were no climbing rules he'd be well within his rights to say "sorry, you can't do that" to the 8 Str Goliath Wizard and say "sure, you climb the rope" for the 20 Str Halfling Barbarian. The check is for when the DM does not know what's going to happen. He might, perhaps, call for a roll if the 20 Str Halfling Barbarian were to try to climb the rope one handed while dragging the Goliath Wizard with his other hand, so the Goliath Wizard would have his hands free to cast spells on the monsters that were trying to eat our unusual duo.

[Goobahfish]

Yes, the DM should not decide to roll for the 8 Str Wizard; hecould however, absent any guidance in the rules, decide an 8 str Wizard couldn't do it. Unless we are talking about specifically delineated actions (in D&D, usually combat-related), it's always the DM who calls for a check; if there were no climbing rules he'd be well within his rights to say "sorry, you can't do that" to the 8 Str Goliath Wizard and say "sure, you climb the rope" for the 20 Str Halfling Barbarian. The check is for when the DM does not know what's going to happen. He might, perhaps, call for a roll if the 20 Str Halfling Barbarian were to try to climb the rope one handed while dragging the Goliath Wizard with his other hand, so the Goliath Wizard would have his hands free to cast spells on the monsters that were trying to eat our unusual duo.

Ok... but let's step back a bit and look at the maths and think about what a party actually looks like. It is easy enough to say, well, this character automatically succeeds, and this other character might fail. But with a party of 5.

Let's say, we're climbing a rope in 'blustery conditions'. We have a trained acrobat (+9). There's an academic (-1). There are some people in between. Lets say with modifiers of +0, +2, +7. There are pursuers. What is the DC? Maybe we could say... acrobat, you automatically succeed. So the DC for that should be around... 10 right... The wizard autofails so the DC should be around... 20. For the others in between... DC = 10? They could certainly fail... it could be pretty dangerous. Set it at 15 and you are almost guaranteed someone will fail. Set it at 10 and the wizard is certain to call shenanigans...

What outcome are we aiming for?

D&D is pretty ill-equipped to answer these questions. This isn't even a complex scenario? 5 party members climb a rope in slightly windy conditions to escape pursuers.

[diplomancer]

Ok... but let's step back a bit and look at the maths and think about what a party actually looks like. It is easy enough to say, well, this character automatically succeeds, and this other character might fail. But with a party of 5.

Let's say, we're climbing a rope in 'blustery conditions'. We have a trained acrobat (+9). There's an academic (-1). There are some people in between. Lets say with modifiers of +0, +2, +7. There are pursuers. What is the DC? Maybe we could say... acrobat, you automatically succeed. So the DC for that should be around... 10 right... The wizard autofails so the DC should be around... 20. For the others in between... DC = 10? They could certainly fail... it could be pretty dangerous. Set it at 15 and you are almost guaranteed someone will fail. Set it at 10 and the wizard is certain to call shenanigans...

What outcome are we aiming for?

D&D is pretty ill-equipped to answer these questions. This isn't even a complex scenario? 5 party members climb a rope in slightly windy conditions to escape pursuers.

Assuming there were no climbing guidances, the DM now could assign a DC for a character, say "You fail" to another, and "you succeed" to a 3rd. The DC for those whom the DM does not know should be, for consistency sake, as a maximum, 1+(bonus of the player with the best skill). If the "you fail" player complains that the DC is too low and so he should have a chance, DM answers "I don't know if he can succeed under these conditions, but I do know that you will fail, since you already can't do it under normal conditions". Of course, to make it work, the DM should try to be fair (i.e, no Arcana checks for the Int 8 Barbarian; in the same way, DM knows the Barbarian will fail).

With the climbing guidances that we do have, which tell us all adventures are "climbing capable", he now perhaps could set a DC for all of them, probably low enough that the more skilled character will still auto-pass, unless conditions are really dire, while the less trained ones (who are still capable of climbing ropes) would have some chance of failure.

In some ways, this is a bit like the Kenobi vs. Anakin fight. Obiwan tells Anakin "don't even try", Anakin says "you underestimate my power", jumps, and gets chopped in half. When there is no chance at all and the character still tries it, even after DM tells him there's no chance at all, well, he'll have to leave with the consequences of failure.

[EggKookoo]

Set it at 15 and you are almost guaranteed someone will fail.

What's the actual problem with this?

[KorvinStarmast]

It seems to me that the issue stems mostly around the concept of 'can do/can't do' being resolved via RNG in an unsatisfying way.

Failure needs to be an option otherwise what is the point in rolling a check?

Realistically, a Monk should be climbing a rope with literally no effort while a wizard should be struggling to even try.

That's not a fact, that's an opinion. I find a more reasonable approach to be "the monk can go up the rope more quickly, the wizard more slowly" to fit. They both end up at the top of the rope, but the wizard took longer; if time isn't a factor, why are you even rolling a check?

The game doesn't reflect this as written.

Actually, yes it does.

That is a dangerous concept, certainly prone to breaking the suspension of disbelief in a game. Two players roll the same roll and the outcome is different?

How is that a problem? One PC is proficient and the other is not. One is stronger than the other.
Also, you seem to be a bit dice focused here.
The dice are a tool, the dice don't rule.

But it does.{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Concur.

Can you justify this remark? Haven't you previously posted that climbing a rope doesn't require a check? Shouldn't it for a STR=8 wizard?

Not necessarily. you are approaching this in a white room, in a vacuum. What are the circumstances? Is the rope wet? Is the party in a hurry? Is the wizard injured? Is the wizard carrying too much stuff? Without understanding the circumstances, the wizard just takes longer is a sufficient rendering of the challenge they face.
But if the wizard tries to hurry up or go too fast? What if the wizard has a level of exhaustion?
What if, What if?
OK, trying to hurry up to get up the rope before the horde of zombies comes through that door ... here's a nice spot for an athletics check.

Let's go back to the core rules of the game.

1. DM describes environment
2. Players describe what they do (or attempt)
3. DM narrates the outcome (only roll dice if necessary, see chapter 7, it's there in the text)

[Psyren]

Can you justify this remark? Haven't you previously posted that climbing a rope doesn't require a check?

I was focused more on the "monk climbing without a check." I agree that 8 Str should not be "struggling to climb a rope." 8 is not actually that low - a rogue with 8 Str and Athletics Expertise will actually be better at athletics checks than many strength-based characters who are proficient, and definitely better than Str-based characters who are not. And as I mentioned previously, Str 8 characters can lift up to 240lbs.

Also, you shouldn't be calling for a check if the entirety of your challenge is just "here's a rope." That's the point.

[GooeyChewie]

Since, again, all three of the following cannot be true:

(1) Climbing is supposed to be something you can just do, according to the guidelines for climbing in the rules.
(2) The rules for assigning ability check DCs are as complete as they need to be and no guidelines are required, because you can assign whatever DCs seem reasonable/realistic/appropriate on the fly.
(3) Segev followed the guidance referenced in (2) and came up with DC 20 for climbing ropes.

And, since all three cannot be true, Segev clearly must be a liar no matter how much he demonstrates why DC 20 makes sense to him and would make sense to him if he were called upon to rule it in his game absent any guidance other than that presented in (2). He surely would not have come up with DC 20 based on that guidance, which is all we need to come up with perfectly reasonable DCs, and thus he would know without the guideline in (1) that it should be no check at all. It cannot possibly be that guidelines, such as the one in (1), would actually change the DCs that DMs assign to things; all DMs would definitely know what Segev is clearly only pretending not to know.

For (1), it is true that climbing does not require a skill check unless the DM adjudicates that the surface is slippery or has few handholds. I'm guessing the rope in the example is not slippery, since no mention of its slipperiness was made. So I guess you are adjudicating that rope has few handholds? I'm not really sure how one would define 'handholds' for a rope, so I suppose you could count it. The PHB (pg.182) provides no other circumstances under which a check would be required for climbing, not even an "or other similar" style caveat. Of course, the DM does have the standard "rule 0" authority to ignore that fact and call for a check anyway.

All that said, from a game-design standpoint I'm pretty sure WotC specifically put climbing in as a type of movement rather than an ability check in order to make it more viable in combat. If standard climbing required an ability check, then it would take an action in combat. It's reasonable to occasionally have a terrain obstacle that eats up your action, but if all vertical terrain took an action to climb it would severely limit how much of it you could include in a map and still have a viable encounter. I believe the same is true for swimming and jumping, which is why they also have specific rules which skirt the "making an ability (skill) check takes an action" rule.

For (2) and (3), we need to look at what guidelines are actually provided, as per page 238 of the DMG. This page does have the chart mapping "very easy/easy/etc." to "5/10/etc.". In addition, the text below talks a bit about what those terms mean. In each case the DMG talks in terms of the odds of success and what the character would likely need to succeed (ability score, proficiency, and/or luck on the D20). In other words, the DM sets the DC based on the challenge they want to present the party, not based on simulating the actual real-world difficulty of the task. Granted, the challenge the DM wants to present might be influenced by their perception of the real-world difficulty of a particular task, but the root decision is still based on the challenge the DM wants to set.

Considering the fact that the DC is set by the challenge the DM wants to present and not based on the real-world difficulty of the task, it does seem within the DM's purview to set the DC of climbing a rope (with few handholds) at DC 20. So why does this DC seem to get such a reaction? The answer is a matter of presentation. Ropes are made to be climbed. So when you present the party with a rope, it most likely signals to them that you do not intend to set forth a hard challenge for the PCs. Even if you and I find them hard to climb here in the real world (and I do!), in fantasy they almost always serve the purpose of making climbing easier (if not outright trivial).

I will absolutely concede that the DMG needs to do a better job of explaining how the system is supposed to work. The guidelines need to make it incredibly obvious that the DM is supposed to trying to simulate real life with their DCs. And I would like to see guidance on how to communicate to your players that a certain check might be more or less difficult. But what I don't want is a list of sample DCs. The whole point of the current system is that DMs don't need to memorize a bunch of raw data, and that the DM has flexibility to run different styles of games by adjusting the DCs in the way they want. Because honestly, it is perfectly reasonable to make climbing a rope DC 20, if you and your table talked in session 0 about how such checks are going to be grounded in your real-world experiences in this campaign rather than the typical fantasy trope standards most players expect from D&D.

[KorvinStarmast]

All that said, from a game-design standpoint I'm pretty sure WotC specifically put climbing in as a type of movement rather than an ability check in order to make it more viable in combat. If standard climbing required an ability check, then it would take an action in combat. It's reasonable to occasionally have a terrain obstacle that eats up your action, but if all vertical terrain took an action to climb it would severely limit how much of it you could include in a map and still have a viable encounter. I believe the same is true for swimming and jumping, which is why they also have specific rules which skirt the "making an ability (skill) check takes an action" rule.

That's my understanding as well.

But what I don't want is a list of sample DCs. The whole point of the current system is that DMs don't need to memorize a bunch of raw data, and that the DM has flexibility to run different styles of games by adjusting the DCs in the way they want.

That's my position as well.

[Psyren]

Not all undefined skill checks that could occur during combat take an action I'd say. One of the undefined Strength checks is "push through a tunnel that is too small" which could just be a part of your move, maybe needing the Dash action if you need to do that for several steps. Others like "stop a boulder from rolling" and "hold your breath" might be reactions at best, if they cost anything at all.

I will absolutely concede that the DMG needs to do a better job of explaining how the system is supposed to work. The guidelines need to make it incredibly obvious that the DM is supposed to trying to simulate real life with their DCs. And I would like to see guidance on how to communicate to your players that a certain check might be more or less difficult.

I think the system should (and currently does) let you choose between simulating "real life" and "heroic fantasy." And I think the default expectation is the latter.

But what I don't want is a list of sample DCs. The whole point of the current system is that DMs don't need to memorize a bunch of raw data, and that the DM has flexibility to run different styles of games by adjusting the DCs in the way they want. Because honestly, it is perfectly reasonable to make climbing a rope DC 20, if you and your table talked in session 0 about how such checks are going to be grounded in your real-world experiences in this campaign rather than the typical fantasy trope standards most players expect from D&D.

Agreed.

[Telok]

Background context:
A few of us posters.....1d10+5 at one point....
Summarizing their post:
....I might still want to explore a right leaning bell curve, it would be a poor fit for PhoenixPhyre.

I hope that summary helps reveal their post was talking about bell curves and helps explain what that text did not communicate to you. PhoenixPhyre does not find bell curves ideal for them. Savvy?

Ok, that explains people's reactions. I wasn't talking about the bell curve thing, that was completely incedential for my comment.

I was commenting on the DMing style of basically only calling a check when the success is basically lol-random and declaring auto-success & failure the rest of the time. That style seems to work out well for some posters for 5e, and you can do it in any system if you like, but it isn't the default style used by or communicated by the books to any of the 5e DMs I've met.

I suppose I could go put a giant red text on the post saying "not about the damn bell curve" but I'd have thought that it not being present in the post would have been enough. Apparently I was wrong.

I think I read boards differently from others. My time is broken up by real life and reading / posting happens in, at most, max 20 minute chunks, but more often in only two to three post increments. Thus I take individual posts as more atomic units than others do, only referring to anything directly quoted & mentioned in the individual post. I generally post that way too. If I don't directly talk about something then I'm generally not commenting on it. Also means I tend to just skip all the broken up & jumbled multiposts because they're hard & slow to read.

[Psyren]

I was commenting on the DMing style of basically only calling a check when the success is basically lol-random and declaring auto-success & failure the rest of the time.

I don't see anyone advocating for a "lol-random" DMing style.

The idea behind calling for a check is that there is a possibility space of equally (or roughly equally) acceptable outcomes, and you want a neutral arbiter to decide between them.

Before doing that, you should eliminate unacceptable outcomes. This includes stuff that is onerous (e.g. the entire party is arrested and slated to be executed!) and the ludicrous (the 20 Str barbarian rolls a 1 and breaks his wrist trying to bash open a door, then the 8 Str wizard gets a 20 and knocks an identical door off its hinges.)

[EggKookoo]

I was commenting on the DMing style of basically only calling a check when the success is basically lol-random and declaring auto-success & failure the rest of the time. That style seems to work out well for some posters for 5e, and you can do it in any system if you like, but it isn't the default style used by or communicated by the books to any of the 5e DMs I've met.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're getting at here, that is in fact how my DMG tells me to do it. Chapter 8: Running the Game, under The Role of the Dice.

I interpret the instructions there to basically mean that I as DM should A) determine, based on my own judgment, whether or not an action succeeds or fails. If B) I can't figure that out, use dice. But the thing is, A and B aren't simple binary positions. If I don't know if an action could reasonably succeed, I could do a number of things before telling the player to reach for a d20. I could ask an expert (ideally someone right there at the table). I could quickly IM my friend who makes a living doing that sort of thing (time-consuming and distracting, I agree, but that's beside the point). I could roll a die of my own to help me make up my mind (1-3 you can just do it, 4-6 you'll need to make a check). I could flip a coin. I could eenie-meanie-miney-moe it. I could just decide that there's some property or feature or quality to the task that firmly pushes it into or out of the can-automatically-do zone -- something that I hadn't thought of until now but is perfectly sensible to be there now that I think about it in more detail.

The point is, dice are just another tool. Look at it this way -- if I say you can't just do it and you make a roll, that doesn't mean anything to your PC. If your roll succeeds, it turns out your PC could indeed "just do it" all along.

[OldTrees1]

Ok, that explains people's reactions. I wasn't talking about the bell curve thing, that was completely incedential for my comment.

The rest of their post explains what part of the probability distribution they personally prefer (the roughly flat top of the peak of the curve). They are explaining that preference to help explain why a bell curve is ill suited to simulating the range they are interested in.

Their post ends before they are done talking about the bell curve thing. Since you are not talking about the bell curve things, it is hard to draw any connection between their post and your reply. Not impossible, but it took multiple tries.

I was commenting on the DMing style of basically only calling a check when the success is basically lol-random and declaring auto-success & failure the rest of the time. That style seems to work out well for some posters for 5e, and you can do it in any system if you like, but it isn't the default style used by or communicated by the books to any of the 5e DMs I've met.

1) I assume you saw and are responding to "which of these two, roughly-equally-probable, equally-acceptable-and-interesting outcomes actually happen". Since you are calling it "lol-random" then I assume you are objecting to "roughly-equally-probable"? As PhoenixPhyre elaborated, by "roughly-equally-probable" they meant the range that remains after you remove forgone conclusions. Given that context I don't think "lol-random" is anywhere near accurate. 2:1 odds are not a forgone conclusion IMHO and are also not "lol-random" nor a coin flip.

2) Why would a poster explaining their preference need to be identical to a "default style"? Neither of the right leaning bell curves I mentioned in the direct quote were the "default style". Are you sure DMs mentioning preferences and exploring options should be held to such a high standard?

I think I read boards differently from others. My time is broken up by real life and reading / posting happens in, at most, max 20 minute chunks, but more often in only two to three post increments. Thus I take individual posts as more atomic units than others do, only referring to anything directly quoted & mentioned in the individual post. I generally post that way too. If I don't directly talk about something then I'm generally not commenting on it. Also means I tend to just skip all the broken up & jumbled multiposts because they're hard & slow to read.

From PhoenixPhyre's post and its direct quote of my post, I would have expected you to pick up on a different context / tone than you did. Hopefully this continues to explain the reactions.

[Goobahfish]

In some ways, this is a bit like the Kenobi vs. Anakin fight. Obiwan tells Anakin "don't even try", Anakin says "you underestimate my power", jumps, and gets chopped in half. When there is no chance at all and the character still tries it, even after DM tells him there's no chance at all, well, he'll have to leave with the consequences of failure.

And here is where it breaks down. Does the DM simply decide the Wizard fails or tell him he fails before he tries?

In the former case, you just took away agency. In the second case, you broke the game.

What's the actual problem with this?

Nothing specifically. The problem specifically with the example of climbing (and most of exploration) is that there isn't much of a 'soft fail'. I.e. in combat when you are hit, you have a soft fail at dodging. It doesn't kill you but it does change the board state.

In a lot of exploration tasks... there is capital F fail or nothing interesting happens. You can work around this of course (something I think a fair few replies seem to think I don't understand).

Also, can I point out at this point that the but climbing is automatic response is getting tiresome at this point. It is a nitpick of the example which could be replaced with anything (i.e. a slippery rope).

The entire argument in which this sub-argument rests is that determining intuitions is unsatisfying.

Failure needs to be an option otherwise what is the point in rolling a check?
That's not a fact, that's an opinion. I find a more reasonable approach to be "the monk can go up the rope more quickly, the wizard more slowly" to fit. They both end up at the top of the rope, but the wizard took longer; if time isn't a factor, why are you even rolling a check?

Again, please use your imagination. There are certainly real-game examples where it is 'based on the descriptions of the characters' that the monk shouldn't have a problem, the wizard should. Setting the DC based on any kind of intuition here is not obvious.

We've already seen that D&D assumes that climbing a rope is 'automatic' where many people (quite unsurprisingly given D&D's player base) find this surprising and counter-intuitive. Without at least general guidance on certain 'weird' tasks, the DMG isn't doing its job. It isn't 'guiding'.

Also, there does seem to be a bit of misapprehension of the function of dice. Dice aren't just for resolving 'unknown' actions, they also have a narrative function of tension. The example I gave is entirely reasonable (and quite common in fiction). There is a whole... lack of codification has weird incentives for character rules and then character choices and then party compositions but honestly I can't be bothered.

[Psyren]

We've already seen that D&D assumes that climbing a rope is 'automatic' where many people (quite unsurprisingly given D&D's player base) find this surprising and counter-intuitive. Without at least general guidance on certain 'weird' tasks, the DMG isn't doing its job. It isn't 'guiding'.

"The DMG isn't doing its job if any two people can disagree on a check" is frankly a ludicrous standard to hold any game to that isn't checkers.

[EggKookoo]

And here is where it breaks down. Does the DM simply decide the Wizard fails or tell him he fails before he tries?

In the former case, you just took away agency. In the second case, you broke the game.

The DM telling a player that his PC's actions fail is not taking away any agency.

[Telok]

2) Why would a poster explaining their preference need to be identical to a "default style"? Neither of the right leaning bell curves I mentioned in the direct quote were the "default style". Are you sure DMs mentioning preferences and exploring options should be held to such a high standard?

Default style? I can still go down to the game store and see DMs saying that the players need to roll because why else would there be a dc in the module, and yes thats for climbing too. That's the only "default style" of DMing I've ever seen... no, thats not totally true. I've seen fiat success/fail based on the DMs assumptions of classes. Things like "only the barbarian is strong enough to lift the boulder", or "as you learned in bard school", while completely ignoring that it was a dex-barian weaker than the cleric or that it was a mid level bard dip on a fighter for expertise in athletics.

The constant parroting of "you should do it this way and don't roll" doesn't do anything. I don't care about it. It does nothing about all the DMs who apparently interpret the DMG differently from them. It does nothing for me because I already have & run systems that I don't need to determine if a character should or shouldn't be allowed to use their abilities. I get regular in-person input from people who complain about the game doing things like making the int 8 fighter better at arcana rolls than the wizard (or vice versa with str/athletic rolls) because the module gives a dc, or complaints of class being the determinator of fiat success/failure regardless of bonuses. Telling me on a forum how I should run D&D does nothing about the people who read the DMG but not the forum full of "metagaming my-way-or-the-highway filthy optomizers".... actually the guy didn't use the word 'filthy' but his tone certainly implied it.

The rest of it, eh, I don't know. I've stopped caring. I guess its nice some people found a way to run it that fits their styles. But all I ever see is randomness where the dice outweigh the characters & players or really bad fiats of success & failure. Years of people on a forum saying the 5e checks system works great if you do it how they do it versus years of seeing in person that it consistently produces unsatisfactory results.

My original comment I think I was trying to make was that "the DM can fix it" and "roll high on a d20 no matter your character's actual bonuses" aren't a good system. The rest of this is just noise to me. And I don't care anymore. 6e? I'll end up playing it because the local game ecosystem will 99% play only the current d&d. But unless they do something live a revamp to where the skill/ability/whatever check system just works out of the box for the non-elitist DMs... neh, I got systems that I don't have to fix as I go. No reason to spend on one that takes extra effort to DM.

[Goobahfish]

"The DMG isn't doing its job if any two people can disagree on a check" is frankly a ludicrous standard to hold any game to that isn't checkers.

Are you familiar with hyperbole? Or a strawman?

The DM telling a player that his PC's actions fail is not taking away any agency.

Not always, but often it is. When you say "you fail" you are basically saying:

#1: There is not 'against the odds' here.
#2: You could never succeed so don't try again.

In a time-critical situation, if someone tries to climb a slippery rope and fails (and rolls pretty poorly), they might try again. If you just say... you fail... they know that they can't climb the rope. If they roll and fail, they don't know.

See the difference?

[diplomancer]

Are you familiar with hyperbole? Or a strawman?


Not always, but often it is. When you say "you fail" you are basically saying:

#1: There is not 'against the odds' here.
#2: You could never succeed so don't try again.

In a time-critical situation, if someone tries to climb a slippery rope and fails (and rolls pretty poorly), they might try again. If you just say... you fail... they know that they can't climb the rope. If they roll and fail, they don't know.

See the difference?

Segev knows that he can't climb a rope. He can try to do it, but he doesn't get to "roll for it"? It would be the same with the Wizard.

Again, we're talking about a hypothetical situation where there are no rules on climbing, so the DM has to decide for himself what's reasonable. Let's suppose he decided, as I've suggested earlier, that you can't climb ropes unless your Str is at least 11, or whatever other guideline he decides as reasonable. In that case, saying "you fail" to the Wizard when he's trying to climb a rope in difficult circumstances, when DM has already decided that he cannot climb the rope in easy circumstances, is no more "taking away agency" than it is telling "you fail" to the guy who says "I'll try to fly to the top of the tree".

If you can't do something, you can't roll to do it, it's as simple as that. That you can't roll for it does not mean that "the DC is too high for you to succeed even with a natural 20", it just means that the outcome is not uncertain.

I'll use another example, directly supported by the game rules:

PHB states that to "jump an unusually long distance" takes an Athletics check. Let's say a DM decides "hmm, I'll let adding 5' more be a DC 15 and adding 10' more be a DC 20, but that's the maximum possible distance you can add".

So, if there's a 20' chasm to jump, here's how the DCs would look like:
For characters with Str 9 or lower: they don't roll for it. If they try to jump, they will fall down the chasm. Saying "you take 10d6 bludgeoning damage as you plummet down the 100' cliff" is not taking away player agency, even if you don't let him roll for it.
For characters with Str 10-14: DC 20
For characters with Str 15-19: DC 15
For characters with Str 20 or higher: auto-pass, that's not an unusually long jump for them.

[Goobahfish]

Segev knows that he can't climb a rope. He can try to do it, but he doesn't get to "roll for it"? It would be the same with the Wizard.

Again, we're talking about a hypothetical situation where there are no rules on climbing, so the DM has to decide for himself what's reasonable. Let's suppose he decided, as I've suggested earlier, that you can't climb ropes unless your Str is at least 11, or whatever other guideline he decides as reasonable. In that case, saying "you fail" to the Wizard when he's trying to climb a rope in difficult circumstances, when DM has already decided that he cannot climb the rope in easy circumstances, is no more "taking away agency" than it is telling "you fail" to the guy who says "I'll try to fly to the top of the tree".

If you can't do something, you can't roll to do it, it's as simple as that. That you can't roll for it does not mean that "the DC is too high for you to succeed even with a natural 20", it just means that the outcome is not uncertain.

I'll use another example, directly supported by the game rules:

PHB states that to "jump an unusually long distance" takes an Athletics check. Let's say a DM decides "hmm, I'll let adding 5' more be a DC 15 and adding 10' more be a DC 20, but that's the maximum possible distance you can add".

So, if there's a 20' chasm to jump, here's how the DCs would look like:
For characters with Str 9 or lower: they don't roll for it. If they try to jump, they will fall down the chasm
For characters with Str 10-14: DC 20
For characters with Str 15-19: DC 15
For characters with Str 20 or higher: auto-pass, that's not an unusually long jump for them.

So just to keep the logic consistent, is there any reason why the DMG saying a 15' jump is a DC 15 and a slippery rope is a DC of ~10 or 15? Is it because it is easy? What about jumping with a head wind?

But let's keep on with the example, it is a bit more like:

Str 9 or lower. Fail
Str 10 or more. DC 10

The main point I'm making (I think) is that a D20 roll with set DCs etc, doesn't model many exploration tasks well. This manifests in making DCs... hard to adjudicate. Hence, a lack of guidance in the DMG (except on some random examples... like jumping) is problematic. I'm not saying a slippery rope should be DC 10 or 15 written explicitly in the DMG.

I'm suggesting that several common activities should have rough difficulties and then the DM can associate the words easy, moderate, hard with DC's depending on their aesthetic. The more comparative difficulties and sticks in the ground the easier it is to improvise.

The counterargument seems to be it will punish 'good players', something I can't understand given that no set of rules ever affects 'good players' because they usually do their own thing anyway...

[diplomancer]

So just to keep the logic consistent, is there any reason why the DMG saying a 15' jump is a DC 15 and a slippery rope is a DC of ~10 or 15? Is it because it is easy? What about jumping with a head wind?

But let's keep on with the example, it is a bit more like:

Str 9 or lower. Fail
Str 10 or more. DC 10

The main point I'm making (I think) is that a D20 roll with set DCs etc, doesn't model many exploration tasks well. This manifests in making DCs... hard to adjudicate. Hence, a lack of guidance in the DMG (except on some random examples... like jumping) is problematic. I'm not saying a slippery rope should be DC 10 or 15 written explicitly in the DMG.

I'm suggesting that several common activities should have rough difficulties and then the DM can associate the words easy, moderate, hard with DC's depending on their aesthetic. The more comparative difficulties and sticks in the ground the easier it is to improvise.

The counterargument seems to be it will punish 'good players', something I can't understand given that no set of rules ever affects 'good players' because they usually do their own thing anyway...

A 15' jump is not "DC15". By the rules, that state that you can long jump a distance equal to your Str score, it's an autopass for anyone with a Str of 15 or higher. For someone with a Str lower than that, there are no straight rules, but there IS guidance saying an "specially long jump"(by which I assume they meant "any jump longer than your Str", since that's the general rule for jumps) is an Athletics check. This hypothetical DM went with a quick and dirty "5' increase is DC 15, 10' increase is DC 20, that's the maximum you can add".

[EggKookoo]

Not always, but often it is. When you say "you fail" you are basically saying:

#1: There is not 'against the odds' here.
#2: You could never succeed so don't try again.

In a time-critical situation, if someone tries to climb a slippery rope and fails (and rolls pretty poorly), they might try again. If you just say... you fail... they know that they can't climb the rope. If they roll and fail, they don't know.

See the difference?

This is an age-old thing about TTRPGs. If the player tries to do something impossible, does the DM say that the attempt fails, or assign an impossible DC? They amount to the same thing. If you try to take an action and I give you a DC I know you can't reach, aren't I just wasting your time?

[GooeyChewie]

In a time-critical situation, if someone tries to climb a slippery rope and fails (and rolls pretty poorly), they might try again. If you just say... you fail... they know that they can't climb the rope. If they roll and fail, they don't know.

See the difference?

I see that there is a difference, but I don’t see how either one is taking away agency from the player. The difference is simply how much information the player received. Just because a player finds out one particular strategy isn’t going to succeed, doesn’t mean that you’ve taken away agency from that player.

Now, if the DM is making everything but their intended solution an auto-fail, then that takes away agency. But at that point we are talking about a much wider problem of DM railroading.

[EggKookoo]

I see that there is a difference, but I don’t see how either one is taking away agency from the player. The difference is simply how much information the player received. Just because a player finds out one particular strategy isn’t going to succeed, doesn’t mean that you’ve taken away agency from that player.

Now, if the DM is making everything but their intended solution an auto-fail, then that takes away agency. But at that point we are talking about a much wider problem of DM railroading.

Right. Loss of agency is:

Player: I do X.
DM: No you don't because you know it won't work.

Loss of agency is not:

Player: I do X.
DM: Ok, you make the attempt but it doesn't work.

The former is loss of agency because the DM took actual control away from the player ("no you don't"). The latter is not loss of agency because the DM isn't taking control from the player, but simply letting the player know that the task they want to do isn't possible. Not everything is.

[diplomancer]

Right. Loss of agency is:

Player: I do X.
DM: No you don't because you know it won't work.

Loss of agency is not:

Player: I do X.
DM: Ok, you make the attempt but it doesn't work.

The former is loss of agency because the DM took actual control away from the player ("no you don't"). The latter is not loss of agency because the DM isn't taking control from the player, but simply letting the player know that the task they want to do isn't possible. Not everything is.

And if the consequences of the attempt are dire there's always the old staple "are you sure you want to try to do this? Your character knows that he can't jump that far." If the player says "yes", DM is entirely right to say "you jump, fall down, and take Xd6 falling damage", without any rolling at all to see if he succeeds.