D&D (2024) They need to bring back Gather Information in One DnD.

[Ashrym]

No, that's not my complaint. I think the OP has a reasonable point, and I could see a case for an expanded list, but I'm taking about skill DCs.

Players aren't given any real information about their skills do. That's no way to translate a +7 Survival bonus into a list of abilities. We have the barest of guidance on seeing DCs for DMs, but there's no real difference between a DC 12 and DC 14 check, despite the significant range that is takes up out of the RNG.

By a "complete skill system" I mean one that can be leveraged by players to achieve specific results.

I highlighted a significant point of discussion here.

I'll begin with a brief response on the first part, however: the game needs 3 DC's (10, 15, and 20) to function described as easy, moderate, and difficult. That's not difficult to relate. The other main use is in opposed checks and that can be cinematically compared to the same easy, moderate, and difficult as well as being easy to use. If a DM wants slightly more difficult or extremely challenging then go outside those a little but it's still easy to relate.

Referring to a skill system as incomplete implies that there's something wrong with it or it's broken. This isn't the case. The system is working as intended where the DM determines checks and bonuses following presented guidelines as part of cooperative storytelling. When you say "can be leveraged by players" I read that as "we get to choose results instead of actions" and that's a part I disagree with.

The system is not incomplete. The system favors DM agency in determining results of player actions, which is how I believe the interaction should be.

The other thing that I would point out is a predetermined list of actions instead of examples limits the actions players might attempt more than a general guideline. Lists of actions and DC's can give an idea what a character can do but as those lists increase players and DM's can fall into the trap of "there's no rule for it so cannot do it" mentality. DM's and players either continue what we do now so the lists don't do that much or they don't do those other actions at all.

Tying that back to gathering information leads us to the fact that adding a bonus to the roll doesn't change how players see the numbers. Adding a skill proficiency doesn't tell anyone what they can or cannot do with the ability. The examples I cited earlier tells players something they might do. Adding a bonus is just adding a bonus because there isn't much point in creating rumors et al with massively high DC's in the first place. Giving the information to players should always be relatively easy because that's part of building the story and the goal isn't to make it harder to find a reason to go on an adventure.

Why would I, as a DM, invest time and effort into a more elaborate information system than what exists now when I want players to have that information in the first place? It's counter productive to do that, and it leads characters into thinking they might need another skill when most skill proficiencies are done as an ability check for most characters already due to typically having 4 or 5 skill proficiencies.

It's becomes bloat for some people who want a bigger number when high CHA convers the concept already.

 

[Shardstone]

Those people can still roleplay it. That's not erased at all.

But rather, but not having a skill or process (which is already there) you dis-include people who don't feel comfortable acting out social situations.

Failure to have mechanics is not the same as enabling roleplay.

I wish this could get posted everywhere, man.

And the thing is, its ok for a game to miss mechanics due to genre or focus, but D&D really should just have easy gather information mechanics as a roll and a procedure. However, 5E is light on procedures, and tbh, I blame this on the OSR advisors that were brought in.

 

[tetrasodium]

I highlighted a significant point of discussion here.

I'll begin with a brief response on the first part, however: the game needs 3 DC's (10, 15, and 20) to function described as easy, moderate, and difficult. That's not difficult to relate. The other main use is in opposed checks and that can be cinematically compared to the same easy, moderate, and difficult as well as being easy to use. If a DM wants slightly more difficult or extremely challenging then go outside those a little but it's still easy to relate.

Referring to a skill system as incomplete implies that there's something wrong with it or it's broken. This isn't the case. The system is working as intended where the DM determines checks and bonuses following presented guidelines as part of cooperative storytelling. When you say "can be leveraged by players" I read that as "we get to choose results instead of actions" and that's a part I disagree with.

The system is not incomplete. The system favors DM agency in determining results of player actions, which is how I believe the interaction should be.

The other thing that I would point out is a predetermined list of actions instead of examples limits the actions players might attempt more than a general guideline. Lists of actions and DC's can give an idea what a character can do but as those lists increase players and DM's can fall into the trap of "there's no rule for it so cannot do it" mentality. DM's and players either continue what we do now so the lists don't do that much or they don't do those other actions at all.

Tying that back to gathering information leads us to the fact that adding a bonus to the roll doesn't change how players see the numbers. Adding a skill proficiency doesn't tell anyone what they can or cannot do with the ability. The examples I cited earlier tells players something they might do. Adding a bonus is just adding a bonus because there isn't much point in creating rumors et al with massively high DC's in the first place. Giving the information to players should always be relatively easy because that's part of building the story and the goal isn't to make it harder to find a reason to go on an adventure.

Why would I, as a DM, invest time and effort into a more elaborate information system than what exists now when I want players to have that information in the first place? It's counter productive to do that, and it leads characters into thinking they might need another skill when most skill proficiencies are done as an ability check for most characters already due to typically having 4 or 5 skill proficiencies.

It's becomes bloat for some people who want a bigger number when high CHA convers the concept already.

1D&D: The 5E Skill System Is Bad

One of the most talked about changes in the One D&D playtest is the decision to make all natural 1’s auto-failures and all natural 20’s auto-successes.My first gut reaction to this was:

thealexandrian.net

The eldergods have too many Non-Euclidean tire swings in R'leth already. Any time someone invokes the words "working as designed" or a phrase so eerily similar to defend that design from criticism there is a comic about a tire swing as built sold documented & "intended" by customer marketing development and project management that finds a carpenter for the physics defying frame.

 

[Reynard]

I don't think the game needs a Gather Information skill, it needs a Gather Information procedure. Having a system in place that is fun to engage with that is designed to help the GM determine what rumors and clues the PCs uncover is a good thing and should be present. But it does not need to rely on PC skills. In fact, a lot of things covered by skills in 5E used to be covered by procedures and independent systems, and I think in a lot of cases that was better.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I don't think the game needs a Gather Information skill, it needs a Gather Information procedure.

I was about to agree, but I feel like 'procedure' is some kind of OSR, Skilled Play thing and I don't agree with that. Skilled Play is the problem that skills solve, IMO.

What I will agree with is that the books need to explain to everyone how to use the existing skills: Perception, Insight, all the Knowledges, that provide information to actually gather specific information. Are you learning about the customs of a city? Are you learning guard routines? Are you learning what sort of gift to give the Duke that's not yet another saxophone? What skills do you use and how do you apply them to these examples so you can extrapolate them later.

 

[Reynard]

I was about to agree, but I feel like 'procedure' is some kind of OSR, Skilled Play thing and I don't agree with that. Skilled Play is the problem that skills solve, IMO.

Procedures are just tools in the system designed to facilitate some element of play. Skill checks are a procedure. What I am saying is that the specific action of Gather Information does not need to be related to skills on the character sheet. Since it would be easy to argue for any skill to help with gathering clues and rumors, or no skills at all and just a few silver coins, then a "Gather Information" skill isn't the right solution for the job. Instead, have a procedure (or subsystem, if you prefer) that facilitates that thing.

 

[Shardstone]

I was about to agree, but I feel like 'procedure' is some kind of OSR, Skilled Play thing and I don't agree with that. Skilled Play is the problem that skills solve, IMO.

What I will agree with is that the books need to explain to everyone how to use the existing skills: Perception, Insight, all the Knowledges, that provide information to actually gather specific information. Are you learning about the customs of a city? Are you learning guard routines? Are you learning what sort of gift to give the Duke that's not yet another saxophone? What skills do you use and how do you apply them to these examples so you can extrapolate them later.

It's two ways of teaching players the same thing.

With a procedure, you have it to rely on at first, and once you've gotten it down, you can improvise without having to rely on the procedure, having learned the basics of what gathering information means narratively through it.

Without a procedure, you need what you stated, which is teaching players from the jump what they're doing. The problem is, in 2023, most people across all demographics have naughty word attention spans and, in America especially, don't really believe in reading like that, especially game books. They won't sit down and look at your flow chart, they'll let the DM do it and explain it to them, at which point you might as well have a procedure.

The audience of today wants as little effort as they have to put in for maximum return. I don't agree with that philosophy when it comes to TTRPGs, but it's the world we live in.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The audience of today wants as little effort as they have to put in for maximum return. I don't agree with that philosophy when it comes to TTRPGs, but it's the world we live in.

A world with humans? Because that is literally our whole thing and it is super weird when we put down people for being people.

He said communicating via harnessed lightning just so he doesn't have to travel months by sea to distribute pamphlets on how the wizard class should be deleted.

 

[John Lloyd1]

What would a gather information procedure give that is not included in the research downtime activity? A series of skill checks rather than one? Example or defined DCs?

 

[Incenjucar]

What would a gather information procedure give that is not included in the research downtime activity? A series of skill checks rather than one? Example or defined DCs?

More inputs, more detail, maybe with some tracks to go up, chance of getting a bonus, risks for miserable failure, etc.