D&D General Explain Bounded Accuracy to Me (As if I Was Five)

[pemerton]

I think it’s pretty indisputable that WotC did a poor job of communicating what they were going for with the whole “bounded accuracy” thing.

I dunno, it seems fairly clear. Someone set it out upthread: it's about confining target numbers, and bonuses, within a certain range across the whole 20 levels of play. Which has the result that the demands on the GM are reduced: they can pull any element (monster, trap, suggested DC) out of the books of such things (DMG, MM, modules, etc) and the game will, in mathematical terms, keep chugging along.

There are potential failure points that can result from this approach: pooling a group of goblins to stack up as many hp to wade through as (say) a dragon brings on its own also adds to the GM-side action economy (because each goblin gets its own action), which runs the risk of overwhelming the PCs. It follows, therefore, that combat encounter difficulty requires having regard to the number of opponents as well as their hp total.

I think framing it in terms of "treadmill"/ "sense of progression" is a bit obscurantist. In 4e, the chance an Epic tier PC has to hit Orcus is roughly the same as the chance a Heroic tier PC has to hit a Minotaur. That's progress, not treadmill. A Heroic tier PC will not normally find themselves trying to defeat a horde of Minotaurs in combat; but an Epic tier PC might (with the horde statted as a swarm). Again, that's progress. (An upper paragon tier PC who meets a single Minotaur is likely to be dealing with a minion, whom they will defeat more easily than was the case when they, at Heroic tier, confronted a standard opponent.)

The 4e approach is more demanding on the GM, in the sense that it requires them to make sense of - and possibly to write up - different stat blocks for the same creature, reflecting its relationship to the PCs at various levels/tiers. The absence of this from 5e is part of what makes it a simpler game. But again, this is not about progress.

 

[MGibster]

I dont think swinginess is a problem for me.

As a fan of Savage Worlds, I acknowledge the valid criticism many have for it being swingy. But it's not a problem for me.

 

[Lanefan]

Nah the narrative already shifts based on the party. I mean your argument is that monster stats change based on what they are fighting, but that already happens.

How?

In every other edition the Ogre has 47 hit points, fights like a 5 HD monster, gets one attack a round, etc. etc. whether that Ogre is fighting a party of raw 1st-level types or a party of 15th-level bangers. Those stats do not change.

It doesn't need an in-fiction explanation, just like running into a random NPC does not require justification for why they are level 11 rather than level 4, for example.

Non-negotiable difference here IMO; in that for my part if something like this doesn't have an in-fiction explanation that's consistent with the rest of the fiction (even if it's weird) then it flat-out shouldn't be there.

PCs set the precedent for what makes adventurers tick mechanically. Last I checked, henches are usually hired as associate adventurers (as opposed to non-adventuring hirelings); which forces them to follow that precedent.

It has only happened once in my 20 years of adventuring, and in that case it happened as a consequence of random chance in the very last session of the campaign so it had no impact.

I'm willing to bet that mixed level parties are a thing of the past.

Were we still in the 3e-4e era I'd sadly be inclined to agree with you. But guess what? We ain't in those days any more, and multi-level parties are now happily playable again.

I would decide them arbitrarily, yes.

There's absolutely no reason, in my opinion, why a hireling should even have class levels. Class levels are a player abstraction.

Class levels are a fact of the fiction. If they weren't, PCs wouldn't have them either.

It was a counter against the argument that old-school D&D had a softer curve.

1e (and from what I can tell, also 0e and 2e) had in general a much flatter power curve than did 3e or 4e.

Multi-level parties were not only viable there, they were expected and assumed due to the variable advancement tables by class, level drains, individual xp, and a bunch of other factors. There is no reason whatsoever all those things can't be ported straight into 5e; and even if they're not, multi-level play is still viable there due to the flatter curve.

Contrast this with 3e, where being off by even just a single level made a mighty big difference.

 

[tetrasodium]

1e (and from what I can tell, also 0e and 2e) had in general a much flatter power curve than did 3e or 4e.

Multi-level parties were not only viable there, they were expected and assumed due to the variable advancement tables by class, level drains, individual xp, and a bunch of other factors. There is no reason whatsoever all those things can't be ported straight into 5e; and even if they're not, multi-level play is still viable there due to the flatter curve.

Contrast this with 3e, where being off by even just a single level made a mighty big difference.

3.x could do multilevel parties pretty ok because of how experience award calculations adjusted to give lower level PCs more exp till they caught up iirc. Obviously "ok" depends on how far behind the lower level pc was but alice being a level or two behind the group was rarely a big hinderance even without the exp calculation

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think the swingyness can be more or less of a problem depending on how a group approaches rolls. I’m on record as having pretty high standards for when to call for a roll, so to me the swing is desirable, but I could imagine it being a huge pain in games where rolls are called for to resolve most tasks and the result helps inform the DM’s narration of how well the PC executed the task.

I have found that, much like the oh-so-wonderful days of 3e, 5e DMs usually call for rolls for everything under the sun. Sometimes even in places where the text explicitly says you shouldn't. E.g. the return of "you must roll stealth every single time you take an action" expectations. Coupled with the "unless it's so easy a fever-addled five-year-old could do it while sleeping, yes, I'm going to have you roll" pattern and the "if I'm having you roll, it's going to be DC 15 or higher because DC 15 is defined to be a medium check" pattern, this makes the swinginess anywhere from "incredibly irritating" to "deeply unpleasant."

"Let it ride," only asking for rolls where failure is both interesting and not unlikely, and using any DC below 10 (and that only if the DM is feeling generous) is, in my experience, quite rare. Much to my consternation. (Thankfully, I seem to currently be in a game that actually does do at least the first two things, which is a refreshing change of pace.)

 

[Charlaquin]

I have found that, much like the oh-so-wonderful days of 3e, 5e DMs usually call for rolls for everything under the sun. Sometimes even in places where the text explicitly says you shouldn't. E.g. the return of "you must roll stealth every single time you take an action" expectations. Coupled with the "unless it's so easy a fever-addled five-year-old could do it while sleeping, yes, I'm going to have you roll" pattern and the "if I'm having you roll, it's going to be DC 15 or higher because DC 15 is defined to be a medium check" pattern, this makes the swinginess anywhere from "incredibly irritating" to "deeply unpleasant."

Depends on who you play with. I certainly do think most DMs call for rolls way too often, but I have the advantage of not being most DMs, so I can call for rolls exactly as often as I think is appropriate. Which is to say in these situations:

where failure is both interesting and not unlikely,

 

[Micah Sweet]

I have found that, much like the oh-so-wonderful days of 3e, 5e DMs usually call for rolls for everything under the sun. Sometimes even in places where the text explicitly says you shouldn't. E.g. the return of "you must roll stealth every single time you take an action" expectations. Coupled with the "unless it's so easy a fever-addled five-year-old could do it while sleeping, yes, I'm going to have you roll" pattern and the "if I'm having you roll, it's going to be DC 15 or higher because DC 15 is defined to be a medium check" pattern, this makes the swinginess anywhere from "incredibly irritating" to "deeply unpleasant."

"Let it ride," only asking for rolls where failure is both interesting and not unlikely, and using any DC below 10 (and that only if the DM is feeling generous) is, in my experience, quite rare. Much to my consternation. (Thankfully, I seem to currently be in a game that actually does do at least the first two things, which is a refreshing change of pace.)

Sometimes I wonder if you've played with a good GM. You seem to have nothing good to say about the role, and I presume you must have had a lot of bad experiences.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Depends on who you play with. I certainly do think most DMs call for rolls way too often, but I have the advantage of not being most DMs, so I can call for rolls exactly as often as I think is appropriate. Which is to say in these situations:

Which is great for your group(s)!

Doesn't really affect whether there's a problem in general, or a disconnect between how the rules were designed to be used (in ways that make its structures effective/useful) and how the rules often are used at actual tables.

And as I've said before, I genuinely do not understand why this is a thing. The actual 5e text doesn't support doing it, and in some places even explicitly rejects it. It does not use a 3e-like skill system; if anything, the skills genuinely are closest to 4e (though without the explicit textual support for what I liked best about 4e's skill system proper, not counting stuff like SCs or the like, just the skills themselves.)

5e skills should be so much better than they are in practice, and I'm not alone in this feeling. Yet for some reason, the negative patterns of behavior that plagued 3e have been substantially inherited by 5e even when they shouldn't--even when it's less fun for everyone involved, including the GM! It baffles me to this day.

Sometimes I wonder if you've played with a good GM. You seem to have nothing good to say about the role, and I presume you must have had a lot of bad experiences.

Well, I seem to be playing with a good 5e GM now.

I've had a couple duds with previous systems, including 4e, but never anything near as bad nor as frequent as with 5e. It's a bit part of why I'm such a skeptic about the whole "DM empowerment" crusade and the designers' tacit (or sometimes not-so-tacit...) "meh, you're the DM, you figure it out" attitude regarding the game's design.

The vast majority of 5e GMs I've had, I would rate no better than "medicore." Usually a lot lower. Even when said GM is a friend (which has, in fact, been the case two or three times.) With a system that puts GM skill, judgment, and responsiveness as the end-all, be-all of game design...well. I think you can see where that has tended to lead.

(Just in case you're reading, @Hussar, you are not in the above majority, but rather are the "good 5e GM now" I mentioned. Even though it hasn't been that long, I have already had a good time.)

 

[Charlaquin]

Which is great for your group(s)!

Doesn't really affect whether there's a problem in general, or a disconnect between how the rules were designed to be used (in ways that make its structures effective/useful) and how the rules often are used at actual tables.

And as I've said before, I genuinely do not understand why this is a thing. The actual 5e text doesn't support doing it, and in some places even explicitly rejects it. It does not use a 3e-like skill system; if anything, the skills genuinely are closest to 4e (though without the explicit textual support for what I liked best about 4e's skill system proper, not counting stuff like SCs or the like, just the skills themselves.)

5e skills should be so much better than they are in practice, and I'm not alone in this feeling. Yet for some reason, the negative patterns of behavior that plagued 3e have been substantially inherited by 5e even when they shouldn't--even when it's less fun for everyone involved, including the GM! It baffles me to this day.

no system is GM-proof, and I can’t control anyone’s behavior but my own. I’m gonna keep running the game the way I enjoy it best, and I hope you do the same. For what it’s worth, while the 3e approach does seem the most typical, there is quite a sizable contingent of 5e DMs who favor the same approach that I, and seemingly you, prefer. Several are frequent posters here, and several advocate for it over various platforms.

 

[pemerton]

We see Aragorn fight off the Ringwraiths, and Gandalf is a literal demigod. What sort of terrible hack GM would use lowly goblins to threaten such high level characters?

That is a point about fiction.

RPG gameplay is about how fiction and mechanics interact. I think that the 4e approach, of statting the goblins that paragon tier characters face as swarms (or, if you prefer, hordes), makes for a more interesting play experience than compressing the maths so that the GM is expected to use individual goblin statblocks.