D&D 5E "My Character Is Always..." and related topics.

[JonnyP71]

You sure about that...?



That right there is denying a bonus to characters with good stats in investigation and/or perception.



And right here you come right out and say that you expect the players, not the characters, to come up with good plans, regardless of their character abilities, while also expecting players with bad stats to play those characters as if they were stupid.
So in other words, you got a 10 Int player who you expect to play as an 20 int character, otherwise they won't get bonuses (remember your words- the player comes up with the plan, not the character, else they don't get bonuses) while you also expect a 18 int player to gimp themselves when playing a 8 int character.

Personally, I think that the player should play to their characters stats, but I also don't think a plan should be dependent on the player's ability. If a character would know something but the player isn't smart enough to figure it out, then the DM should put that into consideration whenever plans are being made, instead of metagaming and forcing the onus of it upon the player, independent of their characters ability.

Positive. Heroes are boring. Low level, gritty play, by flawed characters with weaknesses encourages better teamwork and better roleplaying every time.

Yes, I reduce the important of passive skills, but a successful perception check or investigation check will likely yield clues. Mostly just clues though, rarely the answers. The key is, the player must tell me they are looking for something. I don't buy the passive perception radar going beep for traps for example. If I was to run the 5E conversion of Tomb Of Horrors I would completely ignore the text which gives Perception DCs for trap discovery - so I would use a combination of Investigation and the player telling me where they are looking/what they are doing.... the old school way.

Investigation is one of the most useful skills at my table, because I like to put clues in my adventures. In my last 5E session the 3 most used skills were Arcana, Investigation and Nature, in that order.

Paying attention to what the DM says is hardly 'Int 20' stuff.

Some of my style of DMing comes from having cut my teeth on 1E/Basic D&D, some of it is a reaction to seeing the over-use of Perception as a skill in the game - I've seen/played in games which have been Perception check after Perception check, with little actual detail in the initial description, and the party charging around headlong expecting their maximised Passive Perception to go ping whenever they are near danger. I refuse to run a game like that.

 

[mikal768]

Positive. Heroes are boring. Low level, gritty play, by flawed characters with weaknesses encourages better teamwork and better roleplaying every time.

Yes, I reduce the important of passive skills, but a successful perception check or investigation check will likely yield clues. Mostly just clues though, rarely the answers. The key is, the player must tell me they are looking for something. I don't buy the passive perception radar going beep for traps for example. If I was to run the 5E conversion of Tomb Of Horrors I would completely ignore the text which gives Perception DCs for trap discovery - so I would use a combination of Investigation and the player telling me where they are looking/what they are doing.... the old school way.

Investigation is one of the most useful skills at my table, because I like to put clues in my adventures. In my last 5E session the 3 most used skills were Arcana, Investigation and Nature, in that order.

Paying attention to what the DM says is hardly 'Int 20' stuff.

Some of my style of DMing comes from having cut my teeth on 1E/Basic D&D, some of it is a reaction to seeing the over-use of Perception as a skill in the game - I've seen/played in games which have been Perception check after Perception check, with little actual detail in the initial description, and the party charging around headlong expecting their maximised Passive Perception to go ping whenever they are near danger. I refuse to run a game like that.

So in other words... uneven playing field.

 

[Sebastrd]

IMO stating i am expecting an ambush and looking for ambushes" is not necessarily going to give you advantage and is not a sign of engaging with the world. its just a claim.

And it's your prerogative to run your game that way. Just know, as a player, that ruling is a clue about how you run your game. It tells me what to expect, and I'll adjust how I approach your game accordingly.

Do you give advantages for folks saying "i am expecting my enemy to swing at me and am looking for his swing?" Do enemies of that character suffer disadvantage when they attack him?

Sure. I'd call it "fighting defensively" and consider it an action.

If a character says "i am climing the wall expecting to maybe fall and looking out for ways to not fall" do they get advantage on climbing checks? or do they have to do something other than a statement of intent to not fall - like say take it slower than normal or rig up a rope or take lotsa of time banging handhold making noise or maybe getting someone else to use a rope setup to help them?

Sure. I'd say if you want to double the time it takes to climb, you can gain advantage on the roll for climbing carefully.

"I am expecting him to be telling me lies so i am looking for lies" is not a statement worthy of advantage on an insight roll, its more like a request to make an insight roll and not just use the passive score.

In this case I might just say no. I might grant advantage only to detect a lie, and withhold the other information that I'd give on a successful Insight check. Depends.

Consider this: In all of the above scenarios, what have I given up? A player engaged their brain and I gave them a benefit on a single check that - in the grand scheme of things - means very little. On the other hand, I've gained quite a bit. The player feels the elation of a minor victory. They've been encouraged to attempt smart play. I've taught them that success and failure are not entirely dependent on their character sheet. I have given them ownership over a small portion of the game world.

If I give up a bunch of small advantages like the ones above, and my players lose the big upcoming fight, they'll be likely to stay positive and push on. They'll feel like success is in their hands. If I stifle their attempts at smart play at every turn, and they manage to kill the big bad at the end, it'll be a hollow victory. They'll feel like they only won because I let them.

Sometimes it's worth losing a battle to win the war.

 

[5ekyu]

And it's your prerogative to run your game that way. Just know, as a player, that ruling is a clue about how you run your game. It tells me what to expect, and I'll adjust how I approach your game accordingly.



Sure. I'd call it "fighting defensively" and consider it an action.



Sure. I'd say if you want to double the time it takes to climb, you can gain advantage on the roll for climbing carefully.



In this case I might just say no. I might grant advantage only to detect a lie, and withhold the other information that I'd give on a successful Insight check. Depends.

Consider this: In all of the above scenarios, what have I given up? A player engaged their brain and I gave them a benefit on a single check that - in the grand scheme of things - means very little. On the other hand, I've gained quite a bit. The player feels the elation of a minor victory. They've been encouraged to attempt smart play. I've taught them that success and failure are not entirely dependent on their character sheet. I have given them ownership over a small portion of the game world.

If I give up a bunch of small advantages like the ones above, and my players lose the big upcoming fight, they'll be likely to stay positive and push on. They'll feel like success is in their hands. If I stifle their attempts at smart play at every turn, and they manage to kill the big bad at the end, it'll be a hollow victory. They'll feel like they only won because I let them.

Sometimes it's worth losing a battle to win the war.

Frankly i am not sure what war it is you are fighting.

You take issue with my assertion that statement alone is not sufficient for advantage without trade off and yet when i provide examples/questions that list trade-offs you delete my references then insert your own as if its a difference?

It seems we agree, statement plys trade-off to gain advantage is something we both embrace in our games, so, not sure whar words or battles or wars you have conjured yourself to be fighting.

As for my players and clues to how i run my games, they dont have to search for clues about that, its fairly spelled out go them early on pre-game.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[Sebastrd]

Frankly i am not sure what war it is you are fighting.

You take issue with my assertion that statement alone is not sufficient for advantage without trade off and yet when i provide examples/questions that list trade-offs you delete my references then insert your own as if its a difference?

It seems we agree, statement plys trade-off to gain advantage is something we both embrace in our games, so, not sure whar words or battles or wars you have conjured yourself to be fighting.

As for my players and clues to how i run my games, they dont have to search for clues about that, its fairly spelled out go them early on pre-game.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

Fair enough, bud. You do you.

 

[JonnyP71]

So in other words... uneven playing field.

Not in the slightest, just one that does not lean massively towards overpowered perception.

In play it actually works more evenly. It puts less focus on character skills, removes any need to create 'perfect' characters, gives more freedom for the players to explore interesting characters rather than worrying about party balance, and most importantly encourages the players to become fully invested in the environment. And because nobody at the table is minmaxing we get a wider variety of character types, play never suffers if party levels vary, and it's of no great consequence if someone got better 4d6 stat rolls then everyone else...

All in all, a more interesting, improvised, entertaining - and less mechanical - experience.

 

[iserith]

Last first, my claim was that i dont like Xp rewards as incentives because they impact the party as a whole as far as actualy effect and don't end up targeting a given player for his/her choices. That is different from the restated claim you keep attributing to me.

You criticized pming's methods based on an unfounded claim of level disparity in D&D 5e. I disputed that claim. It's clear as day. I'm not attributing anything to you that you did not say. One would think you'd retract the claim given that, at the very least, you don't have any experience with it even if you don't take my own experience at face value. Doing so doesn't mean you suddenly have to like XP. It just means you made a claim based on an incorrect supposition.

I did qualify it as "assuming rational actors" latewr which i assumed was a given at first but now realize cannot be assumed.

As for it being hinged on differences between characters, YES OF COURSE.

if there is no difference in leveling rate between characters, if basically everybody gets the bonus or the bonus is so small it does not create level differences, then its no longer an incentive (for a rational actor.) there is no actual gain in capability, just a change in the number on the Xp box. if everyone gets the bonus, its no longer a bonus, just the XP everyone gets.

If the difference in leveling rate due to the XP creates actual leveling differences, but, as you seem to imply in your 5e level disparity minimal claims, that in itself does not create actual power differences that are impactful, then again its function as an incentive is fairly weak (assuming rational actors.)

But, if we do not assume rational actors (IMO but YMMV)... if we assume the player is really focused on what number appears in his XP or level box and on what date on the calendar it changes to a higher score - regardless of what or how much a difference that makes, then yes, in that case, any XP award will serve as an incentive.

What you do not appear to realize is that the "higher number in the XP box" is a marker of progress toward the goal of character advancement. The incentive remains to perform the tasks that net you XP so you can continue to make progress toward that goal regardless of whether it helps you right now.

I myself dont consider putting players in a "sofie's choice " type of condundrum where they have to choose between "higher number in the Xp box" or achieveing higher success rates as you described earlier, so even with the possibility that it might motivate this third set, it still remains a net "not gonna do much good" for me.

But hey, YMMV, of course. You know your players better than i do.

I described what decisions might likely arise in pming's game based on the incentives he set up. I do not endorse his or any particular method except to use the incentives that will encourage the players to engage in the things that will be fun for everyone and help create an exciting, memorable story during play. Your method appears to be "just show up to the game." If it works, then great. For me, I assume no incentive other than the play experience itself is necessary to encourage attendance, so I set the incentives to something else that gets at the particular play experience I'm trying to evoke given the specific campaign I'm running.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

So in other words... uneven playing field.

Don't forget the time wasting pixel bitching and gotchas! Perception cuts out the middleman and bridges the gap between a potentially poor description of a scene and the fact that I'm not actually there.

To me, "old skool" play is synonymous with metagaming and not actually roleplaying the character you rolled, but just a super version of you with physical stats bolted on.

 

[iserith]

As for the bold, let me see if these comments can help you see that i have observed the difference between the DMG and the other cites, since it seems to have eluded you...
On page 6...
"As for your somewhat limited view of milestone Xp... in XGtE it is described as based on the amount of hours a part is supposed to have taken, hours of expected play. In other products it was described more simply "At your option, you can use the milestone experience rule. Under this rule, you pick certain events in the campaign that cause the characters to level up." "

Then on page 7 i said...
"ok last first, my posts about milestone were taken from two other 5e wotc products so... yay for us both.
EDIT TO ADD: BTW the DMG reference to rewarding Xp for milestones is not the same as the "milestone" system referenced in some Ap or the milestone-like "checkpoint system in XGtE. those other two (which were what i was referring to) do not use Xp as a go between. But i can see where they could be confused easily enough."

Now i get that doubt storming the poster you disagree with's knowledge is a thing you like to do, but come on.

Your posts are hard enough to read that I already have to read them a couple times when you first post them in the hopes I can mine something useful out of them. Do you think I go back and reread your posts again for funsies minutes or hours after you've edited them? Believe me, I do not. If you want me to see your edits after subsequent posts have been made, I'll have to ask you to point out that you did it.

Someone else graciously explained clearly what you were referring to anyway. And it wasn't milestone XP as laid out in the DMG. You were just calling it that.

 

[5ekyu]

Your posts are hard enough to read that I already have to read them a couple times when you first post them in the hopes I can mine something useful out of them. Do you think I go back and reread your posts again for funsies minutes or hours after you've edited them? Believe me, I do not. If you want me to see your edits after subsequent posts have been made, I'll have to ask you to point out that you did it.

Someone else graciously explained clearly what you were referring to anyway. And it wasn't milestone XP as laid out in the DMG. You were just calling it that.

Sorry but i never, not once, called what i was referring to as milestone xp as referenced "n the DMG" and as noted pointed that out.

Your choosing to assume that to create a false impression... Thats just you.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app