D&D 5E Reliable Talent. What the what?

[pemerton]

Fourth Edition marks the point where players have become so paranoid about terrible DMs manipulating things behind-the-scenes in order to make their choices irrelevant, that the designers gave up on the idea of a logical or consistent world entirely, in the name of making the numbers so transparent that players would be able to call the DM out if they tried to cheat.

I'll take this as an autobiographical reflection on your part. It bears no connection to me or my group. If you want to undertsand the dynamics of my 4e games, there are ample actual play threads that you can read on these boards.

All GMs who manipulate facts behind-the-scenes

What has this got to do with the current discussion?

Confronting a PC (and thereby a player) with 4 kobolds isn't manipulating anything behind the scenes. It's out in the open, front and centre.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I'm trying not to read too much into this, but you keep specifying monsters should having their skills divorced from their combat ability, and that's going to be a non-starter for a lot of folks. Monsters and PCs need to use rules that are similar enough such that players feel like they're being treated fairly. If a CR 2 monster can have +25 to Perception, but a level 2 PC can't get more than +7, then that feels arbitrary and pointless.

It does if there's nothing notable about the monster that should make it more perceptive. If the monster is literally a floating mass of eyes, I think people might understand when it gets a big bonus to visual perception checks. Similarly high stealth checks can be expected from monsters who are literally composed of animate air and the like.

Players want a world that makes sense, not a world that conforms to PC generation rules.

Plus, the NPCs don't conform to the PC rules in 5e anyway, so this entire argument is a furphy at best.

You saw a lot of that with 4E, where players would become frustrated because the world didn't make sense, and the explanation for every discrepancy was just that monsters used different rules.

It was throughout 4e. The problem was that creatures and characters tended to have 'abilities that generate game mechanics' rather than 'game mechanics describing things that monsters do'. Some abilities this worked fine for, since it was obvious what they reflected. Others not so much (like that fighter one that slid people around before attacking them).

5e isn't immune to it either - just take a look at the goblin and kobold from Volo's.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It does if there's nothing notable about the monster that should make it more perceptive. If the monster is literally a floating mass of eyes, I think people might understand when it gets a big bonus to visual perception checks. Similarly high stealth checks can be expected from monsters who are literally composed of animate air and the like.

In those sorts of situations, I suppose you're right, and I don't recall anyone complaining about any +8 racial bonus in 3E. The underlying foundation - that skill increases along with level - was still intact.

Plus, the NPCs don't conform to the PC rules in 5e anyway, so this entire argument is a furphy at best.

NPCs in 5E use a simplification of the PC rules. They basically get you 90% of the way there, but only require 10% of the work in order to do so. They still use the exact same formulas for determining abilities, attacks, skills, and defenses. You also have the perfectly viable option of building them using the PC rules.

It was throughout 4e. The problem was that creatures and characters tended to have 'abilities that generate game mechanics' rather than 'game mechanics describing things that monsters do'. Some abilities this worked fine for, since it was obvious what they reflected. Others not so much (like that fighter one that slid people around before attacking them).

I was talking more about the NPC abilities, where the in-game reality was obviously the same as some PC ability, but they worked differently for no reason - things like PCs working off of AEDU while NPCs used re-charge powers, or PCs needing magic weapons to catch up with the attacks and defenses that NPCs had baseline.

 

[Saeviomagy]

In those sorts of situations, I suppose you're right, and I don't recall anyone complaining about any +8 racial bonus in 3E. The underlying foundation - that skill increases along with level - was still intact.

Right - it was intact because the target DCs (from monsters to hazards) all escalated, so the only reasonable way to spend skill points was to max out a small number of skills, which is what you originally complained about.

NPCs in 5E use a simplification of the PC rules. They basically get you 90% of the way there, but only require 10% of the work in order to do so. They still use the exact same formulas for determining abilities, attacks, skills, and defenses. You also have the perfectly viable option of building them using the PC rules.

I just did a quick run through, and I happened upon the thug's pack tactics, the knight's "bless that doesn't require concentration and works on unlimited targets" and the scout's keen senses in the first 4 NPCs I read.

Now sure, the right type of barbarian can get pack tactics, but the others are clearly different from what PCs have available.

I was talking more about the NPC abilities, where the in-game reality was obviously the same as some PC ability, but they worked differently for no reason - things like PCs working off of AEDU while NPCs used re-charge powers, or PCs needing magic weapons to catch up with the attacks and defenses that NPCs had baseline.

Sounds like unreasonable whining to me. Mechanically those are all very close analogues between PCs and monsters, but with the bookkeeping cut down for the DM.

Now as a 4e player, I certainly found that what a monster did felt disjoined from what it was, as if the monster had been written as a set of combat mechanics within a fairly tight rules set first, and then had a description tacked over that afterwards.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Right - it was intact because the target DCs (from monsters to hazards) all escalated, so the only reasonable way to spend skill points was to max out a small number of skills, which is what you originally complained about.

I don't remember complaining about it, but this is a very long thread, so I may have; I thought that I simply said that's the way it was. While it would be nice if there was some reason to not allocate skill ranks in that way, I've never actually seen a solution in any game where skill progression was tied to combat level. I mean, both 4E and 5E kind of solve the problem, but they do it by taking the choice away entirely.

I just did a quick run through, and I happened upon the thug's pack tactics, the knight's "bless that doesn't require concentration and works on unlimited targets" and the scout's keen senses in the first 4 NPCs I read.

Now sure, the right type of barbarian can get pack tactics, but the others are clearly different from what PCs have available.

You don't see how the knight's bless-like ability is like giving them spell slots which they can spend on Bless, but with less bookkeeping? And I think the scout's keen senses ability was based on an earlier version of the elf's keen senses ability; the whole last-minute design and release schedule was pretty sloppy.

Sounds like unreasonable whining to me. Mechanically those are all very close analogues between PCs and monsters, but with the bookkeeping cut down for the DM.

You honestly think it's reasonable that a level 14 elf ranger NPC with a nonmagical bow is exactly as accurate as a level 14 elf ranger PC with a +3 bow, such that if they competed in a contest on equal footing, the NPC should win?

 

[Xetheral]

All GMs who manipulate facts behind-the-scenes believe that they're making the game better, unless they're of the old-school variety who simply believe it's their right to mess with the players. Either way, when players realize what's going on, it makes them distrust that GM; and if it keeps happening, across different games and GMs, then they learn to distrust all GMs by default; and then they quit the hobby entirely, because they've been burned by so many GMs (well-intentioned or otherwise) that it's not worth the effort to even find a game.

I understand that at some tables it is verboten to tailor encounters (combat or non-combat) to the PCs' abilities. For players used to that style of play, you may well be right that they learn to distrust DMs who tailor the game to the party despite the players' preferences.

But I disagree with your assertion that it's a universal truth. At some tables, mine included, it is expected that the DM will tailor the game to both the players' preferences and their characters' abilities. I've had players approach me to ask for more opportunities to use certain abilities that, despite my efforts, aren't seeing much play. I think that's pretty strong evidence that those players are fine with tailored encounters.

You mentioned upthread that tailoring removes the incentive to (e.g.) be the best fighter one can be. But tailoring also removes the requirement to try to be the best fighter one can be, and in some gameplay styles that's a good thing--it removes pressure to optimize at both the character and the party level. For example, in a tailored game it's not a problem if the party is missing traditional roles, so everyone can play whatever class(es) they want without regard to party effectiveness.

Player agency can still be maintained in a tailored game if the difficulty of the encounters still depends on the characters' choices. The challenge of the game becomes a question of how to use the abilities one has, rather than a question of what abilities one has. Similarly, verisimilitude can be maintained in a tailored game if the difficulty level matches the fiction. For example, a tailored game might see a level 4 party go up against a challenge usually more suitable for a level 2 or 6 party. As long as it isn't the same level 4 encounter with the serial numbers filed off in each case, it belivably fits in the game world.

(Note that tailoring doesn't always mean matching power levels exactly. If the players build powerful characters specifically because they want their character to be powerful, it defeats the purpose to only put the characters up against foes against whom they don't feel powerful. But if the players pick redundant or non-optimal abilities for fun, scaling the challenge level to the resulting characters doesn't thwart the players' purpose.)

So if a party had two lockpicking specialists, would I deliberately include opportunities for both to shine? Absolutely. I would include such tailored encounters, and, for immersion purposes, try to make them seem like a seemless, logical part of the game world. Whether or not the players noticed the contrivance during the game, my players would expect me to include it because that's the style of game we play.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You mentioned upthread that tailoring removes the incentive to (e.g.) be the best fighter one can be. But tailoring also removes the requirement to try to be the best fighter one can be, and in some gameplay styles that's a good thing--it removes pressure to optimize at both the character and the party level. For example, in a tailored game it's not a problem if the party is missing traditional roles, so everyone can play whatever class(es) they want without regard to party effectiveness.

I don't disagree with this statement. My question is, how is this good role-playing? Because a professional fighter, who knows they might die if their skills aren't sharp enough, has plenty of incentive to be the best fighter they can be. Disregarding that incentive seems like a pretty egregious case of meta-gaming.

Or I guess you could just play it that they're super lucky, and they happen to not run into situations they can't handle, but then you're basically deciding that they should win by your decision of what to put them against. And in any case, it's still meta-gaming, because you have to play the world and the NPCs inauthentically in order to contrive those situations.

I understand that at some tables it is verboten to tailor encounters (combat or non-combat) to the PCs' abilities. For players used to that style of play, you may well be right that they learn to distrust DMs who tailor the game to the party despite the players' preferences.

Meta-gaming is bad. That truth is unquestionable. It follows directly from the definition of role-playing - that decisions are made from the perspective of the character - and it's not something that you can change while you still claim to play a role-playing game.

If you want to meta-game at your own table, then fine, whatever. When someone comes into a public forum and claims that meta-gaming is a valid way to role-play, then that's an issue, because it damages the integrity of the role-playing community. Role-players need to know that the GM isn't going to cheat, which meta-gaming very much is, when you're playing a role-playing game.

 

[Xetheral]

I don't disagree with this statement. My question is, how is this good role-playing? Because a professional fighter, who knows they might die if their skills aren't sharp enough, has plenty of incentive to be the best fighter they can be. Disregarding that incentive seems like a pretty egregious case of meta-gaming.

Or I guess you could just play it that they're super lucky, and they happen to not run into situations they can't handle, but then you're basically deciding that they should win by your decision of what to put them against. And in any case, it's still meta-gaming, because you have to play the world and the NPCs inauthentically in order to contrive those situations.

Meta-gaming is bad. That truth is unquestionable. It follows directly from the definition of role-playing - that decisions are made from the perspective of the character - and it's not something that you can change while you still claim to play a role-playing game.

If you want to meta-game at your own table, then fine, whatever. When someone comes into a public forum and claims that meta-gaming is a valid way to role-play, then that's an issue, because it damages the integrity of the role-playing community. Role-players need to know that the GM isn't going to cheat, which meta-gaming very much is, when you're playing a role-playing game.

I disagree that meta-gaming is equivalent to cheating. I also disagree that tailoring the campaign to the PCs qualifies as meta-gaming. I disagree yet again that metagaming by the DM is inherently problematic when it is used to maximize the players' fun. I elaborate on each point of disagreement below.

Regarding meta-gaming being equivalent to cheating... consider a player who evaluates (from the perspective of their character) that the best chance of success comes from splitting the party. The player opts not to push for this course of action because splitting the party would make the game less fun for that particular group. Is it meta-gaming? Yes, by definition. Is it cheating? Absolutely not. Indeed, many consider it poor form to make IC decisions that detract from other players' fun. (Consider, e.g., stealing from the party with the justification that "it's what my character would do".) Ergo, meta-gaming is not equivalent to cheating.

Second, out-of-character decisions, by definition, can't qualify as meta-gaming. Tailoring the campaign to the party usually involves the DM making out-of-character decisions about the content of the game world. Yes, those OOC decisions should be made with an eye towards consistency with the IC events of the campaign thus far, but that still leaves a huge range of possibilities for the DM to select from. Selecting those options suited for a particular party cannot be meta-gaming, by definition, because it wasn't an in-character choice to begin with.

My answer to your question regarding the fighter and roleplaying is similar. To the extent that character-building choices reflect IC decisions, the character doesn't know what is mechanically optimal because the character is unaware of the game mechanics. The choice whether or not to optimize is therefore largely an OOC choice. Sure, there is an IC component too, regarding how the character wants to spend their time. But I don't accept that the only IC choice that qualifies as "good roleplaying" is "to be the best fighter they can be". Characters, like people, are multi-faceted, and it's not bad roleplaying to play them that way. Would you really argue that a fighter who spends one of his ASIs to take the Gourmand feat, for example, is roleplaying poorly because IC they spent time to learn how to cook rather than spending that time to be the best fighter they can be?

Third, I stridently disagree that DMs always need to avoid meta-gaming. At some tables, such as yours, they absolutey do need to avoid metagaming, because DM metagaming would clearly detract from the fun of the players at your table, and detracting from the fun of the players is a bad thing. But at tables like mine where metagaming is an expected (and explicitly acknowledged) tool in the DMs toolkit, DM metagaming can instead enhance the fun of the players, and therefore can be a good thing. (Like all such DM tools, care should be taken not to rely on metagaming too heavily, lest it lose effectiveness.)

Finally, I'd like to point out that your post came across as a personal attack on my integrity, and as an accusation that my prior post "damag[ed] the integrity of the role-playing community". We merely have different playstyles, and while I am happy to discuss the differences with you, and recognize that you don't like my playstyle, I would ask that you refrain from insinuating that my playstyle is inferior (let alone that my choice to discuss my style publicly is damaging to the community itself).

 

[redrick]

I don't disagree with this statement. My question is, how is this good role-playing? Because a professional fighter, who knows they might die if their skills aren't sharp enough, has plenty of incentive to be the best fighter they can be. Disregarding that incentive seems like a pretty egregious case of meta-gaming.

Or I guess you could just play it that they're super lucky, and they happen to not run into situations they can't handle, but then you're basically deciding that they should win by your decision of what to put them against. And in any case, it's still meta-gaming, because you have to play the world and the NPCs inauthentically in order to contrive those situations.

Real people make non-optimal choices all the time. Particularly when it comes to something as lengthy and involved as personal development. Not to mention that there are plenty of other factors that play into how we develop personally and professionally beyond our choices to be the best [profession] that we can be. Maybe the fighter really enjoys figuring out mechanical puzzles, and spends a bit too much time playing with locks when they could be doing pushups and working on their swordfighting techniques. Now, we could have a game where the lock-picking obstacles are always such that the one Rogue is all who is ever needed to overcome them, and the combat obstacles are such that only a slightly more optimized Fighter could overcome them. Or we could have a game where events conspired such that the Fighter was really grateful to have put a little time into lockpicking because it really came in handy that one time, and who needs to be The Best Fighter in the world anyway? It's not like every monster you fight is The Best Orc in the world.

Meta-gaming is bad. That truth is unquestionable. It follows directly from the definition of role-playing - that decisions are made from the perspective of the character - and it's not something that you can change while you still claim to play a role-playing game.

If you want to meta-game at your own table, then fine, whatever. When someone comes into a public forum and claims that meta-gaming is a valid way to role-play, then that's an issue, because it damages the integrity of the role-playing community. Role-players need to know that the GM isn't going to cheat, which meta-gaming very much is, when you're playing a role-playing game.

Role-playing as war.

No DM can hope to actually create a living breathing world that is so accurate that it perfectly responds to all the role-playing decisions of characters. We're doing this in our free time and we all need to take shortcuts. It's all illusion. As long as the Players and the GM are in agreement on the general criteria with which that illusion is constructed and implemented, everybody wins. We try to present situations that seem close to real. We try to present situations that seem fun. We try to present situations that will challenge and engage the players and their characters. We try to present situations that will highlight the weaknesses of the characters, and situations that will highlight the strengths of the characters. We try to adapt to the unexpected choices players might make, or the unexpected outcomes of die rolls that take the adventure in a different direction. But it's still all fake and governed by a certain layer of meta-gaming, which is to say, everybody, at some point, makes a decision because they think it will be more fun.

 

[Saeviomagy]

You honestly think it's reasonable that a level 14 elf ranger NPC with a nonmagical bow is exactly as accurate as a level 14 elf ranger PC with a +3 bow, such that if they competed in a contest on equal footing, the NPC should win?

I think you'll find that if you want a contest between them on equal footing, you'll need to build the NPC as a PC from scratch, because as an NPC, they don't have any of the AEDU powers that the PC has. So they gain in places and lose in places, and you end up with something that doesn't really work for the niche that you've selected for the contest.