D&D 5E What are the "True Issues" with 5e?

[Vaalingrade]

I mean, you could take their word for it. And accept it when they point out that 18>6.

If we were just talking personal philosophy, sure, but if we're debating game design and the actual process, I'm not. Not when it's not just a question of number, but context.

It's adding another step to the process.

Rather than the player just going, "I wan to try and treat their wounds, rolling Medicine", we have "I want to try and treat their wounds" "Okay.... um... Wisdom?" "Wisdom... plus Medicine? Like it's already on my sheet? Already set up on DDB to roll with one click?" "Yes. Roll that." "Boy was this easier than me just doing it."

 

[FitzTheRuke]

If we were just talking personal philosophy, sure, but if we're debating game design and the actual process, I'm not. Not when it's not just a question of number, but context.

It's adding another step to the process.

Rather than the player just going, "I wan to try and treat their wounds, rolling Medicine", we have "I want to try and treat their wounds" "Okay.... um... Wisdom?" "Wisdom... plus Medicine? Like it's already on my sheet? Already set up on DDB to roll with one click?" "Yes. Roll that." "Boy was this easier than me just doing it."

You're making a LOT of assumptions on how their table plays in order to "win" this.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'm not trying to win, I'm trying to have a discussion while people jeer at me for some ungodly reason.

Not every disagreement has to be all Enworld about it.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I think we have a philosophical difference in game approach here, pretty much as described in The Role of Dice (DMG p 236):

Some people play that the dice drive the story so rolling unbidden makes sense for players. This generally reflects the "Rolling with It" style of play. Players know rolls decide everything, so why not just roll? Certainly logical in this context.

Others follow the typical guidance in the PHB/DMG and use the dice just to resolve uncertainty as determined by the DM. This generally reflects "The Middle Path" style of play. Players know that their declared actions can sometimes result in auto-success so they let the DM decide if a roll is really even necessary.

There is another style of play outlined in that section - "Ignoring the Dice" - which is pretty self-explanatory.

If you're having fun, you're doing it right. I'm not sure why people insist on arguing that we're playing "inefficiently" or "tediously" or whatever just because we follow guidelines more closely.

 

[Red Castle]

If we were just talking personal philosophy, sure, but if we're debating game design and the actual process, I'm not. Not when it's not just a question of number, but context.

It's adding another step to the process.

Rather than the player just going, "I wan to try and treat their wounds, rolling Medicine", we have "I want to try and treat their wounds" "Okay.... um... Wisdom?" "Wisdom... plus Medicine? Like it's already on my sheet? Already set up on DDB to roll with one click?" "Yes. Roll that." "Boy was this easier than me just doing it."

Not necessarily I think. For some skills like perception or heal, sure it can be simply the dm asking for the particular skill. But in some other situation, a call for an attribute is quite simple.

Like if a player is trying to convince a NPC of something, you as a DM simply ask for a charisma roll. Then, if the player wants, he can ask if he can use a particular skill, like Diplomacy or Bluff depending on what is his intentions, instead of having the DM assume what is the player intentions.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Not necessarily I think. For some skills like perception or heal, sure it can be simply the dm asking for the particular skill. But in some other situation, a call for an attribute is quite simple.

Like if a player is trying to convince a NPC of something, you as a DM simply ask for a charisma roll. Then, if the player wants, he can ask if he can use a particular skill, like Diplomacy or Bluff depending on what is his intentions, instead of having the DM assume what is the player intentions.

A fair use case, though in my observations, it's usually still clear if they're lying or being genuine in their persuasion attempts, in which case, I still don't see why the player shouldn't just go 'So I'm lying about how we defeated those bandits, here's my Deception roll'.

New players might need the prompt, but I don't feel like someone with a couple games under their belt can't be left to choose their own skill and if it didn't need a roll, even the natural 1 succeeds.

 

[Red Castle]

A fair use case, though in my observations, it's usually still clear if they're lying or being genuine in their persuasion attempts, in which case, I still don't see why the player shouldn't just go 'So I'm lying about how we defeated those bandits, here's my Deception roll'.

New players might need the prompt, but I don't feel like someone with a couple games under their belt can't be left to choose their own skill and if it didn't need a roll, even the natural 1 succeeds.

I guess it depends on how you play at your table. At our table, we tend to act the scenes or describe what we do and then the DM decide if a roll is needed or not to determine the outcome. It’s never the player that ask to do a particular roll in a situation, from our experience it brought some meta gaming that we didn’t like. Your experience might be completely different of course.

Edit: Meta gaming is not a good word. I would go with a lack of immersion instead.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Even lack of immersion doesn't seem right. I don't get someone else's voice in my head when I go look for my keys.

 

[Red Castle]

Even lack of immersion doesn't seem right. I don't get someone else's voice in my head when I go look for my keys.

What I mean by immersion is that we tend to act our scene.

Like if we meet a guard at a gate and must pass through, we’ll start a conversation in character and then, if a roll is need for X reason, the DM will call it. The player never start by saying « alright, I’ll roll diplomacy to try to convince him to let us pass. ». Or if we search a room, the player will describe what he’s doing and won’t just call « I’ll roll perception to search the room ».

You don’t get someone else voice in your head when you go look for your keys, but I’m pretty sure you don’t yell « I’ll roll perception to try to find my keys » either.

Like I said, your experience may be different, but players calling their skill rolls doesn’t work for us.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

What I mean by immersion is that we tend to act our scene.

Like if we meet a guard at a gate and must pass through, we’ll start a conversation in character and then, if a roll is need for X reason, the DM will call it. The player never start by saying « alright, I’ll roll diplomacy to try to convince him to let us pass. ». Or if we search a room, the player will describe what he’s doing and won’t just call « I’ll roll perception to search the room ».

You don’t get someone else voice in your head when you go look for your keys, but I’m pretty sure you don’t yell « I’ll roll perception to try to find my keys » either.

Like I said, your experience may be different, but players calling their skill rolls doesn’t work for us.

I have not really done this but would like to try.

As my kids are new and want to play a gonzo game with sentient fruit and Kenku, I would love to not corrupt them…and just want them to do what is natural and then call for a roll.

Just to see how it goes if consistently applies. We are half in half out as veterans. Would like to try a new approach and see how it goes