Manbearcat
Legend
This is going to run long so fair warning. Turn back now if ye of TLDR heart. Also, if you aren't into parsing text ("you're overthinking it...I HATE PEOPLE LIKE YOU"), again, turn back now.
I'm going to start with my parsing of the nature and procedure of the system's DC setting:
1) During the beginning stages of 5e's genesis, the developers (primarily Mike, Trevor, Jeremy and a wee bit of Monte before he ejected) wrote consistently about (a) natural language (to be interpreted in its standard use form, contrast with evolved slang or specialist jargon) and (b) setting/class/environmental components (D&D's "story" as they often put it) being established first with bounded system maths to be carved out after all the "story" was pinned down. GMs would extrapolate from a common baseline (which is either the average person or the lowest level adventurer) and derive numbers for all these "story" components (eg apply DCs) on a ruling-by-ruling basis.
In game jargon, this would be the design of an "objective" (but rulings-based) framework. Contrast with systems in which the game's maths chassis has primacy and the fiction is derived genre-wise around those numbers (mutable/ malleable fiction or fluff).
So I look at the rulebooks through this prism.
2) So lets look at the Ability Check system and how things intersect.
The MM Ability Check/Scores section just refers you to the PHB, so nothing from the MM.
Alright, because D&D is still laden with game jargon, we eschew "natural language" for a moment and provide the gist of what Ability Scores mean. We also learn the normal human average is 10 or 11, but adventurers and many monsters are a cut above. Makes sense. Either the former or the latter are the baseline for our "natural language" DC framework.
Of note, they use the terms "normal human average", "adventurers", and "a person" when speaking to the reader. I think this is just supposed to be "general stuff" because this doesn't help procedurally. From a GM utility perspective and reading this through a "natural language" prism, I gain nothing here when attempting to discern/establish a DC baseline (Easy, Medium Hard for whom?) for play use. From above, we know these three classifications aren't meant to be used interchangeably.
On the next page, we get:
Ok, play procedures. Roll the dice only when there are prospects of failure/outcomes are uncertain.
Makes sense.
Note * for later
The DMG clarifies and expounds:
"Meaningful consequence of failure." "Meaningful consequence" in a roleplaying game can mean (a) material relevance to the resolution mechanics (immediate or subsequent), (b) story implications, or most often, (c) both.
So we don't just roll dice when a task simply has "a chance of failure" as the PHB outlines. The task (and its chance of failure) (ii) needs to be conflict/stress-laden and (iii) have meaningful consequences (a, b, or c above).
Further, there is an Auto-Success Variant for GMs that don't want to adjudicate "conflict/stress-laden" and "meaningful consequences." Rather, auto-sucess ("say yes") is systematized whereby an action declaration automatically succeeds when it entails an Ability Check with a DC less than or equal to the relevant Ability Score minus 5.
Back to establishing a baseline for "natural language" DCs associated with Easy, Medium, Hard (et al). In the above citations (which attempt to facilitate coherent adjudication for when dice-rolling is warranted and attendant DC establishment), the designers use the terms "character", "most people", and "low-level characters". We know these are not interchangeable so deciphering a standardized baseline becomes a wee bit opaque. I guess they're telling us it doesn't matter, use whatever you like (which is odd because one of the tenets of the bounded accuracy chassis was to control number inflation, in part, because story elements get rendered irrelevant due to associated number discrepancies). I think using "most people" or "normal human average" (+0) makes much more sense because the variance of modifiers in a "low level character" is relatively considerable. But, vagaries, house rules, and "make the game your own" was a notorious charm of AD&D, so fair enough.
Finally, there is also the "off message", rather subtle insinuation that story/environmental items aren't, in fact, objectively evaluated. "Becomes reasonable after 10th level or so." Eh? Soooooooooo...associated DCs scale with characters? Fiction related to Hard DCs becomes "reasonable"...rendering it...Medium..or...no? Is this meant to inform adjudication/play procedure or is this just..."stuff"? Regardless, this bit interacts wonkily with "natural language" and the primacy of fixed story elements (rather than mutable fiction/malleable fluff).
Alright, so we have an Ogre battling the PCs in a stand of trees. As GM we want our Ogre to shove over a small (30 ft high), medium canopy (20 ft diameter), Sawtimber tree (lets say nearly a foot diameter trunk at 4.5 feet up) onto a couple of PCs.
A lot goes into toppling a tree (beyond its size, health, and lean); the magnitude of applied force, leverage (at what height force is applied), robustness of root plate:soil/earth interface on opposite side of applied force. Think of a tree as a weighted cylinder with a broad, heavy base which is buried. You have a lot to contend with to knock it over. But if that base is destabilized on the opposite side of the applied force, the job becomes much, much easier.
If Easy, Medium, Hard, Very Hard, Nearly Impossible are fixed story elements in our setting, centered around "normal human average" (or even "low level characters" if we wish it), what natural language descriptor would we associate with pushing this tree over? Hard? Very Hard? Nearly Impossible?
Beyond the obvious genre tropes of Ogres' tremendous feats of strength (which in a system with mutable fluff centered around genre logic, such as Dungeon World, this is all you need to legitimize your move for your NPC), they have a couple of things going for them:
* Size Large is a very minor assist with leverage as they're applying force probably 3ish feet higher than a standard human (however we want to adjudicate that - Advantage?).
* Size large doubles the values of Lift, Push, Drag, and Carrying Capacity (1140 lbs for Ogre).
Unfortunately, even a tree this size (without a destabilized root plate) needs several thousand pounds of force with much better leverage than the Ogre can offer.
Further, they also have two significant resolution mechanics issues going against them:
* At 19 Strength they only have +4 modifier. Evaluating against the Variant Auto-Success, that would mean they only auto-succeed on DC 15 tasks.
* They aren't proficient in Athletics and they don't have any sort of Burst of Strength/Rage ability to augment their Strength modifier.
So, while it seems "in-genre", system-wise, the GM move of "the Ogre slams into a small tree, toppling it over onto you (!)" doesn't appear to be a permissible move.
But lets say we just say "screw it" (5e definitely observes the AD&D 2e/White Wolf adage of "if the rules don't support the story you want to tell, out go the rules!"). Or, we can simply use ad hoc justification (either to players or ourselves if need be) of "the root plate of this particular tree was compromised...and it had forward lean!"
So how do we go about doing this? Let us see the DMG example for for adjudicating such improvised actions:
How does this work as a procedurally coherent template for stunting that creates thematic fiction and changes the situation dynamically, thereby creating interesting decision-points for players? Well...
1) Let's go back to * above. "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure." The above example is that of an ability check...which serves as an attack...errr?
2) No part of this action resolution references either DMG 120 or DMG 249.
Alright, so what to do? I think the best approach is the following procedure:
Step 1) Establish a relevant Ability Check and an associated DC. Use Success At a Cost (DMG 242), but disregard the failure by 1 or 2 prerequisite. The last thing you want is punitive compound probability math rendering stunting dead on arrival because of opportunity cost that is too steep. Make your Ability Check and proceed to the next phase. Fail it and proceed to the next phase but with some sort of consequence; a cost (a condition, or hit points, or being put in a bad spot), a lesser result (reduced effectiveness of attack such as less targets, lower damage or lesser/no control rider), a thematic/tactical choice by the opposition that mitigates the outcome somewhat. For instance:
Our tree-toppling Ogre is rolling Str (Athletics) against DC whatever the heck you deem fitting. Ogre fails. As GM, granting the players the choice in adjudication/fiction is pretty much always going to be the best way to go. And this can intersect with action economy decisions (spend your Reaction to do x due to opening) or, better still, this can intersect with Ideals, Bonds, Flaws, Traits and the Inspiration mechanics.
GM: The berserk Ogre has shouldered the tree with a mighty charge! Its toppling over onto Fighter McFighterson and Manoftheclotherton! Oh noooooes! <the Fighter. maybe he's a knight, has some noble Ideal of sacrifice or some kind of Bond with the Cleric> Good Sir McFighterson, your courage and commitment to duty distills the moment in perfect clarifying detail for you. With the alacrity of your protective impulse, you can shove your companion out of the way (Cleric won't have to make a Saving Throw from the AoE). However, you'll suffer Disadvantage to your own Saving Throw!
This would give an opportunity for the player to (a) earn Inspiration, (b) express their thematic archetype, (c) positively impact the situation, (d) perhaps spend prior earned Inspiration to undo that Disadvantage.
Step 2) Consult the NPC's stat block along with DMG 120 and DMG 249 to determine attack/saving throw + damage expression (stepping it back for AoE or a rider).
Alright, that's enough from me. Have at it. I'll check back in in a few days to see what folks have to say and acknowledge [MENTION=6793093]Jeff Albertson[/MENTION] 's laugh (I guess that qualifies as preemptive acknowledgement).
I'm going to start with my parsing of the nature and procedure of the system's DC setting:
1) During the beginning stages of 5e's genesis, the developers (primarily Mike, Trevor, Jeremy and a wee bit of Monte before he ejected) wrote consistently about (a) natural language (to be interpreted in its standard use form, contrast with evolved slang or specialist jargon) and (b) setting/class/environmental components (D&D's "story" as they often put it) being established first with bounded system maths to be carved out after all the "story" was pinned down. GMs would extrapolate from a common baseline (which is either the average person or the lowest level adventurer) and derive numbers for all these "story" components (eg apply DCs) on a ruling-by-ruling basis.
In game jargon, this would be the design of an "objective" (but rulings-based) framework. Contrast with systems in which the game's maths chassis has primacy and the fiction is derived genre-wise around those numbers (mutable/ malleable fiction or fluff).
So I look at the rulebooks through this prism.
2) So lets look at the Ability Check system and how things intersect.
The MM Ability Check/Scores section just refers you to the PHB, so nothing from the MM.
Alright, because D&D is still laden with game jargon, we eschew "natural language" for a moment and provide the gist of what Ability Scores mean. We also learn the normal human average is 10 or 11, but adventurers and many monsters are a cut above. Makes sense. Either the former or the latter are the baseline for our "natural language" DC framework.
Of note, they use the terms "normal human average", "adventurers", and "a person" when speaking to the reader. I think this is just supposed to be "general stuff" because this doesn't help procedurally. From a GM utility perspective and reading this through a "natural language" prism, I gain nothing here when attempting to discern/establish a DC baseline (Easy, Medium Hard for whom?) for play use. From above, we know these three classifications aren't meant to be used interchangeably.
On the next page, we get:
Ok, play procedures. Roll the dice only when there are prospects of failure/outcomes are uncertain.
Makes sense.
Note * for later
The DMG clarifies and expounds:
"Meaningful consequence of failure." "Meaningful consequence" in a roleplaying game can mean (a) material relevance to the resolution mechanics (immediate or subsequent), (b) story implications, or most often, (c) both.
So we don't just roll dice when a task simply has "a chance of failure" as the PHB outlines. The task (and its chance of failure) (ii) needs to be conflict/stress-laden and (iii) have meaningful consequences (a, b, or c above).
Further, there is an Auto-Success Variant for GMs that don't want to adjudicate "conflict/stress-laden" and "meaningful consequences." Rather, auto-sucess ("say yes") is systematized whereby an action declaration automatically succeeds when it entails an Ability Check with a DC less than or equal to the relevant Ability Score minus 5.
Back to establishing a baseline for "natural language" DCs associated with Easy, Medium, Hard (et al). In the above citations (which attempt to facilitate coherent adjudication for when dice-rolling is warranted and attendant DC establishment), the designers use the terms "character", "most people", and "low-level characters". We know these are not interchangeable so deciphering a standardized baseline becomes a wee bit opaque. I guess they're telling us it doesn't matter, use whatever you like (which is odd because one of the tenets of the bounded accuracy chassis was to control number inflation, in part, because story elements get rendered irrelevant due to associated number discrepancies). I think using "most people" or "normal human average" (+0) makes much more sense because the variance of modifiers in a "low level character" is relatively considerable. But, vagaries, house rules, and "make the game your own" was a notorious charm of AD&D, so fair enough.
Finally, there is also the "off message", rather subtle insinuation that story/environmental items aren't, in fact, objectively evaluated. "Becomes reasonable after 10th level or so." Eh? Soooooooooo...associated DCs scale with characters? Fiction related to Hard DCs becomes "reasonable"...rendering it...Medium..or...no? Is this meant to inform adjudication/play procedure or is this just..."stuff"? Regardless, this bit interacts wonkily with "natural language" and the primacy of fixed story elements (rather than mutable fiction/malleable fluff).
Alright, so we have an Ogre battling the PCs in a stand of trees. As GM we want our Ogre to shove over a small (30 ft high), medium canopy (20 ft diameter), Sawtimber tree (lets say nearly a foot diameter trunk at 4.5 feet up) onto a couple of PCs.
A lot goes into toppling a tree (beyond its size, health, and lean); the magnitude of applied force, leverage (at what height force is applied), robustness of root plate:soil/earth interface on opposite side of applied force. Think of a tree as a weighted cylinder with a broad, heavy base which is buried. You have a lot to contend with to knock it over. But if that base is destabilized on the opposite side of the applied force, the job becomes much, much easier.
If Easy, Medium, Hard, Very Hard, Nearly Impossible are fixed story elements in our setting, centered around "normal human average" (or even "low level characters" if we wish it), what natural language descriptor would we associate with pushing this tree over? Hard? Very Hard? Nearly Impossible?
Beyond the obvious genre tropes of Ogres' tremendous feats of strength (which in a system with mutable fluff centered around genre logic, such as Dungeon World, this is all you need to legitimize your move for your NPC), they have a couple of things going for them:
* Size Large is a very minor assist with leverage as they're applying force probably 3ish feet higher than a standard human (however we want to adjudicate that - Advantage?).
* Size large doubles the values of Lift, Push, Drag, and Carrying Capacity (1140 lbs for Ogre).
Unfortunately, even a tree this size (without a destabilized root plate) needs several thousand pounds of force with much better leverage than the Ogre can offer.
Further, they also have two significant resolution mechanics issues going against them:
* At 19 Strength they only have +4 modifier. Evaluating against the Variant Auto-Success, that would mean they only auto-succeed on DC 15 tasks.
* They aren't proficient in Athletics and they don't have any sort of Burst of Strength/Rage ability to augment their Strength modifier.
So, while it seems "in-genre", system-wise, the GM move of "the Ogre slams into a small tree, toppling it over onto you (!)" doesn't appear to be a permissible move.
But lets say we just say "screw it" (5e definitely observes the AD&D 2e/White Wolf adage of "if the rules don't support the story you want to tell, out go the rules!"). Or, we can simply use ad hoc justification (either to players or ourselves if need be) of "the root plate of this particular tree was compromised...and it had forward lean!"
So how do we go about doing this? Let us see the DMG example for for adjudicating such improvised actions:
How does this work as a procedurally coherent template for stunting that creates thematic fiction and changes the situation dynamically, thereby creating interesting decision-points for players? Well...
1) Let's go back to * above. "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure." The above example is that of an ability check...which serves as an attack...errr?
2) No part of this action resolution references either DMG 120 or DMG 249.
Alright, so what to do? I think the best approach is the following procedure:
Step 1) Establish a relevant Ability Check and an associated DC. Use Success At a Cost (DMG 242), but disregard the failure by 1 or 2 prerequisite. The last thing you want is punitive compound probability math rendering stunting dead on arrival because of opportunity cost that is too steep. Make your Ability Check and proceed to the next phase. Fail it and proceed to the next phase but with some sort of consequence; a cost (a condition, or hit points, or being put in a bad spot), a lesser result (reduced effectiveness of attack such as less targets, lower damage or lesser/no control rider), a thematic/tactical choice by the opposition that mitigates the outcome somewhat. For instance:
Our tree-toppling Ogre is rolling Str (Athletics) against DC whatever the heck you deem fitting. Ogre fails. As GM, granting the players the choice in adjudication/fiction is pretty much always going to be the best way to go. And this can intersect with action economy decisions (spend your Reaction to do x due to opening) or, better still, this can intersect with Ideals, Bonds, Flaws, Traits and the Inspiration mechanics.
GM: The berserk Ogre has shouldered the tree with a mighty charge! Its toppling over onto Fighter McFighterson and Manoftheclotherton! Oh noooooes! <the Fighter. maybe he's a knight, has some noble Ideal of sacrifice or some kind of Bond with the Cleric> Good Sir McFighterson, your courage and commitment to duty distills the moment in perfect clarifying detail for you. With the alacrity of your protective impulse, you can shove your companion out of the way (Cleric won't have to make a Saving Throw from the AoE). However, you'll suffer Disadvantage to your own Saving Throw!
This would give an opportunity for the player to (a) earn Inspiration, (b) express their thematic archetype, (c) positively impact the situation, (d) perhaps spend prior earned Inspiration to undo that Disadvantage.
Step 2) Consult the NPC's stat block along with DMG 120 and DMG 249 to determine attack/saving throw + damage expression (stepping it back for AoE or a rider).
Alright, that's enough from me. Have at it. I'll check back in in a few days to see what folks have to say and acknowledge [MENTION=6793093]Jeff Albertson[/MENTION] 's laugh (I guess that qualifies as preemptive acknowledgement).
