D&D 5E AngryGM: Tweaking the core of D&D 5e

The AngryGM has some interesting suggestions for tweaking action resolution in 5e

Not sure I'm on board with all of it but there's some good stuff in there and the general discussion is meaty.

Is "meaty" another way of saying "long-winded and hard-to-follow?"

I'm sure AGM has some great points in there, but it really sounded to me like he's analyzing 5e through a 5e lens, which sort of defeats the purpose.

The other problem is that if you change the "core" of a game, you necessarily change the entire game. But...maybe resolving that problem is why the article is 10+ pages?

robus said:

The AngryGM has some interesting suggestions for tweaking action resolution in 5e

Not sure I'm on board with all of it but there's some good stuff in there and the general discussion is meaty.

Click to expand...

DMMike said:

Is "meaty" another way of saying "long-winded and hard-to-follow?"

I'm sure AGM has some great points in there, but it really sounded to me like he's analyzing 5e through a 5e lens, which sort of defeats the purpose.

The other problem is that if you change the "core" of a game, you necessarily change the entire game. But...maybe resolving that problem is why the article is 10+ pages?

Click to expand...

Yeah, posting a link to a 10+ page long article with no better a summary than "good stuff" and "meaty" isn't doing it for me.

Perhaps if you posted a short seven bullet point summary so we would have something to actually discuss...?

Until then, here's something else to discuss:

"Until you dig into option rules in the DMG, D&D doesn’t really include specific rules or systems for modes of play outside of combat. When you enter a stealth scene or a survival scene or an exploration scene or an interaction scene, there’s no special overlay of rules that do what the combat rules do."
From the Long, Rambling Intro post

That's true. If a game's rules are 90% about combat (and becoming better at killing stuff), assume the game is 90% about combat.

That idea that D&D has three roughly equal pillars (combat, social and exploration) is complete hogwash. In a game where "there's a spell for that" as soon as the challenge involves talking (Charm Person, Detect Evil etc) and finding (Create Food and Drink, Find the Path etc), I don't buy it.

CapnZapp said:

Until then, here's something else to discuss:

"Until you dig into option rules in the DMG, D&D doesn’t really include specific rules or systems for modes of play outside of combat. When you enter a stealth scene or a survival scene or an exploration scene or an interaction scene, there’s no special overlay of rules that do what the combat rules do."
From the Long, Rambling Intro post

That's true. If a game's rules are 90% about combat (and becoming better at killing stuff), assume the game is 90% about combat.

That idea that D&D has three roughly equal pillars (combat, social and exploration) is complete hogwash. In a game where "there's a spell for that" as soon as the challenge involves talking (Charm Person, Detect Evil etc) and finding (Create Food and Drink, Find the Path etc), I don't buy it.

Click to expand...

90% combat? I've seen this figure thrown about on occasion, and generally it is taken to be a self-evident truth, but is it really? Chapters 7 & 8 of the PHB (which cover non-combat stuff) total 15 pages, whereas the the combat chapter is only 10 pages long. By that metric combat is only 40% of the game. (40/30/30 seems about right to me.)

Admittedly, there are plenty of other things in the book which can be grouped under the combat heading (Fireball, Extra Attack, etc.). On the other hand, there are plenty of things that aren't (half orc fluff, the aforementioned Find the Path spell, the Actor feat, etc.).

I've played numerous sessions of 5e where not a single combat occurred. Those have been some of my favorite sessions. It does beg the question of how were we having such a great time interfacing with only "10%" of the game.

My opinion of it is that this is a self-affirming fallacy. If you expect D&D to be 90% combat (or 100% for that matter) then you are correct, that is what it will be. I was recently listening to a session of 5e on YouTube (it helps me get into the proper mindset while coding) and there was an invisible enemy that the Ranger had Hunter's Marked. It never even occurred to the player that Hunters Mark gives them advantage to find their target (all they remembered was the extra damage); as such the party blundered around quite a bit trying to locate the enemy.

Games typically have a heavier focus on the rules of combat because that is where the stakes are usually high. Odds are, someone is going to die once the screen blurs and we enter the combat mini-game. In a social or exploration situation, the stakes might be high (navigating a dangerous area) or they might be minimal (failing to convince the merchant to give you a discount on the rations you want to buy). Most of the time, engaging with the non-combat pillars will not result in immediate life-or-death. Most of the time, engaging with combat may result in losing your character. As such, it behooves the designers to provide more nuanced rules for combat.

Murderhoboing is one particular play style which lends itself to 90% or more combat (it's perfectly valid, if you enjoy that style of play). Characterizing the game by that one particular playstyle, however, is painting with an absurdly broad brush. There are many valid play styles out there and they will engage with the various pillars in varying degrees.


With respect to the OP, Angry does have a rather... voluminous... writing style but I generally find his articles illuminating and well thought out, even if I don't necessarily agree with him. I haven't finished this one yet, but (while I don't agree with everything he says) I think it has some interesting ideas, especially for DMs who don't have experience with older editions.

CapnZapp said:

That idea that D&D has three roughly equal pillars (combat, social and exploration) is complete hogwash. In a game where "there's a spell for that" as soon as the challenge involves talking (Charm Person, Detect Evil etc) and finding (Create Food and Drink, Find the Path etc), I don't buy it.

Click to expand...

I guess if you ignore the adverse effects of spells like Charm person... like the creature knowing it was charmed... then yes the answer will always be a spell, otherwise I think skill use is very much the go to with magic being used less frequently as a back up... at least that's how it's tended to play out in my games.

CapnZapp said:

Yeah, posting a link to a 10+ page long article with no better a summary than "good stuff" and "meaty" isn't doing it for me.

Perhaps if you posted a short seven bullet point summary so we would have something to actually discuss...?

Click to expand...

Well then we'd be discussing a perhaps misleading summary rather than the actual content? But lesson learned.

My experience is that Angry usually has something worth reading in his articles, but he buries it under paragraphs and paragraphs of dense verbiage and brand posturing.

The trick is to just skim for meaning. Or simply skip the first six paragraphs of any of his posts and start reading from there.

(A bullet point summary, or even just a response to the points you found interesting would probably help. I don't have the time to do that at the moment, but could swing back around later tonight and do so, if no one else is feeling up to it.)

robus said:

The AngryGM has some interesting suggestions for tweaking action resolution in 5e

Not sure I'm on board with all of it but there's some good stuff in there and the general discussion is meaty.

Click to expand...

Having finished the article, here are my opinions on the matter.

The Core Mechanic section is a little self-evident in my opinion, but there's nothing wrong with making sure your ducks are in a row before delving into deeper analysis.

The section on "Approach and Outcome, Consequence and Cost" is how my group has always played, but it's probably useful to those newer to the game. All in all, I agree in playing this way. I do think most of this would fall under the category of common sense, and therefore not really within the scope of RPG design. If you can't figure out for yourself that breaking down a door is LOUD, well...

The section of "No Skill Rolls" and "GM Decides the Rules to Use" are again already how we play. I wouldn't hesitate to call for a Charisma (Animal Handling) or Wisdom (Religion) check under appropriate circumstances. And I much prefer the player telling me what his character is doing than asking if he can roll a check (because, depending on the circumstances, I may rule that what they want doesn't require a check). Still, it's not a bad thing to remind DMs about, especially newer DMs who might be too rigid in their thinking.

The "Saving Throws are Weird" section is fine, and I actually really like the The Reaction Rule. I'd never actually considered freezing time the moment that a trap is set off and asking the player how they'd like their character to react. That's a cool idea. Although I would allow Bob's character a saving throw to catch the edge of the pit as he falls. Just because you didn't guess correctly (especially lacking any significant clues) shouldn't mean you are automatically screwed. The character could still react on instinct and catch the lip of the pit (depending on the roll I might require him to drop something he is holding in order to catch himself).

"Knowledge Checks are Weirder" is another thing we've been doing for a long time now. It just seems obvious to me. That said, I've seen DMs who didn't do things this way so it's a good thing to mention to those who might not have thought of it. To keep things simple, I don't set a DC. The main determination is simply whether the character is proficient (or doubly proficient) in a knowledge (it's not something I have to track as I can easily ask the player when it comes up).

Passive DC starting at an 8 is an interesting idea, but not one that I think I'll use. 10 is fine and mimics an opposed check while giving the "attacker" a slight advantage.

I disagree with him on "Teamwork and Group Checks", and I don't care for his house ruling in that area. In particular, I think that "Worst" Group checks is a terrible idea. That just means that certain approaches are barred entirely to the party. Have a clumsy fighter in full plate? You can never sneak anywhere as a group unless perhaps you can convince him to take off his armor and attune to Gloves of Dexterity (or whatever). The current group check mechanic allows the sneakier characters to make up for the less sneaky characters, which enables cool scenes (the rogue's player can narrate how he creates a distraction to cover the fighter's noisy approach) and having all the players roll a check is only minimally more time consuming than having a single player do so.

Overall though, a well considered article.

EDIT:
Expanding on the Reaction Rule, I would probably give Alice's character advantage on her saving throw, but have Bob make his normally. IMO, it's better to reward a lucky guess than to penalize an unlucky one (plus, there are likely to be a very limited number of "right" answers and a virtually infinite number of "wrong" answers, so this approach is much more fair). If the DM foreshadowed the type of trap (gave the players several clues) then a harsher method of resolution might be appropriate.

[MENTION=53980]Fanaelialae[/MENTION], I certainly look to Angry for deeper understanding of the rules and intentions behind that game that are given cursory attention in both the PHB and DMG, both seemingly written assuming the reader already knows how the game works and they just need to know the new rules. So many things that might seem obvious are only so once experience has allowed a player or DM to begin to relax into the game, and stop worrying that they're forgetting things.

Appreciate your thoughts!