D&D 5E What 5E needs: Let it Ride and Make it Interesting...

[LostSoul]

No, I don't think this works for me. It's important that the DM doesn't muck around with the PC's odds of success based on their judgement of whether a scene is "cinematic" enough or narratively satisfying. There needs to be consistency in how and where they call for checks to allow the players to make strategic decisions about how they go about sneaking into the castle, or whatever. And they need to be able to fail (sometimes in deprotagonizing, anti-climactic ways) in order to make their plans matter, and not just be fluff on top of a railroad structure.

Two points here:

1. Making a call about "whether a scene is "cinematic" enough or narratively satisfying" isn't tied to Let it Ride. In Burning Wheel that call gets made when the GM describes where the players are and what's going on, i.e. scene framing. (And that call is based on the PC's Beliefs, not if the scene is cinematic or narratively satisfying.) The rule that covers when a test should be called for is under "Vincent's Admonition", I think - roll the dice or say yes.

2. You can apply "Let it Ride" while DMing in the referee style: unless the conditions change, the roll stands. There's a judgement call to make - have the conditions changed enough to allow another try? - but it's not of the sort you state above. This is how Let it Ride works in BW.

 

[Gold Roger]

Where do you draw the line, GR?

Both "let it ride" and "make it interesting" I can implement in any game with skill use I've personally seen. And I can do so without any real houserules.

You can make rules that support these styles and you can makes rules that undermine their use. That doesn't turn these styles into rules themself though.

A game that should pander to a broad range of playstyles, as 5e is supposed to, definitely shouldn't have rules that support these styles as anything but an optional module.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Both "let it ride" and "make it interesting" I can implement in any game with skill use I've personally seen. And I can do so without any real houserules.

You can make rules that support these styles and you can makes rules that undermine their use. That doesn't turn these styles into rules themself though.

A game that should pander to a broad range of playstyles, as 5e is supposed to, definitely shouldn't have rules that support these styles as anything but an optional module.

Anyone with a good sense of probabilty can do so. Not everyone has that sense (or the math to develop it). So whether completely optional or somewhat baked in, whether used as "Let it Ride" and scene framing or something else, it would be good to have some mechanics to support, say, "the consolidation of several rolls into fewer rolls while preserving roughly the expected odds."

If nothing else, a set of modifiers to apply to DCs, when changing the number of rolls, would be good. Nevermind "Let it Ride". You just want to gloss over this particular scene, and the players are fine with that. "Everyone give me an Endurance check, -5 because it is several rolls made in one check."

 

[Ranganathan]

Anyone with a good sense of probabilty can do so. Not everyone has that sense (or the math to develop it). So whether completely optional or somewhat baked in, whether used as "Let it Ride" and scene framing or something else, it would be good to have some mechanics to support, say, "the consolidation of several rolls into fewer rolls while preserving roughly the expected odds."

If nothing else, a set of modifiers to apply to DCs, when changing the number of rolls, would be good. Nevermind "Let it Ride". You just want to gloss over this particular scene, and the players are fine with that. "Everyone give me an Endurance check, -5 because it is several rolls made in one check."

This is precisely what Let it Ride is for. Overcoming the presumption that players should be making several rolls for a series of the same, or similar actions. Making a series of Endurance checks is dull, it adds nothing to the game, and drastically increases the chance of failure.

Let it Ride isn't about making the result of a roll (pass/fail) more cinematic, it's about making the revelation of the results more cinematic, more exciting, and worthwhile. You choose an interesting point to make the roll, whatever the results may be. Rolling once before they reach an oasis on day three is far more interesting than rolling once per day. Rolling several times for the same thing is duller than watching flies .

 

[Crazy Jerome]

This is precisely what Let it Ride is for. Overcoming the presumption that players should be making several rolls for a series of the same, or similar actions. Making a series of Endurance checks is dull, it adds nothing to the game, and drastically increases the chance of failure.

Let it Ride isn't about making the result of a roll (pass/fail) more cinematic, it's about making the revelation of the results more cinematic, more exciting, and worthwhile. You choose an interesting point to make the roll, whatever the results may be. Rolling once before they reach an oasis on day three is far more interesting than rolling once per day. Rolling several times for the same thing is duller than watching flies .

I agree with all that. My point, however, was that the mechanics used for consolidation of rolls are useful to a wider range of styles than "Let it Ride" typically implies.

People object, "don't waste time on such tools; they are too niche; they enforce a style of play." My answer is put the basic tools in the game, for anyone to use how they see fit. Certainly, in a module also explain how people can use those tools to do conscious scene framing, including "Let it Ride" strictly construed. Also, give some less strong advice on using these tools in an ad hoc manner. It's not like the mechanics are a breaker box, where if you use them in a less strict manner, you risk frying your campaign.

We aren't going to get dice pools and Artha, which practically make "Let it Ride" required in Burning Wheel.

 

[LostSoul]

Both "let it ride" and "make it interesting" I can implement in any game with skill use I've personally seen. And I can do so without any real houserules.

You can make rules that support these styles and you can makes rules that undermine their use. That doesn't turn these styles into rules themself though.

A game that should pander to a broad range of playstyles, as 5e is supposed to, definitely shouldn't have rules that support these styles as anything but an optional module.

Okay, great. So... back to my original question: Where do you draw the line between a rule and a "style"?

 

[n00bdragon]

According to the game (4E), a thief who tries to sneak across a courtyard, scale a wall, and sneak into a room in a high tower could make upwards of a dozen checks for various actions. Move more than 2, extra check. Break cover, extra check. Enter the moat, extra check. Enter cover, no check. Break second cover, extra check. Climb the wall, extra check. A few Athletics checks to get up the bloody thing. Then stealth again to move around inside the tower.

That's ridiculous and adds nothing interesting to the game. It only slows things down and increases the likelihood of failing at an uninteresting point, say in the courtyard, breaking cover for the second time. Wrap that all up into a few rolls, one each for climbing and one for sneaking when it really counts (inside the tower), and it's suddenly a much more interesting (re: dramatic and engaging) story, rather than fondling the game mechanics needlessly.

Cover is a relative determination. If there is no one there to see you moving about you cannot possibly be "breaking cover". Now, if there actually was someone there to see you break from the treeline and hop into the moat and then crawl out later yes, you would need different checks for those actions because the situation has changed. You cannot let that ride.

Way to intentionally misread the rules.

 

[Gold Roger]

Okay, great. So... back to my original question: Where do you draw the line between a rule and a "style"?

I danced around that question for a reason. It opens a huge can of worms that is not the topic of this thread.

To give a quick and non-exhaustive answer:

A rule can be stripped down to math, logic and fact. A fighter has X hp at level n. A Longsword does 1d10 damage, plus modifiers.

That's rules. Everything else is guidelines, design principles, playstyles, advice and whatever else.

I feel it's one of the big problems with disconnect between game groups, when talking about roleplay games and trying to unify the player base. Five different groups can play by the same hard rules (be they OD&D, 3.5 or Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay Second Edition) and yet play completely incompatible games. Because all the advice and guidelines and interpretation of designer intent are taken at completely different value.

But look at me here, going off topic ><

 

[Libramarian]

1) Their plans need to matter.
2) The dice determine the outcome.

These are contradictory statements.

No, you can make plans based on probabilities.

And just so you know, making players roll over and over is "mucking with their chance of success". But then, so is assigning any DC.

It's not changing their chances of success based on cinematic expectations, it's deciding to not bore the players to tears by spending half an hour watching as the thief sneaks into the tower to steal a MacGuffin. It's Shadowrun and decking.

Railroading is making sure a specific thing happens no matter what the players say or do. Let it Ride isn't that. Let it Ride is actually the opposite of that. When you make a player roll repeatedly for the same action, you are dramatically increasing their chance of failure, all but guaranteeing a failure at some point. That's railroading with a fancy purple dress on.

It's making judgements about their chance of success, but from a simulationist perspective, not a narrativist perspective. Making these sorts of judgements from a narrative perspective makes it much more subjective.

Two points here:

1. Making a call about "whether a scene is "cinematic" enough or narratively satisfying" isn't tied to Let it Ride. In Burning Wheel that call gets made when the GM describes where the players are and what's going on, i.e. scene framing. (And that call is based on the PC's Beliefs, not if the scene is cinematic or narratively satisfying.) The rule that covers when a test should be called for is under "Vincent's Admonition", I think - roll the dice or say yes.

2. You can apply "Let it Ride" while DMing in the referee style: unless the conditions change, the roll stands. There's a judgement call to make - have the conditions changed enough to allow another try? - but it's not of the sort you state above. This is how Let it Ride works in BW.

This is how Ragnathan is describing it: The player chooses a plan of action (trying to sneak into the castle) and the DM both chooses how many rolls to spend on this whole plan (based on standards like "how a movie would handle it") as well as the consequences for failure to make sure they're dramatically interesting (e.g. a failed stealth roll doesn't mean the character doesn't get into the tower, it means they weren't stealthy about it).

That's giving the DM way too much power to decide things based on narrative priorities imo.

I like this high level DM-advice line instead:
"Play to see what happens"

The rules of course should be designed so that playing to see what happens often produces interesting happenings.

 

[CM]

Hmm, apparently I've been using something similar to these rules since late 2e and didn't know it.

I generally only call for a new skill check when conditions change, and I use the result of the check to determine degree of success/failure rather than just binary pass/fail.