D&D 5E Can a PC perform a miracle with a stat/skill check?

[I'm A Banana]

There is a flip side to that, though - if everyone is very easy-going about which system they play, why not play this other system that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] thinks is more fun? If the choice of system isn't going to be completely random or arbitrary than presumably considerations of what is enjoyable are a relevant consideration.

For many RPGers D&D solves the co-ordination problem of finding a game that everyone can agree on, but as I read it the point Manbearcat is making is that, for him and his friends, other superior points of convergence are available.

It's not completely random an arbitrary, it's based on local and personal and highly variable conditions. If some other system lets the group have more fun for XYZ reason, they should play it! The thing that I'm pointing out is that the Goals of Play section isn't just some baldly obvious milquetoast statement of "well, duh," but it actually serves to align play agendas in that it presents group enjoyment and storytelling as primary. Thus, it's not about individual agendas (I think detailed minis combat is the bees knees), but about shared enjoyment (does everyone enjoyed detailed minis combat, or are there some people in the group that lose all interest when the battlemats come out? do the other parts engage them enough despite this?) in a way that even pros can forget about.

Whatever system serves the group's needs, that's the best system to play with for that group, and if what you want is...detailed world simulation, for instance, D&D won't give you that.

You seem to be implying that that is precious, but I don't think it's precious at all. Presumably when you go to the movies with your friends you don't just choose a film and a cinema at random. Even though the main point is to have fun seeing a film together, presumably you nevertheless look for a film that is going to be enjoyable for you all.

Nah, it's not precious to have everyone doing something everyone is enjoying.

It IS precious to insist that you only enjoy one very narrow band of experience and are unable to tolerate anything that breaks from that band. Like, if you insist that the only films you can ever possibly enjoy are wartime Fred Astaire musicals, and you refuse to watch anything else because you know it'll just be a waste of your time and you won't like it....you're being very precious about your film choices. If the goal of going to see a movie with your friends is to have a good time, you will cause the group to fail that goal except within a really narrow band of "movie." You might blame the movies for not being as good, but really, you're being very sensitive about your movie choices, and you're unwilling to move outside of your comfort zone.

In RPG-land, if your chosen RPG experience MUST include, I dunno, HP-as-meat, and you are completely unable to tolerate any play experiences outside of that to the extent that you refuse to play any game that has HP-as-morale and you cannot abide 5e because it has HP-as-sort-of-morale-mostly, then you are being very precious about your RPG choices, not because you have a strong preference, but because you're intolerant of anything outside of your strong preference.

The "preciousness" isn't about wanting a particular experience, it's about being unable to tolerate anything other than that particular experience.

 

[LostSoul]

In the end, all that matters is whether we achieve those goals during a play session. So when it comes to forum arguments about game balance (for example) which tend to be centered around defensively DMing to curb player abuse of rules-legal options, I have to ask whether people have taken the time to sit down with their players and come to an agreement that abuse just isn't going to help achieve the goal of fun. It's through the lens of the goals of play that it becomes very easy to see what we need to do to make the game successful and oftentimes it's a matter of a simple discussion among the group.

Couldn't you resolve everything in the game this way? If so, what do you need the rules for? Or a DM/player divide?

If not, why not?

 

[billd91]

Couldn't you resolve everything in the game this way? If so, what do you need the rules for? Or a DM/player divide?

If not, why not?

I would venture that a discussion and agreement to not abuse the rules isn't really close to doing without the rules.

 

[LostSoul]

I would venture that a discussion and agreement to not abuse the rules isn't really close to doing without the rules.

What if I put it this way: If the Goals of Play are the overriding principles of play - so that if any rule at any time violates them, the rule should be disregarded in favour of the Goals of Play - then what value do the other rules give you?

I can see the value that the other rules would have for me if I played that way, but I already knew that, so that's why I'm asking you guys.

 

[I'm A Banana]

What if I put it this way: If the Goals of Play are the overriding principles of play - so that if any rule at any time violates them, the rule should be disregarded in favour of the Goals of Play - then what value do the other rules give you?

I can see the value that the other rules would have for me if I played that way, but I already knew that, so that's why I'm asking you guys.

From my POV, the other rules facilitate these Goals by giving a common baseline that is mutually agreed by the group to generally produce the Goals -- that is, the rules give a default mode that usually results in a fun storytelling game and plenty of options on how to tweak it. Like, damage being subtracted from HP helps produce a fun storytelling game because it introduces the concept of gradually rising tension. Rolling for treasure helps produce a fun storytelling game because we make sense of the results in the context of our current adventure and that produces interesting details. Fighters kick butt with weapons because that demonstrates a possible defining character trait of a heroic character. You gain XP and levels because this shows character growth over time. Etc.

 

[pemerton]

the Goals of Play section isn't just some baldly obvious milquetoast statement of "well, duh," but it actually serves to align play agendas in that it presents group enjoyment and storytelling as primary. Thus, it's not about individual agendas (I think detailed minis combat is the bees knees), but about shared enjoyment (does everyone enjoyed detailed minis combat, or are there some people in the group that lose all interest when the battlemats come out? do the other parts engage them enough despite this?) in a way that even pros can forget about.

Here is the statement on p 2 of the Basic PDF:

Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. . . . The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win.​

I don't know that it's completely milquetoast. I think the bit about having a good time is, in my view, "well, duh". But the bit about a memorable story being important isn't. Gygaxian D&D, for instance, doesn't really say much about stories.

It IS precious to insist that you only enjoy one very narrow band of experience and are unable to tolerate anything that breaks from that band.

<snip>

In RPG-land, if your chosen RPG experience MUST include, I dunno, HP-as-meat, and you are completely unable to tolerate any play experiences outside of that to the extent that you refuse to play any game that has HP-as-morale and you cannot abide 5e because it has HP-as-sort-of-morale-mostly, then you are being very precious about your RPG choices

What if the experience you want is telling a memorable story, and you think a particular systems isn't particularly likely to produce that?

Or, if that is to be precious about RPGing experience, then what is the point of saying that achieving such an experience is the goal of play?

Conversely, if any RPG experience is meant to count as producing a sufficiently memorable story, then the remarks about story are milquetoast.

 

[LostSoul]

From my POV, the other rules facilitate these Goals by giving a common baseline that is mutually agreed by the group to generally produce the Goals -- that is, the rules give a default mode that usually results in a fun storytelling game and plenty of options on how to tweak it. Like, damage being subtracted from HP helps produce a fun storytelling game because it introduces the concept of gradually rising tension. Rolling for treasure helps produce a fun storytelling game because we make sense of the results in the context of our current adventure and that produces interesting details. Fighters kick butt with weapons because that demonstrates a possible defining character trait of a heroic character. You gain XP and levels because this shows character growth over time. Etc.

That's an interesting response. Personally I see the same value from rules (in general): the default mode that usually results in fulfilling the Goals of Play. (That's not the only value I see for rules in general, but an important one.) I probably put more weight on the rules; I believe that they should almost always fulfil the Goals of Play when followed, and if they don't they should be hacked or changed until they do. I guess everyone has a tipping point, where overriding the rules to achieve the Goals of Play just isn't worth it. That probably varies between role - if they're a player or the DM.

 

[Manbearcat]

Here is the statement on p 2 of the Basic PDF:

Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. . . . The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win.​

I don't know that it's completely milquetoast. I think the bit about having a good time is, in my view, "well, duh". But the bit about a memorable story being important isn't. Gygaxian D&D, for instance, doesn't really say much about stories.

What if the experience you want is telling a memorable story, and you think a particular systems isn't particularly likely to produce that?

Or, if that is to be precious about RPGing experience, then what is the point of saying that achieving such an experience is the goal of play?

Conversely, if any RPG experience is meant to count as producing a sufficiently memorable story, then the remarks about story are milquetoast.

This is what I was getting at upthread. Further, its why I used the example about a coach non-responsively addressing the media when being asked about his "keys to victory" before the game or "what adjustments they have to make at halftime" going into the break. He uses "coach-speak" to intentionally be utterly unresponsive to the question in any meaningful way but simultaneously fulfill his requirement of "talking to the media." His statements are intentionally milquetoast because (a) he doesn't want the other team to derive an advantage from his words, (b) he generally has disdain for either the media or the process, and (c) he doesn't have the time nor the inclination to say anything of consequence. As a result, his lips move but he says absolutely nothing of value.

Saying "play to have a good time" couldn't possibly be more milquetoast and uninsightful. Further, given the "natural language" angle of 5e, creating a memorable story could be both in-game and meta. I mean, I've long talked about memorable pawn-stance dungeon crawls with buddies well after the fact. We've got lots of memorable stories derived from such play. This dovetails with the conversations we've had with howandwhy about the conversation of rpg play automatically leading to a "story" no matter how trite. Fictional characters in a shared imaginary space "doing stuff" as a mutual gaming experience equals story whether its specifically aimed at or not.

And what is the alternative? Has there ever been an interchange such as:

Bob: Alright guys, I have no idea what we're supposed to do with these RPG pamphlets/books.
Jack: Yeah, me neither. I know we're supposed to play with them...but when I'm being the..."dungeonmaster" is what the book calls...what should guide my...errr DMing? Like...when I set this DC for tracking...or when you guys think stealth works like this but I think it works like that...what tells me if I'm GMing right?
Tammy: I KNOW I KNOW! JUST REMEMBER THAT WE'RE PLAYING TO HAVE A CRAPPY TIME!!!!!
Samantha: Uh....that sounds lame. Why don't we just play Risk instead? I'd rather have a good time...
Tammy: OH YEAH, WAIT WAIT! THAT IS BRILLIANT SAM! WE'RE PLAYING TO HAVE A...GOOD TIME!

<Round of applause and backslapping and high fives>

Jack: Ok, Ok. Now that that is settled. I'm hung up on something else. This activity that we're doing. Do we want what comes out of our play to be memorable or forgettable?
Samantha: .....
Tammy: .....
Bob: Ummmm forgettable?
Jack: Works for me!

<Second round of applause and backslapping and high fives>

I find them both to be the TTRPG equivalent to "coach/player-speak". The pen is moving on the paper, but nothing insightful or of consequence is being written. Its contrasted so very easily with all kinds of focused GMing advice and system directives in other TTRPGs.

Again, I think that is the point though. The 5e devs furiously sought to avoid "skip the guards and get to the fun!" They so deeply wanted to not exclude any playstyle or offend any sensibilities that they ended up saying something so inconsequential, so uncontroversial that they effectively told a starving man to eat some food.

---

@Kamikaze Midget, Please understand that when we have a conversation akin to this, I'm coming at it from a GM perspective. PC build complexity, or lackthereof, doesn't enter into the equation of my thinking. Among the things that align my thinking are (a) clarity and elegance of the resolution mechanics/play procedures, (b) focus of the GMing principles/advice/system directives, (c) genre coherency, (d) the feedback system of xp > player goals with respect to what the rest of the system pushes play towards. For instance, when I first read Dogs in the Vineyard, I thought it was probably the perfect marriage of those things. I've run it tons and tons since then and run tons of other sytems. While b - d are still absolutely perfect, I've found that the elegance portion of (a) can absolutely be improved upon (and it has been in future systems, dice pool or other).

Further, regarding GMing, I consider the mental overhead of running 4e to be infinitely less than running a system like 5e where I'm expected to be heavily involved in the actual establishment and interpetation of the resolution mechanics in-situ. With 4e, I'm juggling a minimum number of balls from a rulings perspective. While the PC build mechanics might be heavy, the resolution mechanics are so utterly lean and intuitive, the math and budgeting so proper, that I can run a session with an index card worth of relevant rules/DCs on the fly and have it be exactly what I'm looking for. I can just let the system's clear play procedures and math do the heavy lifting and focus my effort solely on filling the PCs' lives with thematic conflict and playing that conflict/those antagonists to the hilt.

Regarding your points about unreasonable expectations or unwillingness in compromising in leisure activities. I'm going to give you some biographical information about myself. If you would, I'd like you to comment on it so I can better understand precisely where your thinking lies. I think your application of your philosophy on real-world examples will make your meaning much more clear.

Golf

I played baseball through college. Therefore, golf was a natural fit for me athletically and technique-wise. I started to play. It was a natural fit. It came pretty easy and I was regularly shooting 42 - 45 per 9 from literally the word go. I was playing all the time with some buddies or even a round of 9 by myself. It certainly wasn't inexpensive (from a $ perspective or time perspective).

I'm a naturally competitive person with high expectations of myself. It came so easy and I wanted to get better (I wanted to regularly shoot 39 per 9 holes). I started working on shaping shots left to right/right to left. In order to do this I had to fiddle with my mechanics and develop a reliable fade and draw on demand.

Hubris. My level of play was a hell of a lot more tenuous than I had originally believed. I utterly screwed up my natural swing and developed the "yips." Instead of knocking 3 strokes off per 9, I added about 6 or 7. Whereas initially I was regularly shooting in the 80s, and I was aiming for shooting in the high 70s, I was now regularly shooting in the 90s.

Over the course of the next 6 months I became more and more frustrated. I developed a bit of a nagging wrist twinge to go with my frustration. I quit cold-turkey. I've picked up clubs only 3 times since then.

That was 14 years ago.

---

Cards

My card-playing buddies and I used to love to play money games of spades or hold 'em. We couldn't really play without the excitement of something on the line. If someone at some place randomly wanted to play cards, I would either bow out if there was another player available or I would play if required...mentally engaged to the small degree required but wholly unenthused/disinterested.

Now, don't get me wrong. I absolutely love cards. But I also love gambling. Mixing the two created higher stakes that were intoxicating enough that separating them out would mute the love of cards.

We haven't been able to play in many years due to various reasons. Now, I can play cards again and the sheer enjoyment of playing is no longer muted.

---

Play amateur psychologist for me. Break down the above two scenarios and apply your TTRPG perspective mission statement that you have outlined. I'm honestly curious and seeking clarity. I won't take offense. You can classify the psychology behind those two anecdotes however you see fitting.

---

EDIT - Oh and quick addendum. I hope its understood that I have run TTRPGs under every single agenda out there under dozens and dozens of systems. My interests do lie primarily in running focused games with strong narrativist bent or a wholly "story now" engine. I enjoy running sandbox exploration games with a persistent world and process simulation. I enjoy running pawn stance dungeon crawls and hex crawls. I enjoy running the stray Cthulu or Dread game.

I don't think 5e is a bad system and I'm sure I would enjoy running 5e well enough (I don't even remotely have the opinion of it that staunch 4e detractors have of that ruleset). I think its the 2nd best iteration of D&D to date and I will probably use it for future one-off dungeon crawls. However, my TTRPG play must be rationed as my leisure time generally is limited and specifically limited for TTRPGs. Therefore, I always aim to maximize the enjoyment of myself and my players by mostly (but not exclusively as we try out plenty of games for one-offs) playing systems that produce the play aesthetic we're looking for and playing genres that we're interested in.

 

[iserith]

Couldn't you resolve everything in the game this way? If so, what do you need the rules for? Or a DM/player divide?

If not, why not?

What if I put it this way: If the Goals of Play are the overriding principles of play - so that if any rule at any time violates them, the rule should be disregarded in favour of the Goals of Play - then what value do the other rules give you?

I can see the value that the other rules would have for me if I played that way, but I already knew that, so that's why I'm asking you guys.

What billd91 and Kamikaze Midget said.

There's also a lot of Forge waffle being cited in this discussion and in my experience things go south when that happens, so I'm going to bow out of this particular conversation before it does. Thanks for the discussion!

 

[I'm A Banana]

Here is the statement on p 2 of the Basic PDF:

Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. . . . The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win.​

I don't know that it's completely milquetoast. I think the bit about having a good time is, in my view, "well, duh". But the bit about a memorable story being important isn't. Gygaxian D&D, for instance, doesn't really say much about stories.

The part that isn't always "well duh" about having a good time is that it is each player's responsibility that everyone has a good time -- if that's the goal of your play, too, that EVERYONE have a good time, being overly precious about under what condition you allow yourself to have a good time means that in general company (ie, a group that enjoys a broad variety of experience), you're hindeirng that goal for everyone. Looking for and exploiting rules loopholes does likewise - it ruins the fun for others at the table, so it fails to support the goals of play, because everyone's fun is on every individual player. You show up to give Carl and Dave and Lashonda and DM Kathy a good time, too. If Dave can't have a good time because you're crying about HP-as-meat for an hour and Lashonda can't have a good time because she feels her character is useless thanks to your rules exploit, and DM Kathy can't have a good time because she's a good host and Dave and Lashonda are clearly not amused....you're failing at achieving the goals.

What if the experience you want is telling a memorable story, and you think a particular systems isn't particularly likely to produce that?

Or, if that is to be precious about RPGing experience, then what is the point of saying that achieving such an experience is the goal of play?

Telling a memorable story is a goal of 5e play, so presumably the 5e system will tell a memorable story by default, assuming that the designers did their job. If you find that 5e is not delivering a memorable story, there's a few distinct possibilities.

1. The designers failed and the rules don't facilitate this goal. Perhaps some other designers did better -- lets look into other systems that also have this goal.
2. The rules do facilitate this goal, but the designers failed to present them in a way that was understandable and usable, leading to misuse of rules that would work fine when used as intended. The design was sloppy. Perhaps there's some advice online, or perhaps some other system did it better.
3. You're being overly precious about what constitutes a "memorable story." Given that memorable stories can emerge out of a multitude of diverse circumstances, your insistence that this is not a "memorable story" is like our film fan's insistence that only wartime Fred Astaire musicals are "good movies." It's not that you're wrong, it's that you're being sensitive and intolerant of the diversity of possible experience here, and ruining your own good time, and thus causing the group to fail in the Goals of Play unless they all agree with you. The preferred solution there is to lighten the heck up and allow yourself to enjoy a broader selection of "memorable stories."

Saying that this is one of the goals of D&D5e play makes it clear that, for instance, if what you are seeking is a detailed tactical skirmish game, D&D isn't going to meet those goals. Or if you're looking for a robust world-building game, D&D isn't going to be what you're looking for. Or if you want a game of PVP competition, that's not D&D 's bag. But D&D in 5e is designed to provide an interesting story. If it doesn't realize those goals, it's either a design failure of some sort, or a failure of matching terms (ie, you're defining a "memorable story" as only something that includes HP-as-meat because no other story can possibly be memorable since nobody actually takes any injuries, or whatever; WotC is defining "memorable story" as maybe in part "involves fights that escalate in intensity with a real chance of character death, since that gives players character motivation and increases their level of risk gradually just like a narrative does").

Conversely, if any RPG experience is meant to count as producing a sufficiently memorable story, then the remarks about story are milquetoast.

Not any RPG experience -- but actually quite a wide breadth of RPG experiences. It's a common goal for an RPG, one that can be met in a diversity of ways. Just like "an entertaining movie" is a common goal for movies (but isn't a goal for every movie!), one that can be met in a diversity of ways. Insisting that only a narrow band of rules or movies creates this experience is being a precious little princess snowflake who can't abide anything that isn't "Just right."

This is part of why it's good to explore other RPG systems, even if D&D is meeting all it's goals and you're having a good time -- there's plenty of rules out there that do things differently and still produce memorable stories, and it's good to have a lot of -weapons in your arsenal when it comes to RPGing.