D&D 5E Not liking Bounded Accuracy

[S'mon]

If something is not explicitly allowed by the rules, it is disallowed.

That seems a really bad approach to running D&D!

 

[aramis erak]

I suppose you could do some kind of tiered check, where a higher roll gets you more, but no, that's not how I do things. If the DC is 10, a success is the same if you roll a 10 or a 20.

As for why he's getting better results, he invested character resources into being good at that skill, you luckily rolled higher. The reverse question of 'why should you get more because the RNG favored you this time over the guy that spent one of his very limited choices on being good at that skill?' I don't think luck at the RNG should dictate the level of reward; that downplays player choices.

To be clear, success gets you useful information. Proficiency gets you more useful information.

Note that HotDQ has several tiered result checks. Usually in the form of DC 15 ... if you rolled less than 10, then ...

 

[dave2008]

That seems a really bad approach to running D&D!

I would agree!

 

[Maxperson]

That seems a really bad approach to running D&D!

Why? Just because the rules don't allow it, doesn't mean you can't house rule it in.

 

[Eejit]

Originally Posted by Celtavian
This is not true at all in an RPG. It is expected that you be able to use the rules in a fashion that falls outside what is contained in the books because there will always be situations not covered by the rules.
-----------

Right, and if you make a rule that is not covered by the existing rules, it's...........a rule for your house. What's another way to say a rule for your house? House rule!

It sounds to me like a perfect example of "rulings not rules"...

 

[ExploderWizard]

Rules don't work that way. If something is not explicitly allowed by the rules, it is disallowed. Otherwise every rule must allow 99.999 of the multiverse, since 99.999 of the multiverse isn't disallowed. You end up with a fireball that paints everyone within 10,000 miles pink, blows up the 7 nearest planets, delivers presents to all needy children in the world, and changes the sex of all those children at the same time. After all, there are no rules that say it doesn't do those things.

The rules do not specifically mention that those playing should have a brain, and that best play experience is to had by using it.

The game is however, much more enjoyable when we assume that such is the case.

When speaking of a fantasy game, with the majority of game content being provided by the collective imaginations of the participants, the very idea of only allowing what is explicitly stated by the rules pretty much makes the game dead in the water before it even starts.

 

[Maxperson]

The rules do not specifically mention that those playing should have a brain, and that best play experience is to had by using it.

The game is however, much more enjoyable when we assume that such is the case.

When speaking of a fantasy game, with the majority of game content being provided by the collective imaginations of the participants, the very idea of only allowing what is explicitly stated by the rules pretty much makes the game dead in the water before it even starts.

Who said anything about only allowing what is explicitly stated by the rules? Not me. I said that's what the RULES allow. I house rule the heck out of every RPG I get my hands on.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Who said anything about only allowing what is explicitly stated by the rules? Not me. I said that's what the RULES allow. I house rule the heck out of every RPG I get my hands on.

The rules say that you can hide if you're not clearly seen. Please provide the exact way I can enact this rule without houserules.

 

[Maxperson]

The rules say that you can hide if you're not clearly seen. Please provide the exact way I can enact this rule without houserules.

I've already agreed with Dave2008 that house rules are necessary to play the game. If the rule is vague or doesn't cover a situation and you have to create a rule that only applies to your table, then you create that house rule and move on.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I've already agreed with Dave2008 that house rules are necessary to play the game. If the rule is vague or doesn't cover a situation and you have to create a rule that only applies to your table, then you create that house rule and move on.

So then the appellation 'house rule' is so broad as to be meaningless?

Pardon me for saying so, but it appears to me that you're using 'houserules' as a way to dismiss criticism of your position. The rules clearly allow for DM interpretation. A 'houserule' is usually something that changes a rule, not that interprets a rule within the guidelines of the rule itself. You've broadened the term and slathered it on liberally in a way that has completely debased the topic to the point that any question raised towards you now has the pat answer, "yep, houserule, those are cool, bro."

In other words, it's not illuminating or informative. It's dismissive.