D&D 5E what is it about 2nd ed that we miss?

[RotGrub]

Maybe, but there most definitely a diminishing return with the proliferation of skills (or non-weapon proficiencies). Does it serve the game play to increase the number of skills or consolidate them? In the case of 3e's Listen/Spot vs Hide/Move Silently grouping, consolidating into Perception vs Stealth makes for a more streamlined game and a MUCH better chance for stealth to actually succeed.

I think it serves the game when more options are provided. Sure, some groups might not want to play with skills at all, but other groups might actually enjoy more detail.

I personally think it's more intuitive to make a Move Silently roll and make a second Hide in Shadows roll. The results of those two rolls apply directly to the situation with no extra interpretation required. I'm reminded that Listen/Spot vs Hide/Move Silently were not non-weapon profs in 2e. They were features of the Thief, Ranger, and Bard classes. 2e was designed that way to allow games to be played without non-weapon profs. Remember nwp's are optional in 2e.

IMO, consolidation isn't always good for the game. For example, with more granular skills like "bartering", "oratory", "leadership", "diplomacy", and "story telling" a character regardless of class, can contribute to a negotiation in a unique way. It's not always the same suspects like the bard with the high charisma or the PC with the most ranks in a consolidated skill doing all the work. Granular skills also help round out a character's background. It makes it easy to create characters with multi-profession backgrounds.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If the player isn't making the same decisions as the character, for the same reasons, then you're not role-playing... you're just story-telling... you're making stuff up to try and steer the story in a certain direction, without any consideration for the thoughts and decisions of the character as a real person who actually exists within the shared game world.

The central conceit of a role-playing game is that these characters actually exist within the setting. Any rule or mechanic which treats them like mere characters in a story, or like game-pieces on a board, is entirely missing the point.

Ironically this is why Story-Games and RPGs like Fate are much much better for immersive roleplaying where you make decisions as someone who exists in a world than attempts at world simulation and physics-sims. The mechanics of a story-game exist to align the thoughts of the players and the motivations of the player with those of the character they are trying to play. More physics-based rule that take little account of the psychology and motivations of the characters, and their connection to the wider world, lead to abstract play where you have a pawn that might as well be a playing piece rather than a part of the setting. And bad motivational guidance like classic two axis alignment that's just a thorough going mess almost enforces that you will play your character as a playing piece by putting a hard no in the rules whether or not it makes psychological sense for the character.

And due to the granular nature of rules any physics sim with anything even slightly resembling XP is setting up gamist rules and encouraging pawn-play. If instead you want characters to be part of a world then the important part of being part of a world isn't whether a longsword does d8 or d10 damage. It's how you get on with your neighbour. And the rules should focus on that.

The central conceit of Dungeons and Dragons was "Why can't we break the rules of a wargame so we can win and have fun through subverting the gamist structure as a part of pawn play". If you don't think that pawn play is a good thing don't play Dungeons and Dragons.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I personally think it's more intuitive to make a Move Silently roll and make a second Hide in Shadows roll. The results of those two rolls apply directly to the situation with no extra interpretation required. I'm reminded that Listen/Spot vs Hide/Move Silently were not non-weapon profs in 2e. They were features of the Thief, Ranger, and Bard classes. 2e was designed that way to allow games to be played without non-weapon profs. Remember nwp's are optional in 2e.

Nope. 2e was designed that way for the purpose of backwards compatibility. Thief skills had been in the game since Supplement 1: Greyhawk. Non-weapon proficiencies using a separate subsystem were IIRC a product of Unearthed Arcana. They came from entirely different strands - and 2e kept them separate because that was the way it was done before.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Hit points are what players use to quantify the "injuries" their characters suffer. Pre-4e these injuries don't even have the cosmetic effect of injuries in an action movie other than a momentary loss of concentration. There is no distraction caused by the injury long term. It doesn't make you any slower, less able to focus, or less able to do ... anything ... except take more hits. A PC on one hit point out of a hundred is almost exactly as capable as the same PC on full hit points. I don't know if you've ever been wounded in your life, but I can assure you that that isn't the way it works even under action movie physics.

It depends on the action movie, really. I know that James Bond wasn't substantially slowed down by being shot in the arm.

As previously mentioned, a good model will take into account the most relevant factors in any equation while ignoring the less-relevant factors, in order to generate useful rules for resolving a situation with only mental math. If someone punches you in the face, or stabs you while you're wearing body armor (in such a manner that you'll recover fully within a few days - two weeks, tops), is that sort of injury going to substantially prevent you from climbing a wall? Is it going to be more of a factor than your actual skill at climbing, or your general physique?

Because I know that my physique prevents me from climbing a wall - I simply lack the arm strength - and I can't imagine that some battering and bruises would stop a professional athlete in the real world, let alone Conan.

 

[RotGrub]

Nope. 2e was designed that way for the purpose of backwards compatibility. Thief skills had been in the game since Supplement 1: Greyhawk. Non-weapon proficiencies using a separate subsystem were IIRC a product of Unearthed Arcana. They came from entirely different strands - and 2e kept them separate because that was the way it was done before.

I'm not sure it maters how the system came into being. I'm saying that you can't remove the skill system from 5e or 3e without crippling some classes. 2e had the 8 Thief skills embedded in the class, which allowed NWPs to remain optional.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Ironically this is why Story-Games and RPGs like Fate are much much better for immersive roleplaying where you make decisions as someone who exists in a world than attempts at world simulation and physics-sims. The mechanics of a story-game exist to align the thoughts of the players and the motivations of the player with those of the character they are trying to play.

If that's the goal of a story-game, then the rules utterly fail to allow that. The rules of FATE are written such as to constantly remind the players that these are characters in a story, and that they should do whatever is the most dramatic and "fun" at the table, rather than what the character would actually do in that situation. Seriously, they mention that ad nauseum - it literally made me sick, just reading the book.

You don't need rules to govern psychology and motivations. You're supposed to imagine that you're there, and work out what the psychology and motivations would be based on backstory and circumstance and everything else in the setting. These factors are much more complex than can be expressed with simple language and equations. If you try to codify them, then they're eventually going to conflict with the answers you come up with on your own, and it's no fun to have the rules tell you that you're playing your character incorrectly. You know the motivations of your own character far better than any ruleset can describe. Human beings are perfectly capable of mentally modeling different people already. Rules attempting to govern such a thing can only be counter-productive.

And real people in the real world actually do grow by experience. That's literally the origin and definition of the term. The only place where D&D gets it wrong is by conflating fight experience with skill experience, but even that is somewhat-excusable given the assumptions of the genre.

 

[Maxperson]

That's rationalization. It explains how, after the fact, the character could end up having made the same decision that the player made. It doesn't explain what actually happened, and how that decision was actually made.

Before the fact, not after. It explains before the casting how the character makes the decision that the player made.

The real reason why the character cast Cure II instead of Cure V is that the player could see how badly injured the character was - in terms of lost HP - and knew that Cure II would be sufficient while Cure V would be overkill.

The real reason for everything the PC does is because the player can see it. Pieces of paper don't make decisions.

If the player isn't making the same decisions as the character, for the same reasons, then you're not role-playing... you're just story-telling... you're making stuff up to try and steer the story in a certain direction, without any consideration for the thoughts and decisions of the character as a real person who actually exists within the shared game world.

With the making sure aspect, that is absolutely the player and PC being in harmony. I like to make sure the PC is healed, so I generally don't choose healing spells that are not likely to accomplish that. Higher level spells accomplish that, so the PC is in agreement. The PC doesn't need to be aware of hit points to do that. The PC is making an informed choice without knowledge of hit points.

My friend is hurt and I want to be sure to heal him completely. The injury informs the PC he needs to heal. Informed =/= all possible pieces of information.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's rationalization. It explains how, after the fact, the character could end up having made the same decision that the player made. It doesn't explain what actually happened, and how that decision was actually made.

Nothing actually happened, because it's all make-believe. The decisions was made for the character, by the player.

The real reason why the character cast Cure II instead of Cure V is that the player could see how badly injured the character was - in terms of lost HP - and knew that Cure II would be sufficient while Cure V would be overkill.

In 5e, particularly, the difference between using one slot and another could be invisible or merely qualitative to the imagined character casting the spell. So a cleric might notice that healing a scratch for Otis the Miller doesn't take much effort, but healing an identical-seeming scratch for Count Brass tests the limits of his power. Or he might just pray, and sometimes some people get healed fully and others don't (the gods - the game designers DM and players who imagine him and his world - work in mysterious ways).

If the player isn't making the same decisions as the character, for the same reasons, then you're not role-playing... you're just story-telling...

There's no 'just' about it. And, yes, role-playing in 'director stance,' is still roleplaying, nor does RPing in 'actor stance,' absolutely require the kind of ego-submersive method acting, that you imply. There is no character, it's imaginary, there is not 'for the same reasons' because only the player has reasons (or reason, or that matter). The player, no matter how talented and devoted a method actor, is going to have his own reasons for every decision that won't be the reasons he imagines for his character. That's inevitable.

you're making stuff up

"Games of the Imagination," yes. That's the whole point.

Any rule or mechanic which treats them like mere characters in a story, or like game-pieces on a board, is entirely missing the point.

On the contrary. A character in a story is a role. Pieces on a board are part of a game. That's what a Role Playing Game is.

If that's the goal of a story-game, then the rules utterly fail to allow that. The rules of FATE are written such as to constantly remind the players that these are characters in a story, and that they should do whatever is the most dramatic and "fun" at the table, rather than what the character would actually do in that situation.

That's the thing about fictional characters, they 'do' what's most dramatic or interesting or advances the plot or whatever. They don't actually do anything. Because. Imaginary.

And real people in the real world actually do grow by experience.

They do. But not usually by the experience of killing things. I mean, you might get good at it, but if you're not a sociopath, there'll be other effects, as well. And, human learning isn't a one-way accumulation of experience, either. If you acquire a skill, you need to maintain it. Class/level is wildly unrealistic that way. It does protagonists in a story a little better, since they often face escalating challenges and are based on two-dimensional archetypes - but not a whole lot better, really.

I think it serves the game when more options are provided. Sure, some groups might not want to play with skills at all, but other groups might actually enjoy more detail.

I personally think it's more intuitive to make a Move Silently roll and make a second Hide in Shadows roll. The results of those two rolls apply directly to the situation with no extra interpretation required.

If you're using 5e's ability check system, though, you'll have to adjust the DC pretty dramatically to get anything like the same results, because needing to make two rolls instead of one to succeed is the equivalent of Disadvantage...

IMO, consolidation isn't always good for the game. For example, with more granular skills like "bartering", "oratory", "leadership", "diplomacy", and "story telling" a character regardless of class, can contribute to a negotiation in a unique way.

Problem is they also create incompetence. If the game has Diplomacy, you can invest in one skill and be a good diplomat. If has Diplomacy, Politics, Insight, Deception, Intimidate, Resistance, Conversation, Oratory, and Negotiation, and doesn't give you ten times as many skill ranks to spread around, it's going to be a lot harder to be a good diplomat.

Worse, if the list is open ended, you can build your character to be an great diplomat, but then when the DM adds Protocol and History skills on the fly, you're suddenly making rookie mistakes again.

Nope. 2e was designed that way for the purpose of backwards compatibility. Thief skills had been in the game since Supplement 1: Greyhawk. Non-weapon proficiencies using a separate subsystem were IIRC a product of Unearthed Arcana. They came from entirely different strands - and 2e kept them separate because that was the way it was done before.

NWPs might've been in the Survival Guides - or expanded by them. Also, presumably kept the Thief 'special' abilities not just for backwards compatibility but because NWPs were optional, and the Thief needed to be able to do Theifly stuff when the DM opted out.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

My friend is hurt and I want to be sure to heal him completely. The injury informs the PC he needs to heal. Informed =/= all possible pieces of information.

Right, you (the character) don't actually see the numbers in those terms, but you can see enough to know when you need the more powerful spell. There is some knowable difference that you can use in order to make that decision. If there was no difference between a 10-point injury and a 25-point injury, then your desire to heal your friend would have you occasionally waste a Cure V where it wasn't needed, or be baffled why a Cure II was unable to fix something.

HP aren't just some game construct. They correspond to something real and quantifiable within that world.

 

[ZzarkLinux]

Neonchameleon, you make some good counterpoints.

D&D 3.5 has 33 skills before you count the craft, profession, and knowledge skill families. In practice this meant that you were incompetent at 25 to 30 of them

I feel this was both a number-scaling problem and a presentation issue.

5e caps ability scores, why not cap skills too? Maybe cap each skill at +5?
And when you roll "craft porticullis", it shouldn't determine whether you pass or fail. Instead, like Dwarf Fortress, the roll should determine how fast you make the porticullis and the quantity you make Casters already get a whole printout of their spells. Why can't fighters get a whole printout filled with skills too ??

EDIT: And this wouldn't even slow down combat.99% of skills aren't used in combat.

That way (of adding more setting-based mechanics to the PHB) lies Harn and the ability to only play in a single setting - and more to the point a game that bogs down and clogs up every time you try to do anything. (...) Alternatively that way lies GURPS

You are right that we are all afraid of GURPS, and we don't want mechanic overload in our D&D. I agree, but I am disappointed by lack of roleplay items in the PHB. There is a middle ground, and I feel 5e is not close to the middle ground. Simple things are missing, like: "The monk must visit his monestary occasionally, usually near the solstice. Failure to do so can result in a loss of 1d4 wisdom" or "The wizard must return to his tower once a year. Otherwise he risks losing 1d6 Intelligence". Right now, the only reason a cleric prays is because "spells"...

Early D&D's presentation with the random weather charts (...) works so well because there is no attempt to simulate an actual world - instead it's an attempt to create interesting places and not look too hard at how they work.

It sounds like you are saying "it can be abstracted" which is my main point. The PHB could stick to the middle ground, and add one-liners like "If a character spends the night resting at his home, he gains 5 temporary hp for the next battle" or "PCs without nightvision sometimes have trouble taking an extended rest during the day. Up to 10% of such rests can fail" or "On any given day, severe weather affects 2% of the world. You should be prepared". These simple lines use words "might", "maybe", "could" which DMs can easily ignore, but would encourage a lot more roleplaying imagination in the PHB.

Right now murder-hoboism holds all the flare in the PHB. There needs to be more short, optional, "might maybe" rules about the world in the PHB. A worldbuilder's guide won't work; it has to be in the PHB for the players. Basic boyscout / weather / roleplay rules need to go into the PHB.

3e encourages murder-hoboism because 2e broke the XP rules by removing the XP for GP rules in place of something sillier (XP for behaving like a class stereotype).

Behave like a class stereotype? This is a class based game, and has been since 1e. It's what Gygax built. The fighter is not "everyman". The cleric shouldn't be practicing his Eldricth Blast. If you don't like the classes, then WotC should release more classes which is something I say a lot. I'm sure that someone, somewhere on the internet, is trying build a Druid into a swordsage. Where is the in-world consequnce for this?