D&D 5E two things about D&D that could be more interesting

[evilbob]

Disclaimer: I love D&D, our group loves D&D, D&D is great. (Also I am American. Also this post is long and very system-meta.)

Issue: While we've always loved D&D, as long-time vets there are other games that we just love more. Not because they have better systems, but we just have more fun playing them. We've finally nailed down two issues, which I call D&D's "American" problem.

1. D&D defines your character through your job (primarily)
2. All actions in D&D result in 100% success or 0% failure (no moderation)

1. What do you start with in D&D? Well, technically stats - which is worse - but primarily your job (class). Your job tells you what you can do, and you can do nothing else. 5.0 expands this to your 2nd job (background), which is good, but what we like about some other systems is that you start with your personality, and ...well you never really define your job. You have abilities / powers, but those are means to an end: not the definition of what you do. Your personality defines your character traits, not your power palette or balanced party role.

2. In combat, you hit or you miss. If you are trying to convince someone or climb a wall, it's the same principle: a static DC - a number that defines whether or not you succeed or fail. Casting spells means they either 100% happen exactly like you thought - or you are out of [spell resource] and they do not happen at all. Everything is binary, which is secretly the least "realistic" thing about D&D. Other systems that we like use degrees of success: you can fail, fail badly, scrape by, succeed a little, succeed, succeed a lot, impressively succeed, or succeed beyond your wildest expectations (to name a few). (D&D has crit successes [and you can add crit fails] but those are only combat rules and still basically binary.)

Risking people misunderstanding my post, I'll try an example: I like a certain game. The system is clunky and messy and blah blah blah [insert reasons you hate it] (also if you tell me to just go play that game instead you can seriously rot in hell, troll), but when you make a character, you start with: nature and demeanor. What is a one-sentence stereotype that sums up how your character appears to other people? What is a one-sentence stereotype that sums up how your character really is on the inside? Then pick one of 13 personality groups: what is your general outlook on life, how do you express your [power], what do you think about the others who express their [power] and their outlooks on life? THEN you pick your powers, which still don't define your job, either: just things you can do. Possibilities. It's a tremendous role-playing aid, and it can completely change how you think about your character. (Less char-op, for example.)

By contrast, in D&D you start with stats - which narrows what you can even choose to do with a job - or race - ditto - or just your JOB. This defines you completely; it's explicit. You can do no more and no less and you can't do X until level Y. You are a CLERIC: here are your assumptions. It's precise, and at least in some ways, restrictive / limiting. (Even multiclassing only gives you different jobs.) It's beautifully simple and again, if you think I'm saying something bad I refer you to Disclaimer, above.

In that other game, you roll lots of dice, and you might have zero successes or 1 success or up to 5+. This determines how well you did on a task, not just whether or not you succeed or fail. (D&D damage dice try to do this in combat but it doesn't really work the same way; also it's just combat.) It creates a wide range of possibilities, including the "fail forward" idea but also different levels of success. You didn't convince the guard but he does start hitting on you. You climbed the wall but you dropped your knife and scraped your knee which is bleeding. One of my players described it as knowing that failure is interesting instead of disappointing.

In D&D, you can have a good chance to succeed or a poor chance, but the results are always the same. And since a poor chance means a 0% outcome most of the time, it discourages you - indirectly, slightly - against even trying at all. "Well a fighter in full plate will never succeed on stealthing so let's kick down the door." (Please ignore this example if you think you can prove me wrong by telling me what's wrong with this example.) This kind of thinking doesn't appear so limiting but once you aren't playing with that mindset it's interesting to see how much it really does limit your creative process. (And it's NOT about being able to do anything or doing things you're not "good" at; it's about the creative process of even approaching the idea of how to tackle a problem in front of you.)

So what's my point? First, if you disagree, I don't care. Sorry - time limited. (Feel free to post how I'm wrong and go on if you need to, but you can just save us all time if you'd like.) If you agree, let me know what you think and what else I'm missing and if you think this is interesting. Additionally, I think D&D is strong enough to handle a hack that could change these aspects. I'm already mostly done with 1. That's relatively easy, at least from a character gen perspective, although it's deeper than this because it's hard to get away from "it's your job so now do only X at level Y" that D&D is built on. Other systems hand you powers and then your powers get better, but D&D gives you insane-o powers constantly, and you just get additional, more powerful insane-o powers later. (Ever wonder WHY level 6 was such a sweet spot in 3.5? Ever wonder WHY Gandalf was a level 5 1e wizard? Because D&D scales exponentially.) Spells work almost exclusively this way, although I am really digging the "spend more to do more" upgrades. On the other hand, a ridiculously overly-broad power palette is a D&D staple. So it's hard to pair down what you might need (if you ditch too much can they even play the adventure) vs. what's just too complex. But there's potential here.

2 is harder to me so far; I see it as a crunch problem. "Fail by 5 or more" DC checks is something that could be in the right direction. But the pure core of d20 is the ...d20. How do you extract non-binary outcomes from a single roll? For a simple combat example: use static damage, then "miss" by up to 5 does 1/2 damage, "hit" by >=5 gives 1.5x damage, >=10 or natural 20 is double. ("Miss" by 10+ or natural 1 is a crit fail?) It's the framework of a 5 point scale (1=fail, 2=poor success, 3=standard success, 4=impressive success, 5=critical success, with a possible 0=critical failure) which could be applied to other DCs. Is 5 too much? Is there a better way? Thanks for constructive thoughts.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

In that other game, you roll lots of dice, and you might have zero successes or 1 success or up to 5+. This determines how well you did on a task, not just whether or not you succeed or fail.

The major barrier here is in coming up with five significantly different outcomes for every possible task. If you're trying to swim across a lake, for example, then success and failure are easy to figure out; but the difference between a "poor success" and an "impressive success" is a bit more nebulous. If all you care about is getting across, then it doesn't matter if you do it well or poorly, and the DM spends a lot of extra time and effort in trying to figure out what each grade of success means for every possible die roll (or just says that any amount of success counts as success, so you can keep the game moving).

Mechanically, it's not much of an issue. Success or failure by 5 or 10 could easily set the boundaries. And if someone is rolling at +9 against a DC 13, then that character never needs to worry about getting a critical failure (let alone a super critical failure). That part isn't really an issue.

Edit: Just for the record, it should be noted that a lot of DMs use the check result as a guide for determining how well you did, even if success/failure is the only thing that matters. If you fail a check by more than 10, the DM is usually going to describe how you didn't even come close; and if you beat it by 10, the DM is usually going to describe how you did it effortlessly. That's all just inference from how the rules are written, though, and is never actually stated anywhere outright (as far as I know).

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

2 is harder to me so far; I see it as a crunch problem. "Fail by 5 or more" DC checks is something that could be in the right direction. But the pure core of d20 is the ...d20. How do you extract non-binary outcomes from a single roll?

Well, in combat, all sorts of ways: a second roll for damage, imposing conditions, half-damage on a successful save...

It's the framework of a 5 point scale (1=fail, 2=poor success, 3=standard success, 4=impressive success, 5=critical success, with a possible 0=critical failure) which could be applied to other DCs. Is 5 too much? Is there a better way? Thanks for constructive thoughts.

Even with bounded accuracy, modifiers can threaten to overtake the range of the d20, 'by 5' or multiples of 5 might easily crowd off one end or the other, too.

Successive rolls or outright dice pools might work better.

 

[Warbringer]

So I agree and did a huge hack (pm if you want more details), but here's the heart.

1. Active roll. Players roll all dice including defense checks
2. Rather than rolling a d20 whencer, the player now has a pool of d20s (one for attack, one for movement, one for defense, and one for class).
3. The player decides how many dice they want to roll at any time up to 3 (2 on any roll plus add their class dice when they can)
4. Any action for which no dice are available are at disadvantage (movement treated like difficult terrain)

Ok now, roll all dice and add your bonus to the highest- that's your to hit. If the hero hits (or defends on an AC check) then if the hero gets a 15 on one or the other dice they get another success, I a 20, two more. In addition for each 5 points they exceed the check on their to hit dice then that's another success.

(Ok plays faster than it writes)

Extra successes
In combat - basically treat it like superority dice of type equal to your weapon; for defense you can reduce damage by the die type the monster uses.
For magic - treat it like metamagic of the sorcerer
For skills - make it quicker (bonus or free action); extremely good outcome (advantage for the player on any next action); allow extra successes to make another players roll a success (on sale check); allows special treatment as if the player had a feat that benefits the skill (stealth comes to mind)
Remove a complication

On any 1 the hero gets a complication that can put the hero at a disadvantage if cause a success (not only a single success) to fail. The DM can trigger this anytime he/she wants

That the base of it

 

[Ancalagon]

I can tell you that for some things I've been doing "degrees of success/failure" already, esp skill checks. Others are harder to do (saving throws, hit or miss an attack).

As far as the "you are your job/class", it really depends on how is the character created. Does the player go "I want to play a fighter?" or does he go "I want to play the 3rd son of a noble who was exiled due to the machination of his older brother"? What is the starting point? If the starting point is the class, then yeah your argument is valid. If it's the concept, less so.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Binary Pass/Fail

If you want your attacks to have "degrees of success" with a dice pool, just roll your damage dice at the same time as your attack roll. Solved.

But part of the problem is also that you're seeing each individual roll as a discrete event. Think of the whole combat as a sustained action with lots of dice rolls and each "attack" is just a summary of what you do for those six seconds. It's not literally one roll = one sword swing. Then those rolls taken as a whole tell you whether you succeed or fail. Making each individual roll more complicated sounds too fussy, unless you incorporate the damage into the attack roll.

Outside of combat I sort of agree, although not everything needs lots of dice and degrees of success. I don't want to roll multiple times to, say, pick a lock. I'd rather fail forward (e.g. "Ok, you open the lock, but you break one of your picks and you will be at -2 until you can acquire new ones.")

The One Ring has a good social encounter system that runs more like a combat (even when it's not adversarial); multiple players make multiple attempts using different skills, and when your failures exceed your threshold you count up the successes.

Class = Job

Yeah, sort of. I'm wary of full a la carte systems where you get to pick and choose whatever features and abilities you want. It's sooooo hard to do that and both have lots of options and prevent broken builds.

And at the end of the day, even though you're starting with stats and class you can still design a huge range of character concepts.

 

[Lehrbuch]

1. D&D defines your character through your job (primarily)

While I do get what you mean, it does depend on the player's approach to generating her character and (even more so) how she thinks about her character in-play.

Technically, if you follow the Character Generation rules (PHB Basic5E, V0.2, page 6) there is a "Step 0" which is "hav[ing] a character in mind" and this section also notes that the player's conception of the character "might evolve with each [character generation / in-play] choice".

Step 1 of character generation is actually choosing a Race. It is Step 2 that is picking a Class.

 

[Lehrbuch]

Class = Job

Yeah, sort of. I'm wary of full a la carte systems where you get to pick and choose whatever features and abilities you want. It's sooooo hard to do that and both have lots of options and prevent broken builds.

Also a la carte systems often end with degenerate builds (rather than merely broken). As in, there are optimal selections that most characters tend towards, and while those optimal selections are still balanced and perfect from a game mechanics perspective, they are all the same and therefore en masse boring. Two "adventurers" made under an a la carte system will often end up being more similar than a Bard and a Fighter are under a class system.

So, the advantage of a class based system is that it does provide both focused characters and forces some "choices", as they come as part of a broader class choice. Which actually increases the in-play variety. For example, a player would rarely choose Remarkable Athlete instead of Jack of All Trades if the choice was totally independent of class.

 

[devincutler]

Also a la carte systems often end with degenerate builds (rather than merely broken). As in, there are optimal selections that most characters tend towards, and while those optimal selections are still balanced and perfect from a game mechanics perspective, they are all the same and therefore en masse boring. Two "adventurers" made under an a la carte system will often end up being more similar than a Bard and a Fighter are under a class system.

So, the advantage of a class based system is that it does provide both focused characters and forces some "choices", as they come as part of a broader class choice. Which actually increases the in-play variety. For example, a player would rarely choose Remarkable Athlete instead of Jack of All Trades if the choice was totally independent of class.

Runequest managed to do ala carte just fine.