D&D 5E NPC Ability Checks and Stunting or...Ogre Smash

Okay fair enough. I think I am in fact a bit unclear on item 3 because as I said, I would expect there to be times that a DM must say "sorry, you can't do that" and I don't think that is the same as the DM saying "no, you aren't special enough".

Are those two statements interchangeable?

Yes, pretty much. "Sorry you can't do that" expands to "Sorry, you can't do that because you missing one or more important features that are required to pull off that form of manoeuvre" which condenses to "You're not special enough".

Let's use the ogre/tree example:

Ogre pushes over tree.

Strong fighter-type: "I want to push over a tree too!"
DM: You're not special enough. You'd need to be a large as the ogre."
Wizardly-type": I Enlarge him!
Strong fighter-type: "OK? Now?"

Resolution #1
DM: "Sure! Where do you want it to land?"

Resolution #2
DM: OK, make a STR DC 25 and the tree will fall!
Strong fighter-type: "Wow, this is harder than it appeared to be for the ogre! I'll only succeed on a natural-20!"

Resolution #3,
DM: "Well, you're not really that familiar with your new size and although you're Large, your build is different. Also the ogre has a lot of insider knowledge about the trees in the area he lives in so I'm afraid you're still not special enough."
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Yes, pretty much. "Sorry you can't do that" expands to "Sorry, you can't do that because you missing one or more important features that are required to pull off that form of manoeuvre" which condenses to "You're not special enough".

Let's use the ogre/tree example:

Ogre pushes over tree.

Strong fighter-type: "I want to push over a tree too!"
DM: You're not special enough. You'd need to be a large as the ogre."
Wizardly-type": I Enlarge him!
Strong fighter-type: "OK? Now?"

Resolution #1
DM: "Sure! Where do you want it to land?"

Resolution #2
DM: OK, make a STR DC 25 and the tree will fall!
Strong fighter-type: "Wow, this is harder than it appeared to be for the ogre! I'll only succeed on a natural-20!"

Resolution #3,
DM: "Well, you're not really that familiar with your new size and although you're Large, your build is different. Also the ogre has a lot of insider knowledge about the trees in the area he lives in so I'm afraid you're still not special enough."

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

The whole "you're not special enough" seems to imply a level of antagonism on the DM's part, in my interpretation. It seemed to have a very negative connotation. Seems perhaps that was just how I interpreted it.
 

Okay fair enough. I think I am in fact a bit unclear on item 3 because as I said, I would expect there to be times that a DM must say "sorry, you can't do that" and I don't think that is the same as the DM saying "no, you aren't special enough".

Are those two statements interchangeable?

I don't think so. You'd have to ask Nagol to be sure, but I thought he was getting at the idea of a DM who uses different rules for PCs and NPCs, where NPCs are allowed to do certain things because they are NPCs, and by definition PCs can never access those capabilities.
 

I don't think so. You'd have to ask Nagol to be sure, but I thought he was getting at the idea of a DM who uses different rules for PCs and NPCs, where NPCs are allowed to do certain things because they are NPCs, and by definition PCs can never access those capabilities.

Pretty much. The ogre can push over the tree because he's a freaking ogre! You're just an Enlarged fighter-type human! Just because you're stronger than the ogre and its same size doesn't mean you can do the same stunts! What madness would that be?

Now, the players can attempt to counter "You aren't special enough" and since the language is imprecise sometimes they might be successful. Perhaps the DM has a hefty appreciation of leverage and will let the Fighter-type push over a tree if he is Large so an Enlarge will allow one of the other two DM responses.

The three responses were the options for the DM when there are effectively identical ability sets between the PC and NPC.
 

But we've already disproved this theory of difficulty. A standing long-jump of 5' is automatic for someone with Strength 20; it's highly uncertain and maybe impossible for someone with Strength 6; there is no DC you can assign which will reproduce that probability curve using 5E modifiers. Ergo, judgments as to uncertainty and probability curves must happen before choosing a DC, not after.
If it's impossible for someone with Strength 6 to make a 5' standing long-jump, then that's no different than saying it's objectively a DC 1 million task and the character with Strength 10 gets a circumstantial +1 million to the check, in the same way that a bird would get +1 million to Athletics checks for the purpose of flying.

In fact, you could replace the whole rule about standing long-jump distances with a rule that sets the DC equal to 100 times the number of feet and grants a bonus of +50 for each point of Strength you have. The way they have it worded in the book is just a simpler way of stating that, in the same way that saying 'you only need to roll when the outcome is uncertain' is a simpler way of saying that 'you only need to roll if success and failure both fall somewhere within the scope of the d20'.
 

What I tried to outline in my initial post is something akin to this while also conveying that the developers clearly meant for the action resolution mechanics of the Ability Check system to (a) be framed objectively around phenomena grounded in the setting and (b) bear a consistently applied and fairly recognizable (and learnable) resemblance to earth physics

They evidence for this is overwhelming.
Overwhelming is not the world I'd use.

1) The developers talked about and constantly reiterated (a) during the development and playtest phase.
IDT I ever heard the word 'objectively' tosses around. Nor did it seem like action-resolution was the topic when it was brought up. Rather, they constantly went on about how the classes would be designed concept-before-mechanics, instead of to fulfill balance or playability requirements. An example of...

2) Much of 5e's design is pushback against 4e.
Sure. Some of it was just that. OTOH, other aspects were very much in the same direction as 4e. The more consistent generalization, IMHO, would not be push-back against 4e (nor even 3.x/4e combined as the 'player entitled' editions), but, a direction /towards/ the classic game. Where 3e & 4e had moved away from the classic game, that could look like push-back.

3) The "natural language" interpretation (as I tried to outline in my lead post) of the rules text connotes only this. It doesn't connote a genre logic interpretation.
I don't think it really connotes either, it's just natural language - or, at least, neither more than the other, as both RL and genre interpretations of natural language are perfectly reasonable in an RPG.

I tried my best to be charitable in my reading of the tea leaves, but I certainly agree that transparency in "uncertainty handling" is definitely not a strong spot (for my purposes) for 5e. Again though, I'm certain Tony Vargas (among others) will champion this as a feature, not a bug.
I certainly hope I did. :)

They were supposed to be trying to avoid coming down on the 'side' of one play-style or another with 5e. So, to be charitable, I think we should avoid trying to read any such favoritism into it.
 

Putting to one side the question of which procedure is preferable, to my mind they're quite different procedures. For instance, on your procedure the ogre can probably never push over a tree; whereas on the rulebook procedure the ogre can if the GM decides that it's not uncertain (eg because dramatically appropriate!) and hence doesn't engage the ability check rules.
I can see how a computer might interpret it that way, by taking the procedure as a literal OR statement. I can't see why any person would choose to take that interpretation, given that the alternative is so much more consistent.

I mean, if you did try to play it that way, then the whole game basically becomes a massive showcase for DM fiat. The players wouldn't be able to make any informed decisions, because the outcome of every action would hinge entirely on whether the DM chooses to invoke the knowable rules or just arbitrarily dictate results.

Well, 4e handled this through metagame conventions (around genre, "tiers of play", DCs by level, etc). That's how most "cinematic"-style games work, I think (qv Dungeon World, Marvel Heroic RP, Maelstrom Storytelling, HeroWars/Quest, off the top of my head).
I'm not going to argue with how other games work, but I will point out that reliance on this sort of metagame convention was one of the major criticisms of 4E, and a significant reason for why they needed to create 5E in the first place.
 

What do you think about the issue that has been recently presented (which was another impetus for this thread)? Examining the uncertainty of process-based action declarations from Toril-based physics (which are roughly earth-based given the source material) should yield that neither a 5e common man, 5e Ogre, 5e Hill Giant, or 5e Strength-archetype Hero (even an Epic tier one) can shove over a very average Sawtimber tree.

I wouldn't have an ogre knock over or pull up a normal tree in my games. Maybe a Storm Giant
could, being about 4 times as tall and 64 times the mass of a normal man, I could see it reaching down and tugging up a tree. I'd allow a storm giant sized PC with STR 29-30(!) to do the same. If I did let an ogre pull up a small pine tree, I'd make a point of the shallow roots, loose soil etc and would let a similarly sized PC match the feat in that particular forest.

In general I'd be uncomfortable with this because it's not obvious what the damage should be, other than maybe give the ogre an extra d8 for HUGE club. Logically it ought to loose Proficiency for swinging outsized weapon though. 4e's Limited High damage expression system works better for this stuff.
 

[MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION], thanks for the reply and examples of "attrition"-style non-combat resolution. That's helped clarify some stuff that's been at the back of my mind since the DC 30+ thread!
 

Just a quick post for clarification because it seems like we're still misfiring on the difference between "objective" and "subjective" when it comes to TTRPG resolution mechanics:

Subjective:

1) 4e DMG2 page 63

Ruined Wall
This sagging wall is ready to fall over with just the right application of force.
Standard Action
Requirement: You must be adjacent to the wall.
Check: Athletics check (hard DC) to topple the wall.
Success: The wall collapses.
Target: Each creature in a close blast 3 in the direction the wall fell
Attack: Level + 3 vs. Reflex
Hit: 1d10 + one-half level damage, and the target is knocked prone.
Miss: Half damage.
Effect: The space the wall covered and the area of the blast become difficult terrain.

Notice how this mechanically scales with the heroes (from DC to attack, to damage). The fiction of this wall will be reskinned as you move through the tiers to coincide with the sort of battlefield objects that heroes will be encountering as the tiers progress. Notice that it can (and has in one of my 4e games) easily be entirely refluffed as a tree!

2) Skill Challenge Framing, Action Declaration, and Resolution:

GM
Magic, arrows, poisonous stingers, blasts of frost breath, edged weapons, fell teeth and claws. Even a "god" from an alien dimension has its limits.

The tentacle is torn asunder, releasing Otthor. The core is shredded to ribbons. A mental wave washes through your collective minds. It is the keening death knell of The Blood Queen. Almost instantaneously, her colossal form is swallowed by the singularity from whence she came. Leaving Otthor in free fall. <he survives via a Defy Danger move to grasp a Blizzard Dragon ally's tail> Leaving a legacy of inexhaustible green haze that spills over the edge of the mountain...like a great creeping doom of inevitability...down toward the fleeing refugees...down upon civilization...intent on ruin.

Is this what victory looks like?

Otthor
Crestfallen at our suffered losses, I walk to Saerie and embrace her. "I'm so sorry my friend." Exhausted and aghast, I just look down the mountain at the green haze corrupting everything it touches. I don't know what we can do about it. Perhaps we just have to try to beat that malevolent fog down and evacuate the surrounding areas. All I do know is that we cannot rest or tarry, so as soon as Saerie tells me she is ready to set out, I'll be right behind her.

Saerie
I look at my dear friend with eyes welled with tears and intense consolation. I embrace him and quietly say "You need be sorry for nothing. We will avenge them." I pull him back to arms length and stare intently into his eyes. "Every aberration we slay will be in their name." I turn and rush to the cliff edge to behold the perilous journey that lies before us.

GM
Thinking of making a mad dash/climb down the treacherous mountainside in order to save the refugees? That would be a feat only the epic of the most epic are capable of, no doubt. It would take normal mountaineers a staged, 2-day trip to get down this precarious peak, reach the trail and high-tail it to the refugees before they are overcome (by aberrations or the mutagenic mist itself).

Mechanics
[sblock]Level + 3 (24), Complexity 2 SC. 6:3, 1 H DC. E = 21, M = 28, H = 37. As always, Surge loss on any failure.[/sblock]

There is a point where the mountain becomes "relatively hikable". However, that is a few hundred meters down a sheer, icy face that would give the willies to even the most adept climbers of the world. But that is the quickest way down.

Mechanics
[sblock]Group Check Hard DC, including Rawr (Lucky need not apply), so 2/3 must pass. You can have a 2nd success for your trouble if you make it. If you fail though, your Fort is getting attacked for - 1 physical skills until Extended Rest.[/sblock]

There is always the hard sprint back down the other way...or trying to find an alternative route...with precious time lost...

Saerie
I reach down to the edge of this precarious drop, unbridled rage brimming from me, making the corners of my mouth quiver. I touch the frozen drop-off.

Mechanics
[sblock]Used Nature's Rage Daily to bring the earth to life with writhing plants that can anchor and make our climb down easier.

Group Athletics Check followed this move so I allowed this to bump the DC down from Hard to Medium and would give 2 successes in the Skill Challenge if successful.[/sblock]

As the frozen earth springs to life with the verdant overgrowth of a healthy Spring, my eyes scan the treacherous descent for the best way down. I locate it quickly and point it out to Rawr and Otthor. "Stay with me. We move as the cheetah hunting the antelope on the open plains." With that, I literally vault into motion, scurrying down the abundantly green face like a monkey might. Rawr is fast behind me, his extraordinary climbing skills put to the test.

Mechanics
[sblock]Using the 1st Secondary Skill for Perception to grant everyone a + 2 on their Athletics. My Perception is 21 so it automatically passes the Easy DC.

Saerie Primary Skill Athletics + 24 + 2 (SS) + 5 (Mighty Sprint) = 31. Passes Medium DC without a roll.

Rawr Primary Skill Athletics + 20 + 2 (SS). Rolled 3. 25 fails.[/sblock]

This is an endgame Dungeon World game that was played with 4e for the next wee bit. In fiction and mechanically, this is a mid-Epic Tier 4e Skill Challenge. What this means is:

a) The urgency of the situation is maximal. The PCs have hours at most to reach the refugees before they are overcome.
b) The mountaintop environment is akin to the most remote and inhospitable environment on earth.
c) The sheer, perilous, precipitous nature of the climb down would take the greatest mountaineers (who aren't Epic heroes) in the world a multi-staged, days-spanning climb.
d) The PCs must face obstacles many times more malevolent than deep cold, slick ice, and treacherous slope (a horde of recently-turned aberrations and sentient mutagenic mists).

That is the only sort of action they will face at this point of play. The subjective peril they face (the fundamental maths of the epic tier of play and the attendant fiction) they face is based on who they are (the two protagonists). A High DC for them is 37 at level 24. Not 29 or 21 as they are at 14 (Paragon) and 4 (Herioc) respectively. The Ranger Saerie can use the broad descriptor Daily of Nature's Rage to call upon the fury of the wild (this is not magic by the way) to aid their impossible descent. And it will answer. Because of who she is (one of two protagonists).

This play is not about fidelity to objectively parameterizing a fantasy world model, hitting the execute button, and watching the simulation unfold as we play.

3) A Barbarian in Dungeon World has the Herculean Appetite of "Pure Destruction":

Herculean Appetites
Others may content themselves with just a taste of wine, or dominion over a servant or two, but you want more. Choose two appetites. While pursuing one of your appetites if you would roll for a move, instead of rolling 2d6 you roll 1d6+1d8. If the d6 is the higher die of the pair, the GM will also introduce a complication or danger that comes about due to your heedless pursuits.

The same Barbarian has these two moves:

My Love For You Is Like a Truck
When you perform a feat of strength, name someone present whom you have impressed and take +1 forward to parley with them.

What Is Best In Life
At the end of a session, if during this session you have crushed your enemies, seen them driven before you, or have heard the lamentations of their kinfolk mark XP.

In Dungeon World, the GM frames scenes around a very specific Agenda. The GM follows the rules and procedures, observes the GMing principles, and makes moves against the PCs accordingly. The players roll all the dice. In Dungeon World, Ogres take things by force, fly into rages, and destroy things with their amazing size and strength:

Special Qualities:

*Destroy something
*Fly into a rage
*Take something by force

So the PCs come upon a band of Ogres who have laired in a stand of trees near a major trade route (of course). The Chieftain offers them their lives if they give up all their wealth and perhaps a tasty limb to sweeten the deal. The PCs refuse. The Ogre Chieftain knocks over a tree on them. The Barbarian, unimpressed, meets the chieftans rage with his own appetite for destruction. He declares he is Defying Danger (obviously the falling tree) with Strength. He is going to catch it and heave it back the way it came. ALL of the DW follows the basic resolution mechanics of roll 2d6 + modifier (-1 to +3). There are 3 possible results (these would be the equivalent of subjective DCs); 10+ and you get what you want, 7-9 and you get what you want with a worse outcome, a hard bargain, or an ugly choice, a 6- and things don't go well for you (I make what is called a Hard Move) but you Mark 1 XP.

Barbarian rolls his dice and gets a 10+, but the d6 is the higher of the pair (the other being the bumped up d8 for Herculean Appetite). The player gets what they want, but I have to escalate the fiction with a complication or a danger. I show signs of an approaching threat . The band of Ogres reveal themselves and wade in from the dark recesses of the stand of trees. Uh oh.

However.

My Love For You Is Like a Truck, remember? The Chieftan is impressed. More than a little. Take +1 to Parley.

Parley ensues. The now fearful chieftan acquiesces with a successful social move, perhaps with some sort of condition. The Ogre Chieftan maybe saves a little face. He definitely saves his skin (and he knows it). But he is definitely diminished in the eyes of his band.

Triggering at the end of session:

What Is Best In Life
At the end of a session, if during this session you have crushed your enemies, seen them driven before you, or have heard the lamentations of their kinfolk mark XP.




So what are subjective resolution mechanics not? They're not:

* Granular hex scaling from wilderness > province > kingdom > continent (and PC build mechanics that interact on this level such that the spatial units are expected to be relevant to action resolution).
* Granular time tracking that involves making note of days passed so you for planned critical events from a metaplot.
* An Ability Check system predicated upon natural language descriptors that correlate to the objective world experience as assessed by "everyman" (or low level character).
* A DC system that involves objectively set DCs for hazards and environmental exposure events that granularly increase by 1 per unit (temporal or spatial) of exposure.
* Damage expressions that are pre-correlated to fiction for you (rather than you doing the correlation yourself); "being struck by lightning," "stumbling into a vat of acid", "hit by whirling steel blades," "tumbling into a vortex of fire on the Elemental Plane of Fire."
 

Remove ads

Top