D&D 5E Common sense isn't so common and the need for tolerance

[Ovinomancer]

Which is exactly what the scientific method would be able to tell you. Its Alchemy, its not Rocket Science.

Um, no, because relative happiness of reality altering beings isn't directly observable or measurable. Bob prays everyday and had to use three to four eyes per potion. Fred also prays every day but has to use 5-6 eyes for the same potion. The difference is that the good one had this problem with a guy named Fred, so it tarred it out on those unfortunately named Fred.

The scientific method can't answer this if the god isn't up the revealing it.

Science works because we believe the universe to operate by unchanging rules that we can eventually determine. Fantasy realms don't have to have any kind of universal rules and can be entirely opaque to discovery.

 

[Shasarak]

Um, no, because relative happiness of reality altering beings isn't directly observable or measurable. Bob prays everyday and had to use three to four eyes per potion. Fred also prays every day but has to use 5-6 eyes for the same potion. The difference is that the good one had this problem with a guy named Fred, so it tarred it out on those unfortunately named Fred.

The scientific method can't answer this if the god isn't up the revealing it.

Science works because we believe the universe to operate by unchanging rules that we can eventually determine. Fantasy realms don't have to have any kind of universal rules and can be entirely opaque to discovery.

If only there was an entire class of characters who specialised in communicating with reality altering beings.

Dont worry man, if you think you cant do it then you are right.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If only there was an entire class of characters who specialised in communicating with reality altering beings.

Clerics, or wizards, or warlocks, or paladins, or druids? Bards, too, maybe.

Do you think they all get the same answers, though?

Seriously, if your saying that fantasy is scientifically resolvable, your setting yourself up for a tremendous amount of work for your next campaign. If you don't think so, then you aren't actually presenting scientifically discoverable truths but rather a clever system that provides answers that aren't scientific but rather just your say so obscured to look scientific to your players.

Dont worry man, if you think you cant do it then you are right.

Can't tell if this is a reference to "play your way" or an attempted insult on my ability to grasp the concepts of science well enough.

If the former, well and good, but I still assert you cannot actually use science in game because all of the answers are the whim of the reality altering DM. You can present the illusion of science, though.

If the latter, well, I'm a professional engineer and earn a living applying science. I'm pretty sure I'm up to speed.

 

[Harzel]

I usually call for just the ability check and leave it to the player to apply the proficiency they think fits best with their action.

Oh, that's an interesting bit of your method that either you hadn't expressed before, or I didn't remember. Most likely the latter.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Maybe it's just the 'easy' that's misleading you? Setting the DC comes after you determine whether the outcome is in doubt, otherwise you just narrate what happens. If a task is something that a trained, modestly talented individual shouldn't fail anywhere near 20% of the time, if it's closer to 5% or less, then don't call for the check.

Right... but if it's 5% and there's a penalty for failure, why would I want to rule that possibility out through fiat? Why is the skill system failing to support normal ranges of numbers?

Nod. That's BA. That peasant's arrow can hit a dragon now and then, too. Things are just compressed a bit.

Except the peasant's arrow only hits the dragon through a special "20s always succeed" rule that doesn't apply outside attack rolls.

Also - if anything, this is one place where you don't actually want this to happen, because it means that you only actually need a modest army to defeat the biggest baddest dragon in a single round.

That's one good reason to simply not call for a check, much of the time.

That's still after an ability check has been called for, and it's not a player declaring a skill use, it's a player declaring an action, then asking if a proficiency can be applied.

Sematics.

And, it /is/ in the DMG, the DM can follow that advice, or not.

It's the exact same place where the advice for impossible and automatic successes come from. If we're going to say "it's optional", then we can also argue that the skill system is supposed to work without impossible and automatic checks, because the PHB doesn't mention those at all.

YES! Exactly that. The numbers do not dictate to the DM. The DM chooses to use the numbers as he sees fit.

Right... so our bounded accuracy is thrown out the window, replaced with DM fiat.

It's also why the example I brought up is a problem. Because the DM now has to rule different levels of possible/impossible depending on the character attempting the task. It's a DC 15 roll... but the barbarian finds it impossible... does the guy with no proficiency but a +1 stat bonus? Does the guy with proficiency but a -2 stat bonus?

At that point the skill system is failing - it's not giving the DM meaningful guidance, and it's not communicating chances of success or even correct expectations of capability to players. Having NO system would be more clear. At least then there's no information muddying up the waters.

In 3.5, you could know for a fact that your diplomancer's check was high enough to make anyone his friend, every time. In 5e, you cannot.

You're saying that like the DM wasn't allowed to rule something impossible in a prior edition that he would rule impossible in the current edition, which is a silly position to take.

You're also saying it like you can't still do this in 5e... a high level rogue who wants to can consistently get a 27 on a skill check every time without even trying beyond the most blatantly obvious build selections. A couple of feats or level dips (or just going to rogue 20) can make that "almost impossible" DC attainable whenever it matters. At that point you convince anyone unless the DM has ruled that the task is impossible. Meanwhile those DCs are literally unattainable by any character that isn't proficient plus maxed out in the stat.

So the system still has the same problems - the DM always needed to decide that things at the extreme end of the spectrum were impossible, and you have always been able to make a character that wrecks the curve. It's just now it has a different set of problems that affect play which exists in the middle and low ends of the curve which dominate play and are what a newbie DM has to handle.

Like I said - half baked and a drag on play that needs communication to resolve.

Of course, no one's infallible, but DMs have a veneer of infallibility because their rulings are it. If you narrate success, the player succeeded, you might be 'wrong' but it's what happened. The world treats your fallibility as if you were infallible...

Like I said - I'd rather not pretend that I'm infallible. If I make a mistake, players can call me on it. If the result is an argument that's disrupting play, I'll move things along. But I'm not going to claim that I'm right when I do so - merely that the game will be more fun if we pick something and go with it. My players are with me on that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Right... but if it's 5% and there's a penalty for failure, why would I want to rule that possibility out through fiat? Why is the skill system failing to support normal ranges of numbers?

If you want the player's action to have a 5% chance of failure, set the DC accordingly. Maybe it'll be 9 or 7 instead of 10. It's entirely in your purview to do so.

Except the peasant's arrow only hits the dragon through a special "20s always succeed" rule that doesn't apply outside attack rolls.

Depends on the dragon, they're not all AC 23+

Also - if anything, this is one place where you don't actually want this to happen, because it means that you only actually need a modest army to defeat the biggest baddest dragon in a single round.

I recall seeing a designer quoted as saying that was exactly what they had in mind. You could toe-to-toe or cast a dragon to death if you were high enough level, but if you could gather enough determined archers together, you could also defeat it that way.

It's the exact same place where the advice for impossible and automatic successes come from.

Narrating success or failure or call for a check is right there in the most basic take on the resolution system in the DMG.

If we're going to say "it's optional"

Everything's optional. The passage you quoted was advice.

Right... so our bounded accuracy is thrown out the window, replaced with DM fiat.

No, DM fiat is removed, at the DM's discretion, and replaced by BA - when he calls for a check.

Semantics!

Seriously, though, bounded accuracy is about checks, and checks happen when the DM calls for them. Not calling for them when you don't want at least a 5% chance of failure (or success) isn't overriding them, it's just DMing.

It's also why the example I brought up is a problem. Because the DM now has to rule different levels of possible/impossible depending on the character attempting the task.

He can if he wishes.

At that point the skill system is failing - it's not giving the DM meaningful guidance, and it's not communicating chances of success or even correct expectations of capability to players.

The system simply doesn't begin to work until the DM begins making rulings. Calling for a check is a ruling, success/failure, is a ruling. No DM, no ruling, no system. The DM is integral to resolution this time around.

You're saying that like the DM wasn't allowed to rule something impossible in a prior edition that he would rule impossible in the current edition

If you're OK ruling something impossible in the face of a table giving a fixed DC for the action in question, and a player who's bonus alone overwhelms that DC, why would you have an issue with it in a system that tells you to rule success, failure, or call for a check?

You're also saying it like you can't still do this in 5e...

You can get a +11 to a check, a +17 with Expertise. That doesn't overwhelm the d20. The 20th level expert can fail a check that an ordinary warm body might succeed at. (specifically, while rolling a 1, while the warm body rolls a 19, but it's still not quite overwhelmed).

So the system still has the same problems - the DM always needed to decide that things at the extreme end of the spectrum were impossible

In 5e, he's required to make that determination every time.

Like I said - I'd rather not pretend that I'm infallible.

It makes for better 5e games if you can convincingly feign infallibility from behind the screen.

 

[Lanefan]

Clerics, or wizards, or warlocks, or paladins, or druids? Bards, too, maybe.

Do you think they all get the same answers, though?

Depends who/what/how they're asking, but taking an average of all the answers ought to get close to the actual truth.

Seriously, if your saying that fantasy is scientifically resolvable, your setting yourself up for a tremendous amount of work for your next campaign.

But once that work is done...which in my case it is, at least in a very broad-brush fashion...you're good to go. And best of all, you only have to do this work once and it'll last you through every campaign you ever run.

If you don't think so, then you aren't actually presenting scientifically discoverable truths but rather a clever system that provides answers that aren't scientific but rather just your say so obscured to look scientific to your players.

I'm not concerned whether it looks scientific to the players, I'm concerned whether it looks scientific to me. If yes, all is good.

Lanefan

 

[Ovinomancer]

Depends who/what/how they're asking, but taking an average of all the answers ought to get close to the actual truth.

But once that work is done...which in my case it is, at least in a very broad-brush fashion...you're good to go. And best of all, you only have to do this work once and it'll last you through every campaign you ever run.

I'm not concerned whether it looks scientific to the players, I'm concerned whether it looks scientific to me. If yes, all is good.

Lanefan

If you provided the answers, and I assume you did as it's hard to run experiments on figments of imagination, it's not scientific, pretty much by definition. Unless you're studying yourself, I guess.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Not sure why you could not apply the scientific method to any of those things. Science would be able to prove that the sun revolves around the world, exactly how many eyes of newt a healing potion needs and that maggots dont actually spontaneous appear.

Or in a world where maggots do appear spontaneously, the scientific method will show that.

There's a basic assumption here that's unwarranted -- what if the number of eyes of newt really depends on how happy some reality bending god is with your prayers?

Then the scientific method will show that after the other variables are eliminated, there is still an additional factor that is affecting the number of newt eyes required.

Um, no, because relative happiness of reality altering beings isn't directly observable or measurable. Bob prays everyday and had to use three to four eyes per potion. Fred also prays every day but has to use 5-6 eyes for the same potion. The difference is that the good one had this problem with a guy named Fred, so it tarred it out on those unfortunately named Fred.

Then given enough data to be able to apply the scientific method, we will see that experimenters called Fred need to use more eyes than those called Bob.
In time, other variables can be calculated and eliminated, and eventually the number of newt eyes needed will actually be able to be used as a measure of the god's happiness.

Seriously, if your saying that fantasy is scientifically resolvable, your setting yourself up for a tremendous amount of work for your next campaign. If you don't think so, then you aren't actually presenting scientifically discoverable truths but rather a clever system that provides answers that aren't scientific but rather just your say so obscured to look scientific to your players.

At least some of that concept is the basis for the Eberron setting.

Note that there is a difference between the scientific method flat out not working, and someone being unable to resolve something using the scientific method due to lack of data.
Actually creating a world in which the scientific method doesn't work is going to be really difficult: - it would require interference by outside beings in all processes, right down to individual thought processes and basic physical interactions.

 

[SkidAce]

Except the peasant's arrow only hits the dragon through a special "20s always succeed" rule that doesn't apply outside attack rolls.

Also - if anything, this is one place where you don't actually want this to happen, because it means that you only actually need a modest army to defeat the biggest baddest dragon in a single round.

What this indicates to me, is that even the biggest baddest dragon around wont fly a pass through a large enough army armed with bows.

Smaller army....sure... (what size is the cut off I dont know)


-----

I might do the math, that way I can see if it still feels okay. (100 peasants would not be okay, 5,000 peasants probably)