Missing Rules

[Reynard]

I'm fine with that too when I'm playing D&D 3e or 4e.

I guess I just don't see how 5e is fundamentally different that any previous edition in this regard. It is a traditional roleplaying game with a traditional player-GM relationship and a traditional set of resolution mechanics. It happens to expect a lot of work on the GM's part and tries to mitigate that by leaving a lot of thing up to the GM's gut and preferences, but the game does not come with a bunch of tools for shared world building, dramatic editing or other "new age" sorts of things we see in modern, less traditional games.

"I try to stab the orc (goal) with my sword (approach)." Are any of those code words?

Roll to hit.

"I try to clear the 10-foot pit (goal) by jumping over it (approach)."

Roll Athletics.

See? No difference.

 

[iserith]

Maybe I've misunderstood. I can be dense.

Don't beat yourself up. It's been a long, ponderous thread with many tangents and conflations of positions.

But if someone says "I try to jump the chasm even though it's further than I can jump" you seem to say that they fail. Period.

Yes. The normal rules for jumping would be applied here by me, based on the player's stated approach to the goal.

If someone says "I know I don't have the strength to jump that, I'd like to make an athletics check to jump further" my response would be exactly the same. I don't care how they state it, the fact that they called for an athletics check doesn't matter to me.

My response would be:"That's an unusually long distance and is not going to be automatic" and give them a rough idea of how hard I think it's going to be. If they still try it, dice are rolled to resolve an uncertain outcome. Based on their athletics check they may succeed, may be holding on by their fingernails or may fall.

My response would be something like "Awesome - how do you propose to jump this unusually long distance?" If the player offers a viable approach to the proposed goal and I find that approach to have an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure, NOW I can apply the rule for "You try to jump an unusually long distance..." via a Strength (Athletics) check and resolve accordingly.

The mechanics follow the player describing what he or she wants to do and the DM making a judgment about whether and which mechanics apply.

 

[AlViking]

Don't beat yourself up. It's been a long, ponderous thread with many tangents and conflations of positions.



Yes. The normal rules for jumping would be applied here by me, based on the player's stated approach to the goal.



My response would be something like "Awesome - how do you propose to jump this unusually long distance?" If the player offers a viable approach to the proposed goal and I find that approach to have an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure, NOW I can apply the rule for "You try to jump an unusually long distance..." via a Strength (Athletics) check and resolve accordingly.

The mechanics follow the player describing what he or she wants to do and the DM making a judgment about whether and which mechanics apply.

The primary difference then is that I don't ask them to justify anything. They accept the risk and make the jump. If they can do anything to give themselves a boost that's fine as well.

While I prefer that players don't talk in specific mechanics such as "I make an athletics check" it wouldn't change the end result. If for some reason I didn't think an athletics check was reasonable I'd tell them.

 

[iserith]

I guess I just don't see how 5e is fundamentally different that any previous edition in this regard. It is a traditional roleplaying game with a traditional player-GM relationship and a traditional set of resolution mechanics. It happens to expect a lot of work on the GM's part and tries to mitigate that by leaving a lot of thing up to the GM's gut and preferences, but the game does not come with a bunch of tools for shared world building, dramatic editing or other "new age" sorts of things we see in modern, less traditional games.

What I see at most tables is that the DM is doing all the work because the players are not performing their role according to what D&D 5e prescribes. Either they are used to the paradigm of a different game system or they've been taught that way by someone who approaches all editions of D&D as if they are the same game. This is true of some popular vodcasts I've seen as well. The players offer basically nothing in the way of description, often asking to make an ability check. The DM feels pressured to accept that and then has to fill in the blanks on what the character is actually doing. Sometimes this even leads to the player objecting to what the DM establishes - "No, I wouldn't have done that." Well, maybe if you performed your role instead of kicking it all to the DM by asking to make ability checks instead of describing what you want to do, maybe this wouldn't happen!

Roll to hit.

Roll Athletics.

See? No difference.

Yeah, that's my point. I bring up making a statement of goal and approach that the DM can adjudicate and suddenly it's "You use code words!" Silly.

 

[Reynard]

What I see at most tables is that the DM is doing all the work because the players are not performing their role according to what D&D 5e prescribes. Either they are used to the paradigm of a different game system or they've been taught that way by someone who approaches all editions of D&D as if they are the same game. This is true of some popular vodcasts I've seen as well. The players offer basically nothing in the way of description, often asking to make an ability check. The DM feels pressured to accept that and then has to fill in the blanks on what the character is actually doing. Sometimes this even leads to the player objecting to what the DM establishes - "No, I wouldn't have done that." Well, maybe if you performed your role instead of kicking it all to the DM by asking to make ability checks instead of describing what you want to do, maybe this wouldn't happen!

But 5e does not prescribe this anywhere in the rule book. It says the DM presents a situation, the player describes their actions and the DM adjudicates the next step, repeat until resolution. "Describe" here does not come with any rules attached to it. It is in a portion of the book written in natural language. It means what the word means in common conversation. "I want to jump across the chasm using Athletics," is in fact describing what the player wants to do. If the DM responds with, "Sorry, you can't. It is 16 feet and you only have a 15 strength. You fall to your death." that DM fundamentally misunderstands his role at the table.

 

[iserith]

The primary difference then is that I don't ask them to justify anything. They accept the risk and make the jump. If they can do anything to give themselves a boost that's fine as well.

While I prefer that players don't talk in specific mechanics such as "I make an athletics check" it wouldn't change the end result. If for some reason I didn't think an athletics check was reasonable I'd tell them.

I actually don't care if players talk in or about mechanics during play. They just can't ask to make ability checks because that is not the prescribed role of the player in D&D 5e. It's not even a very good strategy for success in my view. Oftentimes, players in my pickup groups for one-shots are delighted when they assume I want a roll and I don't ask for one because I don't find the task to have an uncertain outcome and/or a meaningful consequence of failure. In my last one-shot, one of the players said "I can't believe our plan is working - I've never had a plan work before!" How sad. Too many dice rolls, I suspect.

A lot of people think that I use this approach (among others I've cited in other threads) because we're super-serious roleplayers that only want first-person actor stance or whatever. That's not true at all. Nobody who plays or lurks in one of my games would say that. But we do each stick to our prescribed roles and the game flows great as a result.

 

[5ekyu]

Sure, but the reason might simply be "I know I can't clear this comfortably - it's further than the gap I jump across every morning when I'm training! - but if I give it my all I might just make it!"

The idea that, by default, the distances a hero can try and jump either fall into the will automatically make it category and the can't possibly make it category isn't that appealing to me, and on my reading of the 5e rules is not mandated by them.

Is it sufficient or not? That seems like something uncertain - and hence that might aptly be determined by a check.

I'm not playing 5e, but this thread came up on a forum front page and the question of how actions should be resolved in various systems is something I find interesting.

The last two sessions I've GMed have been Prince Valiant. (You can read about them here and here if you like!) The basic approach to resolution is not different from that which you advocate for 5e - player declares what his/her PC does, and GM stipulates check required (if any) and difficulty. (Unlike 4e there are not resources whose deployment is senstiive to the making of checks; and unlike BW there is no system of advancement contingent on making checks with a particular ability; so calling for checks isn't really a player-side thing.)

I'm running it much as I've been running Classic Traveller (another system I've been running a bit over the past year or so): say "yes" when nothing much is at stake and the fiction doesn't make success terribly improbable; otherwise set an "objective" difficulty (which contrasts with 4e or Cortex+ Heroic - the latter another system I've been running quite a bit recently) and see how the check plays out, with BW-style "fail forward" narration of failures.

I find this very reminiscent of classic D&D or OSR-style play. I feel that it tends to push play in the direction I mentioned upthread - very operationally focused, with a principal consideration being external factors that will allow the character to succeed.

I prefer using "say 'yes'" as a device to manage dramatic pacing rather than as a response to tactical planning, and to use "fail forward" to manage the outcomes of failure. It's also the case that it's a long time since I've run a system with a "notoriously fickle" d20 (4e has the illusion of being such a system, but there are so many player-side resources for generating post hoc boosts, retries, etc that it really isn't) - BW and Prince Valiant are dice pools, Classic Traveller is mostly 2d6, and Cortex+ Heroic is very complicated dice pools with a lot of player-side manipulation as well.

Because of the way 5e strongly demarcates "mundane" checks and "magical" spells and class abilities, I suspect it may be hard to play in the style I prefer, which is one reason why I don't play it. But on this particular issue of a character jumping further than s/he easily can, I think drifting it in that direction in the way that I've described (following [MENTION=467]Reynard[/MENTION]'s description) is not that hard at all. (And in lieu of any sophisticated "fail forward" in the event of failure, if the PC is 14th level as Reynard suggested then the hp mechanics will probably carry that load.)

While i cannot speak to your particular definition of say yes and fail forward, i can say that i am of similar bent in my rpg style and find plenty of support for it in 5e.

One can of course decide to drive and tunnel in on a particular spot of the introduction or not but when looking at ability checks for instance i find the section mysteriously titled "abikity checks" in the chapter so very enigmaticly labelled "Using Ability Scores" where it describes the result of not getting the DC or higher this way:

"Otherwise, its a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress towards the object or makes progress with a setback determined by the GM."

I find that allows quite a bit of latitude for resolving failed skill checks that fits right in with my own views of "Say yes, unless i have a compelling reason to say no" and "fail forward."

There are plenty of options for the GM in the DMG that can be used to establish (based on character ability score and proficiencies) minimum auto-success standards quite similar in fact to the way jump works - if a GM sees that as desirable. Options there can even expand the "setback" idea beyond skill check with "success at cost" if desired.

So depending on what you choose to use, or exclude, from your PHB or even DMG options, you can have the gameplay you want.


It works for us.

 

[AlViking]

I actually don't care if players talk in or about mechanics during play. They just can't ask to make ability checks because that is not the prescribed role of the player in D&D 5e. It's not even a very good strategy for success in my view. Oftentimes, players in my pickup groups for one-shots are delighted when they assume I want a roll and I don't ask for one because I don't find the task to have an uncertain outcome and/or a meaningful consequence of failure. In my last one-shot, one of the players said "I can't believe our plan is working - I've never had a plan work before!" How sad. Too many dice rolls, I suspect.

A lot of people think that I use this approach (among others I've cited in other threads) because we're super-serious roleplayers that only want first-person actor stance or whatever. That's not true at all. Nobody who plays or lurks in one of my games would say that. But we do each stick to our prescribed roles and the game flows great as a result.

I think those are two separate issues. If someone says "I want to make an ___ check to ___" if I don't think its appropriate I'll let them know. Then I'll ask them what they're trying to accomplish and ask for an appropriate roll if one is even necessary.

As far as planning and trying to resolve issues without rolling the dice, I allow it all the time. I also think it's a separate issue.

 

[iserith]

But 5e does not prescribe this anywhere in the rule book. It says the DM presents a situation, the player describes their actions and the DM adjudicates the next step, repeat until resolution. "Describe" here does not come with any rules attached to it. It is in a portion of the book written in natural language. It means what the word means in common conversation. "I want to jump across the chasm using Athletics," is in fact describing what the player wants to do. If the DM responds with, "Sorry, you can't. It is 16 feet and you only have a 15 strength. You fall to your death." that DM fundamentally misunderstands his role at the table.

That DM does NOT misunderstand his or her role at the table in your example. The DM is narrating the result of the adventurer's action which is the purview of the DM and Step 3 of the basic conversation of the game. However much you may disagree with the ruling, it is appropriate to the role.

As for players asking to make ability checks, please let me know if you find any example of that in the Basic Rules or DMG. To my knowledge, the only thing that is called out is asking to apply a proficiency to an ability check the DM already called for. Players asking to make ability checks is a common approach to playing in my experience, but I find no support for it in the D&D 5e rules. Contrast that with D&D 4e, for example, which explicitly says: "A player often initiates a skill check by asking the DM if he or she can make one. Almost always, the DM says yes." This approach seems very much to me like a holdover from other editions of the game that people are bringing with them into D&D 5e. And to be clear, I still play D&D 4e. In that game, go nuts with asking to make skill checks! But not in my D&D 5e game.

 

[iserith]

I think those are two separate issues. If someone says "I want to make an ___ check to ___" if I don't think its appropriate I'll let them know. Then I'll ask them what they're trying to accomplish and ask for an appropriate roll if one is even necessary.

As far as planning and trying to resolve issues without rolling the dice, I allow it all the time. I also think it's a separate issue.

The issue with "I want to make an X check to Y" is that X doesn't describe an approach. At best it implies one then kicks it to the DM to imagine what the character is actually doing. The DM cannot establish what the character is doing as that is not the DM's role - the player is the only one who can say how the character acts or what it says or thinks. The DM can only describe the environment and (after determining whether mechanics come into play) narrate the results of the adventurers' actions.