What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?

[Tony Vargas]

It should be noted that if the task is trivially easy or impossible, there is no ability check even if there is a meaningful consequence for failure. So in those cases there's no reference to ability scores either

Weeelll… what's trivially easy for an 18 stat/Expertise character might be impossible for an 8/non-proficient, and call for a check from anyone in between. (Or not, it's all the DMs judgement, there). That is, the DM can choose to consider the character when judging the declared action. (Some of the disagreement here might over whether he should or shouldn't?)

That whole NPC expert bonus thread is steeped in a fundamental misunderstanding of how tasks are resolved in D&D 5e. As are a lot of the issues in this thread and others in my view. People commonly view and treat a given game as some other game they played in the past and that sometimes leads to undesirable outcomes.

It's not like it isn't spelled out in a simple step-by-step-by-step (there are only three steps, how hard is that?) basis, on page 3 of the basic PDF, right?

But, OTOH, in a lot of cases, D&D /is/ that 'other game' they played in the past. A lot. So viewing and treating D&D like D&D seems perfectly reasonable, and, if that's (5e)D&D and (B/X/1e/2eA)D&D, you don't even go far wrong - at least so long as you stay on the DM side of the screen.

The Blacksmith Paradox, OTOH, is a problem you see when that other D&D is 3.x/PF. ;P

If a -1 modifier counts as “really bad” at something, what’s “average”?

Hey, it's as bad as you're allowed to be (y'can't all be Denis Rodman), and, under BA, a small numeric difference has to cover a lot, conceptually.

Proficiency, at 1st level, is +2, that's probably 'bout "average" - a competent, mediocre practitioner.


Really, the 5e way is to make up for that lack of numeric differentiation by calling for checks less often, the more invested a character is in the ability*. The blacksmith (per another thread), who works metal all day may only have a +6 roll, while an adventurer might have a +4, but the former can take a lot of blacksmithing 'actions' with no check, while the adventurer, perhaps trying to impersonate a blacksmith, might have to make a blacksmithing (excuse me, tool-use) check or two now and then to keep from screwing up in any too obvious a way.








* ironically, that'll make a certain player type feel like said investment was 'wasted.' So it's one of those cases where you might want to make it clear he's getting to succeed automatically /because/ he's got such a high check.

 

[iserith]

It's not like it isn't spelled out in a simple step-by-step-by-step (there are only three steps, how hard is that?) basis, on page 3 of the basic PDF, right?

Nobody seems to read that section. And if they do, many just ignore it and say it's "advice" and not a statement on how to play THIS game.

But, OTOH, in a lot of cases, D&D /is/ a game they played in the past. A lot. So viewing and treating D&D like D&D seems perfectly reasonable, and, if that's (5e)D&D and (B/X/1e/2eA)D&D, you don't even go far wrong - at least so long as you stay on the DM side of the screen.

It's a mistake in my view, one I've made myself when transitioning from D&D 3.Xe to D&D 4e and won't make again.

The Blacksmith Paradox, OTOH, is a problem you see when that other D&D is 3.x/PF. ;P

Quelle surprise.

 

[Satyrn]

Agreed!

Honestly meta-gaming isn't really something I particularly care about. I look at it like this: I run D&D for people who've been playing for 30+ years, I also run D&D for people who have never played before. I'm not going to look a 30 year veteran of D&D in the eye with a straight face and tell them that their 1st level character wouldn't use fire against the troll they're fighting. I mean how many times has this person fought trolls before?

If you want to avoid meta-gaming then bring some new . If your players are metagaming then push the boundaries and do something new. Have your orcs burst tentacles from their chests... they won't see that coming no matter how many monster manuals they read.

You can't admonish you players for studying the game... hell... you want people who are that committed at your table. You just got to 'bring it'. Show them something new that they can't prepare for. Don't worry about the obvious... how many times do you want to 'pretend to be surprised when the troll gets up'?

Now that's what I'm talkin' 'bout! I just gotta figure out if those tentacles belong to the orc, or a creature bursting out of the orc's chest.

*Yoink*

 

[Tony Vargas]

Nobody seems to read that section. And if they do, many just ignore it and say it's "advice" and not a statement on how to play THIS game.

It's hard to miss. And repeated. And elaborated upon.

::sigh:: you can lead a horse to water, but it's a lot of work to drown it...

It's a mistake in my view, one I've made myself when transitioning from D&D 3.Xe to D&D 4e and won't make again.

Sure, running 5e like it's 3.x or 4e would be a problem - because they're player-centric editions, and 5e is DM-Empowering. But running 5e like it's AD&D or another TSR edition (or, really, many another RPG of that era), it's not so bad, because those past eds had similar expectations for the DM. If you ran them, you're used to making judgements about the player's actions throughout the game. 5e just makes the judgement simpler, because you can always just call for a check if you're uncertain.

Quelle surprise.

… it was a shocker, I know, I should've said "brace yourselves … "

 

[iserith]

Sure, running 5e like it's 3.x or 4e would be a problem - because they're player-centric editions, and 5e is DM-Empowering. But running 5e like it's AD&D or another TSR edition (or, really, many another RPG of that era), it's not so bad, because those past eds had similar expectations for the DM. If you ran them, you're used to making judgements about the player's actions throughout the game. 5e just makes the judgement simpler, because you can always just call for a check if you're uncertain.

I'd have to go back and read those ancient tomes before I could agree with that assessment. I've not even looked at them since the 90s.

Either way, I think the safest bet is to run the game as its rules say to do, then assess that game experience before making changes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'd have to go back and read those ancient tomes before I could agree with that assessment. I've not even looked at them since the 90s.

Either way, I think the safest bet is to run the game as its rules say to do, then assess that game experience before making changes.

Oh, you probably don't want to actually dig them up and read them. SAN is so hard to come by (he said, mixing classic RPG systems). But, the way 5e spells out you should run it - DM describes the sitch, players declare actions, DM judges how to resolve those actions & describes what happens, leading players to declare new actions...
That's pretty close to the 1e expectations (no 'caller,' but I hardly ever saw anyone do that, anyway) - and it was how I always ran the classic game, personally. It's the flow of play of a DM-centric system.

It's a mistake in my view, one I've made myself when transitioning from D&D 3.Xe to D&D 4e and won't make again.

Sorry to repeat that quote, but something else occurred to me: the mistake I made when I first ran 5e was that I kept running it like the Next playtest. Like it was still a shake-down cruise and we /wanted/ to find the problems.
As soon as I got into the swing of running it like it was 1e, it went a LOT better.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'd have to go back and read those ancient tomes before I could agree with that assessment. I've not even looked at them since the 90s.

Either way, I think the safest bet is to run the game as its rules say to do, then assess that game experience before making changes.

Or maybe find a game more suited to your preferences, even.

 

[Hussar]

/snip


I guess the question (assertion) isn't whether a player should be unable to declare certain actions because his character is poorly suited to doing them, but whether the action should be judged based solely on the declaration, or take the character ability into account (in deciding whether he rolls and/or by simply calling for a roll). In another thread we have questions about why an NPC who is only a little better at some day-to-day skill than a PC might still be an 'expert', and doesn't he need a bigger bonus? The answer, that he just doesn't need to make checks /because he's an expert/ doing something routine that he's good at, isn't exactly uncontroversial, but it is related to this objection, too.

This, all about this.

The whole goal:method approach is all about the declaration. Whether or not you need to make a roll is based on the declaration. Whether you have advantage/disadvantage on the roll is based on the declaration. It makes the declaration very, very important.

The actual skill of the character only comes up after the declaration, and, even then, only if the declaration triggers a skill roll called for by the DM.

Who judges that declaration? The DM, of course. Which places the DM front and center of all player facing actions. Which means that since the character's abilities don't come up until after that judgment, the character's abilities are less important than the player's ability to make declarations. They have to be.

So, the player uses his Noble background to get past the gate guards. To me, that's not goal:method. That's pretty much purely a character challenge. The player looked at his character sheet which tells him that, as a Noble, he can do this. It's no different than the player casting a spell or making an attack. It's based on the character's abilities, not on the player's abilities.

IOW, there was no "method" being declared here. Any player decisions were made at chargen and not during the challenge.

 

[Hussar]

I'd have to go back and read those ancient tomes before I could agree with that assessment. I've not even looked at them since the 90s.

Either way, I think the safest bet is to run the game as its rules say to do, then assess that game experience before making changes.

Or... and this is just spitballing here... have enough experience running games to know what you like and play the way you like. And, again, shocking I know, realize that the game runs perfectly fine this way and that folks can be perfectly happy playing 5e with a tad less DM entitl... err ... empowerment and with players who are on board, have a rocking good time.

I know, it's almost like the game is robust enough to encompass more than one play style. Totally shocking.

 

[iserith]

Or... and this is just spitballing here... have enough experience running games to know what you like and play the way you like. And, again, shocking I know, realize that the game runs perfectly fine this way and that folks can be perfectly happy playing 5e with a tad less DM entitl... err ... empowerment and with players who are on board, have a rocking good time.

I know, it's almost like the game is robust enough to encompass more than one play style. Totally shocking.

I agree with all that.