D&D General Let's Talk About How to "Fix" D&D

[DND_Reborn]

I don't think this is particularly difficult to do in 5E. I grant automatic skill successes to characters, or only allow rolls to characters, based on background, class, skill and Expertise all the time. Actually rolling a skill in my game doesn't happen that often.

I restrict some rolls if I feel the PC in question would simply lack the information, ability, or whatever, to have any chance of success. It isn't often, because I don't like to say "no" to my players, but there are times when it happens and they understand and generally agree.

The difference between a -1 and +9 is so vast (a whole 45 percentage points) that it really is a stroke of luck that the wizard fails and the barbarian succeeds. I feel comfortable with that range.

On non-contested rolls, it does work.

But not in contested situations. The -1 will win out over the +9 11.25% of the time--nearly 1 in 8, which is too much IMO. It would be like someone with no real experience playing a ranked player in chess and winning 1 out of 8 matches--not likely! That is where the system falls apart for me.

 

[Reynard]

Sure. Sounds good. But you have to make a decision. You can’t absolve responsibility for XP awards. At some point you have to make a decision as to what elements to reward and which not to. For instance by selecting the crystal as the reward trigger you are making an arbitrary decision. You have effectively put milestone levelling in. The milestone is the crystal.

No it isn't. it's a metaphor in the thought experiment. A milestone would be "When you collect THESE THREE crystals, you level and are allowed to go after THESE OTHER THREE crystals, and so on." That's explicitly what I don't want.

I want the players to sit down and say, "You know, we really need some extra cash in order to pay off that debt to the Healer's Guild before they repossess our internal organs. Maybe we should hit level 4. I know it's dangerous, but there should be some good loot down there."

Obviously unless I was going with a completely random dungeon design, I would be responsible for those level 4 encounters, rooms, traps, puzzles, whatever, but the choice is explicitly theirs. No "You must be this tall to ride this dungeon level," just "delve at your own risk."

 

[Asisreo]

To each, their own. Notes are fine, but I prefer background, class, and skill selection to emphasize the likelihood of success on instead of the d20 having more influence.

They do until you say they don't as a DM. It takes 0 skill/randomness/luck to remember 2+2=4 as someone with a PHD in Mathematics.

When you ask for a skill check, you, as the DM, are declaring that the result isn't something their character can easily do.

I don't ask for rolls when a player that has walked all their life wants to step 30ft. Why should I ask for a researcher thats been studying Trolls all their lives to roll for regeneration?

 

[Asisreo]

I restrict some rolls if I feel the PC in question would simply lack the information, ability, or whatever, to have any chance of success. It isn't often, because I don't like to say "no" to my players, but there are times when it happens and they understand and generally agree.


On non-contested rolls, it does work.

But not in contested situations. The -1 will win out over the +9 11.25% of the time--nearly 1 in 8, which is too much IMO. It would be like someone with no real experience playing a ranked player in chess and winning 1 out of 8 matches--not likely! That is where the system falls apart for me.

Since when is chess a game of luck?

 

[DND_Reborn]

They do until you say they don't as a DM.

Or, they don't unless they say they do by their selection of background, class, and skills...

It takes 0 skill/randomness/luck to remember 2+2=4 as someone with a PHD in Mathematics.

Yeah, ridiculous, that isn't what we're discussing. If you think it is, you failed your check.

When you ask for a skill check, you, as the DM, are declaring that the result isn't something their character can easily do.

This depends entirely on the DC of the check...

Why should I ask for a researcher thats been studying Trolls all their lives to roll for regeneration?

Yeah, and so your players can tell you "My PC has studied everything all their life, so I can roll for anything." Not possible, no one can know something about everything.

Since when is chess a game of luck?

Um... it isn't, which was my point. But a contest is two players pitting their abilities against each other. The outcome, whether a STR (Athletics) check for arm wrestling or an Intelligence (Chess game) check for a game of chess.

The d20 is too swingy in such cases, which is why many groups change skill checks to 2d10 or 3d6 even.

 

[TheSword]

No it isn't. it's a metaphor in the thought experiment. A milestone would be "When you collect THESE THREE crystals, you level and are allowed to go after THESE OTHER THREE crystals, and so on." That's explicitly what I don't want.

I want the players to sit down and say, "You know, we really need some extra cash in order to pay off that debt to the Healer's Guild before they repossess our internal organs. Maybe we should hit level 4. I know it's dangerous, but there should be some good loot down there."

Obviously unless I was going with a completely random dungeon design, I would be responsible for those level 4 encounters, rooms, traps, puzzles, whatever, but the choice is explicitly theirs. No "You must be this tall to ride this dungeon level," just "delve at your own risk."

Just to correct you, milestone levelling doesn’t necessarily have that level of linear nature to it.

An example of milestone levelling can be you gain a level each time you find one of these three artifacts and each time you complete one of these 7 areas. These can be done in any order - though it makes sense to do some first.

You can also have milestone levelling that you co up a level after having completed 3 optional locations. With the option of doing this x number of times. The only difference between that and your crystals is that you are awarding the XP in parts.

What you are describing is simple sandbox gaming. Most sandboxes are set up in the way you describe with clues and hooks to point the way rather than your clock face doors. The same could apply to sandbox gaming.

In my experience all players want the same thing... As difficult as they can while still being successful. Pushed but not killed. With occasional easy or average encounters to show off their skills - because nobody wants Continuous, unrelenting super difficult fights.

I mean ask them. See what they say. “Challenging but not too difficult challenging” is the answer they’ll give. (Or
Possibly a mix they’ll say)

 

[Asisreo]

Yeah, ridiculous, that isn't what we're discussing. If you think it is, you failed your check.

Skill checks are only for when randomness/luck/variability is a factor. If its not a factor, you do not make a skill check.

This depends entirely on the DC of the check...

Not really, because not everything that exerts a struggle requires a skill check.

Yeah, and so your players can tell you "My PC has studied everything all their life, so I can roll for anything." Not possible, no one can know something about everything.

Nope, because they obviously have not/did not study everything. They may have studied a wide berth of subjects as a sage in a vast library, but its not likely they've retained every single facet of that knowledge and fully comprehended it at a 17 intelligence.

Plus, you can just say that character concept isn't compatible with the campaign. Obviously if they're trying to get a rise on you, you don't have to sit back and let them.

Um... it isn't, which was my point. But a contest is two players pitting their abilities against each other. The outcome, whether a STR (Athletics) check for arm wrestling or an Intelligence (Chess game) check for a game of chess.

Again, the DM decides if the contest requires luck or not. You only roll when there isn't a clear answer.

If you think that a wizard can beat a barbarian in an arm wrestling, then you'll have to justify why the odds aren't overwhelmingly in the barbarian's favor. Perhaps the Wizard noticed that the Barbarian had bad leverage as well as some other advantageous factors that lead them to victory.

Likewise, a barbarian may beat a wizard in chess if the wizard had gotten distracted and made such a poorly made move that it cost him the game.

Either way, the DM makes the bed that they must lay in.

 

[Dausuul]

The difference between a -1 and +9 is so vast (a whole 45 percentage points) that it really is a stroke of luck that the wizard fails and the barbarian succeeds. I feel comfortable with that range.

That logic works when you're making a lot of checks. But you can't assume it will all average out in a scenario that comes up maybe once every two sessions. "Arcane mystery" is not a particularly common occurrence.

Moreover, the wizard's likelihood to roll highest shrinks dramatically when you consider there are 3-4 other PCs. In a party of 5, even if the wizard has +9 and everyone else has -1, there is close to a 30% chance that someone else beats the wizard's roll.

When these unusual scenarios come up, they should be a chance for the relevant PC to step up and be awesome, not for them to fall on their face and look incompetent because they blew a roll.

 

[Reynard]

Just to correct you, milestone levelling doesn’t necessarily have that level of linear nature to it.

An example of milestone levelling can be you gain a level each time you find one of these three artifacts and each time you complete one of these 7 areas. These can be done in any order - though it makes sense to do some first.

You can also have milestone levelling that you co up a level after having completed 3 optional locations. With the option of doing this x number of times. The only difference between that and your crystals is that you are awarding the XP in parts.

What you are describing is simple sandbox gaming. Most sandboxes are set up in the way you describe with clues and hooks to point the way rather than your clock face doors. The same could apply to sandbox gaming.

In my experience all players want the same thing... As difficult as they can while still being successful. Pushed but not killed. With occasional easy or average encounters to show off their skills - because nobody wants Continuous, unrelenting super difficult fights.

I mean ask them. See what they say. “Challenging but not too difficult challenging” is the answer they’ll give. (Or
Possibly a mix they’ll say)

I am running Rime of the Frostmaiden right now and the "sandbox with milestones" format does not work at all, in my opinion. It completely undermines the point of a sandbox and is presented, I think, to try and create a CRPG like structure for potential replayability. Or, at least, that's the only reason I can imagine someone doing it that way. In any case, there is no reason NOT to just use XP since that would reward the PCs for what they actually choose to do.

 

[AmerginLiath]

If the Barbarian has a story reason for familiarity with said crystals, but not the right skills, wouldn’t the prudent “Yes But” DM action be to allow him to use a Help Action to give the Wizard Advantage on his roll, perhaps asking/reminiscing about the crystals the wise men of his tribe used in a manner that helps spur on his ally’s remembering what he was taught (even though it distracts him from any other actions in the meanwhile, such as noticing the goblins watching them...)?